IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt3rg0c0fz.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology on Supply and Land-Use

Author

Listed:
  • Barrows, Geoffrey
  • Sexton, Steven
  • Zilberman, David

Abstract

Increased demand for agricultural produce for food, fiber, feed, and energy generates a tradeoff between high prices and environmentally costly land conversion. Genetically engineered (GE) seeds can potentially increase supply without recruiting new lands to production. We develop a simple adoption model to show how first-generation GE increases yield per hectare. 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% for cotton, 32% for corn, but only 2% for soybeans. The model also predicts that GE extends the range of lands that can be farmed profitably. If the output on these lands are attributed to GE technology, then overall supply effects are larger than previously understood. Considering this extensive margin effect, the supply effect of GE increases from 10% to 16% for corn, 15% to 20% for cotton, and 2% to 39% for soybeans, generating significant downward pressure on prices. Finally, we compute \saved" lands and greenhouse gasses 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 all together, GE saved 21million Ha of land from conversion to agriculture in 2010, or 0.41 Gt ofCO2emissions (using a constantCO2/land conversion factor). These averted emissions are equivalent to roughly 1/3 the annual emissions from driving in the US.

Suggested Citation

  • Barrows, Geoffrey & Sexton, Steven & Zilberman, David, 2013. "The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology on Supply and Land-Use," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt3rg0c0fz, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt3rg0c0fz
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3rg0c0fz.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Incentives, precision technology and environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-43, October.
    2. Elaine Meichen Liu, 2008. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," Working Papers 1064, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 360-369.
    4. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Benjamin Crost & Bhavani Shankar & Richard Bennett & Stephen Morse, 2007. "Bias from Farmer Self-Selection in Genetically Modified Crop Productivity Estimates: Evidence from Indian Data," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 24-36, February.
    6. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    7. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    8. Wallace E. Huffman & Robert E. Evenson, 1992. "Contributions of Public and Private Science and Technology to U.S. Agricultural Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(3), pages 751-756.
    9. Steven Sexton & David Zilberman, 2011. "How Agricultural Biotechnology Boosts Food Supply and Accomodates Biofuels," NBER Working Papers 16699, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Hochman, Gal & Rajagopal, Deepak & Timilsina, Govinda & Zilberman, David, 2011. "The role of inventory adjustments in quantifying factors causing food price inflation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5744, The World Bank.
    11. Michael J. Roberts & Wolfram Schlenker, 2011. "Is Agricultural Production Becoming More or Less Sensitive to Extreme Heat? Evidence from U.S. Corn and Soybean Yields," NBER Chapters, in: The Design and Implementation of US Climate Policy, pages 271-282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Harry de Gorter & David Zilberman, 1990. "On the Political Economy of Public Good Inputs in Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(1), pages 131-137.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William Brock & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2023. "Natural world preservation and infectious diseases: Land-use, climate change and innovation," DEOS Working Papers 2319, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. William Brock & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2024. "Land-use, climate change and the emergence of infectious diseases: A synthesis," DEOS Working Papers 2409, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Jesse Tack & Nathan P. Hendricks, 2018. "Heterogeneous Yield Impacts from Adoption of Genetically Engineered Corn and the Importance of Controlling for Weather," NBER Chapters, in: Agricultural Productivity and Producer Behavior, pages 11-39, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Mahaffey, Harry & Taheripour, Farzad & Tyner, Wallace E., 2016. "Evaluating the Economic and Environmental Impacts of a Global GMO Ban," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235591, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    6. Oliveira, Andréa Leda Ramos de & Silveira, José Maria Ferreira Jardim da, 2013. "Restructuring of the Corn Supply Chain in Brazil: Facing the Challenges in Logistics or Regulation of Biotechnology," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    8. David Zilberman & Tim G. Holland & Itai Trilnick, 2018. "Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    9. Ortiz-Bobea, Ariel & Tack, Jesse B., 2018. "Another genetic yield revolution is needed to offset climate change effects on U.S. maize," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274380, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Taheripour, Farzad & Mahaffey, Harry & Tyner, Wallace E., 2015. "Evaluation of Economic, Land Use, and Land Use Emission Impacts of Substituting Non-GMO Crops for GMO in the US," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204907, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. William Brock & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2022. "Climate Change, Natural World Preservation and the Emergence and Containment of Infectious Diseases," DEOS Working Papers 2232, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    12. Fan, Linlin & Stevens, Andrew W. & Thomas, Betty, 2022. "Consumer purchasing response to mandatory genetically engineered labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    13. repec:hal:journl:hal-04787948 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Wesseler, Justus, 2014. "Biotechnologies and agrifood strategies: opportunities, threats and economic implications," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(3), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Scheitrum, Daniel & Schaefer, K. Aleks & Nes, Kjersti, 2020. "Realized and potential global production effects from genetic engineering," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Hurley, Terrance M., 2010. "A review of agricultural production risk in the developing world," Working Papers 188476, HarvestChoice.
    3. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Sophie Clot & Charlotte Y. Stanton & Marc Willinger, 2017. "Are impatient farmers more risk-averse? Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural Uganda," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 156-169, January.
    5. Mutuc, Maria Erlinda M. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Pan, Suwen & Yorobe, Jose M., 2012. "Impact Assessment of Bt Corn Adoption in the Philippines," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 117-135, February.
    6. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    7. Annemie Maertens & A. V. Chari & David R. Just, 2014. "Why Farmers Sometimes Love Risks: Evidence from India," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 239-274.
    8. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    9. Doan Nainggolan & Faizal Rahmanto Moeis & Mette Termansen, 2023. "Does risk preference influence farm level adaptation strategies? – Survey evidence from Denmark," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(7), pages 1-23, October.
    10. Hira Channa & Jacob Ricker‐Gilbert & Hugo De Groote & Jonathan Bauchet, 2021. "Willingness to pay for a new farm technology given risk preferences: Evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 733-748, September.
    11. Patrick S. Ward & Valerien O. Pede, 2015. "Capturing social network effects in technology adoption: the spatial diffusion of hybrid rice in Bangladesh," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), pages 225-241, April.
    12. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Mishra, Ashok K. & Nehring, Richard F. & Hendricks, Chad & Southern, Malaya & Gregory, Alexandra, 2007. "Off-Farm Income, Technology Adoption, And Farm Economic Performance," Economic Research Report 7234, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 2010. "The Economics of Innovation and Technical Change in Agriculture," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 939-984, Elsevier.
    14. Crentsil, Christian & Gschwandtner, Adelina & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2020. "The effects of risk and ambiguity aversion on technology adoption: Evidence from aquaculture in Ghana," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 46-68.
    15. Naseem, Anwar & Singla, Rohit, 2013. "Ex Ante Economic Impact Analysis of Novel Traits in Canola," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-21, August.
    16. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    17. Mohan, Sarah, 2020. "Risk aversion and certification: Evidence from the Nepali tea fields," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    18. Thiagu Ranganathan & Sarthak Gaurav & Ashish Singh, 2014. "Anomaly in Decision Making Under Risk:Violation of Stochastic Dominance Among Farmers in Gujarat, India," IEG Working Papers 343, Institute of Economic Growth.
    19. Steven Sexton & David Zilberman, 2011. "Land for Food and Fuel Production: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology," NBER Chapters, in: The Intended and Unintended Effects of US Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies, pages 269-288, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Molla Alemayehu & Joost Beuving & Ruerd Ruben, 2019. "Disentangling Poor Smallholder Farmers’ Risk Preferences and Time Horizons: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Ethiopia," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(3), pages 558-580, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences; genetic engineering; ge seeds; co2 emissions;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt3rg0c0fz. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.