Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:38:14.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scale Neutrality of Bovine Somatotropin: Ex Ante Evidence from the Southeast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Henry Kinnucan ,
Upton Hatch ,
Joseph J. Molnar  and
Meenakshi Venkateswaran
Henry Kinnucan
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Upton Hatch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Joseph J. Molnar
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Meenakshi Venkateswaran
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bovine somatotropin (BST), a new technology capable of enhancing a cow's ability to produce milk by 7-23 percent, is expected to be available for commercial use soon. Ex ante survey procedures are used to determine the potential effect of BST on the size distribution of dairy farms in the Southeast. Results of logit analysis indicate a positive link between farm size and (1) farmers' knowledge of BST and (2) intentions to adopt early, suggesting BST will not be scale neutral. An estimated “price elasticity” of -1.8 to -2.1 indicates an elastic demand for the input Price, therefore, may be an effective instrument for attenuating the scale bias.

Keywords

bovine somatotropinscale biasbiotechnologydairy policytechnology adoptionex antesurveys
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1990

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

Bohlen, J.M. “The Adoption and Diffusion of Ideas in Agriculture”. Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends. Capp, J.H., ed., Iowa State University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Buttel, F. and Geisler, C.C.. “The Social Impacts of Bovine Somatotropin: Emerging Issues”. Biotechnology and the New Agricultural Revolution. Molnar, J J., and Kinnucan, H., eds. Boulder, CO: American Association for the Advancement of Science and Westview Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Cancian, F. “Stratification and Risk-Taking: A Theory Tested on Agricultural Innovation”. Am. Socio. Rev. 32(1967): 912–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, , Willard, . The Development of American Agriculture. University of Minnesota Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Comstock, G. “The Case Against bGH”. Agriculture and Human Values. 5(1988):36–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallert, R. McGuckin, T., Betts, C., and Bruner, G.. “bST and the Dairy Industry”. Washington, D.C. USDA ERS.Report No. 579, 1987.Google Scholar
Feder, , Gershon, and Slade, Roger. “The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 66(1984):312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishel, W.L. “The Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology: Discussion”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 69(1987):438–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change”. Econometrica 25(1957):501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J.W. “The Minnesota Dairy Farm Sector: Summary of the 1988 University of Minnesota Dairy Farm Survey”. Minnesota Report No. 216-1989, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. St. Paul, 1989.Google Scholar
Hatch, U, Kuchler, F.. “Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology: Historical Perspectives”. Biotechnology and the New Agricultural Revolution. Molnar, J.J. and Kinnucan, H., eds. Boulder, CO: American Association for the Advancement of Science and Westview Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Heckman, J.J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error”. Econometrica 47(1979): 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R., and Zilberman, D.. “Stochastic Structure, Farm Size, and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture.” Oxford Economic Papers 35(1983):307–328.Google Scholar
Kalter, , Robert, J., Milligan, Robert, Lesser, William, Magrath, William, and Bauman, Dale. “Biotechnology and the Diary Industry: Production Costs, Commercial Potential, and the Economic Impact of the Bovine Growth Hormone,” Cornell University Agricultural Economics Department, A.E. Research 85-20,1985.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., Hatch, U., Pendergrast, R., and Molnar, J.J.. “Adoption and Diffusion Potentials for Bovine Somatotropin in the Southeast Dairy Industry.” Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 605, Auburn University, February 1990.Google Scholar
Kmenta, Jan. Elements of Econometrics. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986.Google Scholar
Kronfield, D.S. “Biological and Economic Risks Associated with Use of Bovine Somatotropin”. J. Vet.Medicare Assoc. 192(1988): 1693–1700.Google Scholar
Kuchler, F. and McClelland, J.. “Issues Raised by New Agricultural Technologies: Livestock Growth Hormones”. USDA ERS. Agricultural Economic Report No. 608,1989.Google Scholar
Lee, L.F. “Fully Recursive Probability Models and Multivariate Log-Linear Probability Models for the Analysis of Qualitative Data”. Econometrics 16(1981):51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesser, W. Magrath, W., and Kalter, R.. “Projecting Adoption Rates: Application of an Ex Ante Procedure to Biotechnology Products”. North Central J. Agr. Econ. 8(1986):159–174.Google Scholar
Lindner, R.K. “Farm Size and the Time Lag to Adoption of Scale-Neutral Innovations”. Mimeographed. Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide, 1980.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R.G. Jr. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc., 1981.Google Scholar
Molnar, J.J. Cummins, K.A., and Novak, P.F.. “Bovine Somatotropin: Biotechnology Product and Social Issues in the U.S. Dairy Industry”. J. Diary Science 73(1990). Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Pratt, J.W. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large”. Econometrica 32(1964): 122–136.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Savin, N.E. “Multiple Hypothesis Testing”. Handbook of Econometrics. Griliches, Z. and Intriligator, M.D.,eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1984.Google Scholar
Zepeda, L. “A Survey of California Dairy Farmers: Potential Adoption of Bovine Somatotropin”. Univ. of California Agr. Issues Center Paper No. 88-1,1988.Google Scholar