Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-06T07:45:57.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of agricultural biotechnology on supply and land-use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2014

Geoffrey Barrows ,
Steven Sexton  and
David Zilberman
Geoffrey Barrows
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720USA. E-mail: geoffrey.barrows@gmail.com
Steven Sexton
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, USA. E-mail: steven.sexton@ncsu.edu
David Zilberman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, USA. E-mail: zilber11@berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use aggregate data to estimate supply, price, land-use, and greenhouse gas impacts of genetically engineered (GE) seed adoption due both to increased yield per hectare (intensive margin) and increased planted area (extensive margin). An adoption model with profitability and risk considerations distinguishes between the two margins, where the intensive margin results from direct ‘gene’ impacts and higher complimentary input use, and the extensive margin reflects the growing range of lands that become profitable with the GE technology. We identify yield increases from cross-country time series variation in GE adoption share within the main GE crops – cotton, corn and soybeans. We find that GE increased yields 34 per cent for cotton, 12 per cent for corn and 3 per cent for soybeans. We then estimate the quantity of extensive margin lands from year-to-year changes in traditional and GE planted area. If all production on the extensive margin is attributed to GE technology, the supply effect of GE increases from 5 per cent to 12 per cent for corn, 15 per cent to 20 per cent for cotton, and 2 per cent to 40 per cent for soybeans, generating significant downward pressure on prices. Finally, we compute ‘saved’ lands and greenhouse gases as the difference between observed hectarage per crop and counterfactual hectarage needed to generate the same output without the yield boost from GE. We find that altogether, GE saved 13 million hectares of land from conversion to agriculture in 2010, and averted emissions are equivalent to roughly one-eighth of the annual emissions from automobiles in the US.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 676 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, J.M., Norton, G.W., Pardey, P.G., et al. (1995), Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Avery, A. and Avery, D. (2008), ‘Beef production and greenhouse gas emissions’, Environmental Health Perspectives 116(9): A374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benbrook, C. (1999), ‘Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998’, AgBiotech Infonet Technical Paper 1.Google Scholar
Bennett, A.B., Chi-Ham, C., Barrows, G., Sexton, S., and Zilberman, D., (2013), ‘Agricultural biotechnology: economics, environment, ethics, and the future’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38(1): 249–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J.E. (2010), ‘Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops’, Nature Biotechnology 28(4): 319–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crost, B., Shankar, B., Bennett, R., and Morse, S., (2007), ‘Bias from farmer self-selection in genetically modified crop productivity estimates: evidence from Indian data’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(1): 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, P.A. (1969), A Contribution to the Theory of Diffusion, Standford, CA: Research Center in Economic Growth, Stanford University.Google Scholar
De Gorter, H. and Zilberman, D. (1990), ‘On the political economy of public good inputs in agriculture’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1): 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPA (2012), ‘Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990–2010’, EPA Report No. 430-R-12-001, Washinhgton, DC: US Environemental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J.B., Traxler, G., and Nelson, R.G. (2000), ‘Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2): 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Hawthorne, P., (2008), ‘Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt’, Science 319(5867): 1235–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feder, G., Just, R.E., and Zilberman, D., (1985), ‘Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2): 255–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felipe, J. and Fisher, F.M., (2003), ‘Aggregation in production functions: what applied economists should know’, Metroeconomica 54(2–3): 208–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, R., El Benni, N., Kaphengst, T., Evans, C., Herbert, S., Lehmann, B., Morse, S., and Stupak, N., (2011), ‘A meta analysis on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops’, Sustainability 3(5): 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitt, G.P. (2003), ‘Implementation and impact of transgenic Bt cottons in Australia’, in Proceedings of the World Cotton Research Conference, Vol. 3, Washington, DC: ICAC, pp. 371–382.Google Scholar
Hausman, C. (2012), ‘Biofuels and land use change: sugarcane and soybean acreage response in Brazil’, Environmental and Resource Economics 51(2): 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochman, G., Rajagopal, D., Timilsina, G.R., and Zilberman, D., (2011), ‘The role of inventory adjustments in quantifying factors causing food price inflation’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. No. 5744, Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, W.E. and Evenson, R.E., (1992), ‘Contributions of public and private science and technology to US agricultural productivity’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(3): 751–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, G. and Wooldridge, J.M., (2007), What's New in Econometrics? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Just, R.E., Alston, J.M., and Zilberman, D., (2006), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, Natural Resource Management and Policy, Vol. 30, (Electronic Resource), New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R.E. and Pope, R.D. (1978), ‘Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications’, Journal of Econometrics 7(1): 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. (1988), ‘The effects of agricultural development policies on income distribution and technological change in agriculture’, Journal of Development Economics 28(2): 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R.E., Zilberman, D., Hochman, E., and Bar-Shira, Z., (1990), ‘Input allocation in multicrop systems’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1): 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. and Zilberman, D., (1986), ‘The econometrics of damage control: why specification matters’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(2): 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, E.M. (2013), ‘Time to change what to sow: risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China’, Review of Economics and Statistics 95(4): 1386–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobell, D.B., Schlenker, W., and Costa-Roberts, J., (2011), ‘Climate trends and global crop production since 1980’, Science 333(6042): 616–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qaim, M. (2009), ‘The economics of genetically modified crops’, Annual Review of Resource Economics 1: 665–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qaim, M. and Zilberman, D. (2003), ‘Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries’, Science 299(5608): 900–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajagopal, D., Sexton, S.E., Roland-Holst, D., and Zilberman, D. (2007), ‘Challenge of biofuel: filling the tank without emptying the stomach?’, Environmental Research Letters 2(4): 044004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M.J. and Schlenker, W. (2010), ‘Is agricultural production becoming more or less sensitive to extreme heat? Evidence from US corn and soybean yields’, Technical Report, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T.C. (1992), ‘Some economics of global warming’, American Economic Review 82(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J. J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., and Yu, T. (2008), ‘Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change’, Science 319(5867): 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sexton, S.E. (2011), ‘Automatic bill payment, price salience, and consumption: evidence from residential electricity consumption’, Draft.Google Scholar
Sexton, S. and Zilberman, D., (2011), ‘How agricultural biotechnology boosts food supply and accommodates biofuels,’ Technical Report, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, G. and Godoy-Avila, S. (2004), ‘Transgenic cotton in Mexico’, AgBioForum 7(1&2): 57–62.Google Scholar
Trigo, E. and Cap, E. (2006), Ten Years of Genetically Modified Crops in Argentine Agriculture, Buenos Aires: Argentine Council for Information and Development of Biotechnology (ArgenBio).Google Scholar
Yorobe, J. and Quicoy, C.B. (2006), ‘Economic impact of Bt corn in the Philippines’, Philippine Agricultural Scientist 89(3): 258.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Barrows Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Barrows Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 618.9 KB