Comparison of farm technology adoptions

Earlier I posted a graph showing the trend in adoption of the tractor over horses and mules.  It took the better part of 50 years for near full adoption of the tractor.

Presumably, farmers adopted when the perceived benefits exceed the perceived costs.  How does the above compare to a more recent farm technology?  Biotechnology.  Here is data from the USDA

What it took a half a century for the tractor to do, herbicide tolerant (HT) soybeans did in less than a decade. 

Apparently, from the farmers' perspectives, the tractor wasn’t as compelling better than the mule (all factors considered) as was HT soybeans over conventional soybeans!

There are, of course, many reasons for the difference, but they do cast a lot of doubt on the presumption and claims of many anti-biotech advocates that farmers don't perceive themselves better off with the new technology.  Would many be willing to make the claim that, despite their revealed preference as exhibited in their adoption behavior, that farmers perceived themselves (or actually were) worse off with the tractor than they were the mule?  Then, how can that sort of claim be leveled at farmers adoption biotechnology? 

Bt resistance

A couple recent studies have raised concern that certain corn rootworms are becoming resistant to the Bt produced by biotech corn.  See for examples this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science by Iowa State University entomologists published last week (some of the same authors seem to have a similar paper published in 2011 in PLOS ONE) and this paper published in Nature Biotechnology this summer.  The most recent study has prompted quite a bit of attention on the web from outlets as varied as Wired and Grist.  

Any pesticide (biotech or not) has the potential to become ineffective over time due to the development of genetic resistance in insect (or weed) populations.  Plant genetic companies, knowing this, tried to implement several strategies to slow the spread of resistance: such as developing several types of Bt that produced different insect-killing proteins (which appears to have had only limited effectiveness) and the planting of refuges.  Refuges refer to the planting of non-Bt corn near Bt-corn, which reduce the selective pressure on rootworms and other pests, and thus potentially increases the length of the effectiveness of the Bt trait.  Originally, corn farmers were supposed to plant a certain percentage of their acreage in non-Bt corn as a refuge, and more recently, we have seen refuge in a bag - the Bt seed is delivered to farmers premixed with non-Bt seed.  

Some sources place the blame on the development of resistance on biotech companies lobbying for lower refuge requirements or on farmers for failing to observe the requirements.  That may be partially true.  Any individual farmer likely faces an incentive to free-ride off their neighbor's refuge (something that can be eliminated with the "refuge in a bag" concept), but it strikes me as incredibly short sighted that biotech companies would willfully advocate for policies that would reduce their long-run profitability (or it may be their interest to allow Bt resistance to develop if they have other products in the pipeline that become more valuable as Bt resistance develops).  

As I see it, the real challenge here is Mother Nature herself.  Agriculture is inherently a struggle against nature.  We have become so accustomed to seeing crop yield gain, that sometimes it is easy to forget that one of the biggest challenges is simply trying to keep up with nature's adaptations to the latest varieties.  The natural state of affairs is yield decline - not yield increase.  Seen in this light, science and technology seldom offer a one-time fix.  It is a constant struggle. We find a solution.  Nature responds.  We try to find another solution.  Nature adapts again.  And on and on it goes.  

No doubt there are many who argue that we should step off this technology treadmill.  We probably can find ways to better work with (or at least accept some drain in efficiency from) natural pests, and that may be one of our adaptions.  But, I think it is foolish to think we can ever really step off the treadmill.  There never was or will be some perfect ecosystem equilibrium.  Bacteria, insects, weeds have been and always will be evolving to get the upper hand on their competitors (that's us and our food crops) and we will do the same.  Our best bet is to try to stay one step ahead knowing our natural competitors won't be far behind.       

Do cows dislike GMO corn?

The Huffington post recently ran a story about one Iowa farmer who became skeptical of effects of GMOs on his animals:

Around the same time he planted his first GMO test fields, he also decided to do a little experimenting on his own. He had heard from farmers in Nebraska that cows "shied away from the BT corn." So he gave his cows the choice to consume the conventionally grown corn or BT corn. His cows ate the conventionally grown, however they smelled the BT corn and walked away from it. "That's not normal," says Vlieger. He has tried this with many other animals and found that if they have not been forced to consume GMOs in the past, they won't eat them and will go for the conventional feed instead.

In his role as a crop and livestock nutrition adviser, Vlieger knew other farmers who were feeding their animals GMOs. In South Dakota, a farmer fed his sows BT corn and they had on average 1.6 less piglets per litter. The piglets also weighed less at birth

The story is billed as a "farmer's perspective" about GMOs (coincidentally enough the story ran on a website sponsored by Chipotle, who has been critical of the technology).  The claims about adverse effects of biotech crops on animal performance is consistent with claims made by many anti-biotech advocates.  It was one repeated by Jeffery Smith when I debated him on the John Stossel show about the subject (our portion starts about the 23 minute mark).  

How does the anecdotes correspond with the scientific evidence on the subject?  The answer is: it doesn't hold up.   

One study from the Animal Science Department at the University of Nebraska found:

Steer performance was not different between Bt corn root worm protected or RR hybrids and their parental controls following the 60 day grazing period. The animal performance demonstrates feeding value of corn residue does not differ between genetically enhanced corn hybrids and their non-genetically enhanced parent hybrid. Similar research at the University of Nebraska also showed no difference in steer performance due to the incorporation of the Bt trait for corn borer protection (2001 Nebraska Beef Report, pp 39-41). There was also no preference between Bt and nonBt hybrids. During the grazing period, 47.5% of the steers were observed grazing Bt residue, and 52.5% of the steers were observed grazing nonBt residue.

A review study published in the journal Livestock Production Science also found:

In none of these experiments was animal performance, whether measured as growth rate, feed efficiency and carcass merit in beef cattle, egg mass in laying hens, milk production, composition and quality in dairy cows or digestibility in rabbits, affected by feeding transformed plants compared to animals fed control or isogenic plants.

In general, when one reads stories like the one at Huffington Post, it is important to step back and ask: why it is that most commercial animal operations have no problem feeding biotech corn or soy?  If biotech was really causing Tyson or Cargill or JBS to lose money because of reduced animal performance, don't you think they'd do something about it?  The fact that they have no qualms feeding biotech corn and soy probably tells you as much as any of the published scientific studies on the topic.

Interview on Economics of GMOs

I was recently interviewed by the website The Daily Meal on GMOs.  Here is what I had to say:

“The world is facing many challenges,” says Lusk. “(They include) a growing world population, climate change, and droughts in many areas of the U.S., just to name a few.  Biotechnology and genetic engineering do not hold all the answers, but all tools should be on the table to sustainably address these societal challenges."

On a domestic level, proponents of GM products see the opportunity to develop strain-resistant crops that cost less to manufacture. These lower food costs would benefit the farmers, and in turn would reduce the cost of foods for the retail consumer.

"In the U.S., about 90% of all corn and soybean acres are planted with GE varieties,” says Lusk. “These were decisions made by real-life, flesh and blood farmers. No one was (or is) holding a gun to their head. The fact that farmers willingly adopted GE varieties at such a fast clip (even while paying a premium price for them) reveals their belief that it is in their best interest to do so.  The scientific evidence shows that adopters of GE corn, soy, and cotton have enjoyed slightly higher levels of profitability.”

The support from that last claim, incidentally, comes from numerous peer-reviewed studies.  For a summary of the early research on the topic, see this USDA report, which shows that profitability tends to be either similar or higher among GMO adopters.  Even in cases where measured profitability is similar for GMO adopters, these simple measures often do not take into consideration the value of risk reduction or value of time saved by the farm operator.  We ultimately have to look at the decisions farmers made, and it seems quite clear corn and soybean farmers believe themselves better off adoption GE varieties.

The article goes on to interview Jeffrey Smith, a long time anti-biotechnology crusader.  The article seems to give the impression that we couldn't profitably produce corn or soy without government subsidies.  I am aware of no good research that would support that assertion.  

Then, Smith is quoted as saying the following:

“Independent research confirms that average farmer profit does not increase with GMOs,” Smith writes.  “And numerous examples of closed markets and suppressed prices have followed the introduction of genetically modified crops worldwide. In Hawaii; for example, GM papaya was blocked by Japan. Prices dropped from $1.29 per kilo to about $.80, and in spite of increased papaya consumption in United States, papaya production in Hawaii dropped by 40 percent.”

I wonder which "independent research" he is referring to?  As I indicated above, you can find some studies indicating no profit gains from biotech adoption.  But, what does the cumulative evidence in the peer reviewed journals suggest?  Not what Smith claims.  And, why are 90% of corn/soy farmers so dumb as to adopt a more expensive technology that isn't making them better off?

Also, to suggest that adoption of GM papaya in Hawaii hurt that industry because the Japanese blocked imports is just silly.  Hawaiian producers adopted a genetically engineered papaya that is resistant to a virus that was devastating that industry.  Yes, Hawaiian papaya growers would have been more profitable had Japan not reacted the way they purportedly did.  But, how profitable to you think Hawaiian growers would be if they had no papayas to sell at all?

What Message is General Mills Sending with Cheerios?

Julie Gunlock had an interesting editorial in the USA Today on General Mills decision to go "GMO free" with Cheerios.  She points out the tough pickle food companies are finding themselves in:

It is understandable that food companies are desperate to find a way to please their critics and reach détente with the powerful anti-GM movement. Yet, it appears these companies have settled on a strategy combining meek contrition (we're sorry we use perfectly safe GM ingredients) and appeasement (we'll get rid of perfectly safe GM ingredients in some…but not all…products). This squishy and schizophrenic policy will accomplish one thing: it will make the problem much worse.

For starters, while General Mills publicly states on its website that the company agrees with the wide consensus among scientists that GM ingredients are safe, the change to Cheerios sends a very different message to consumers: We've made the product safer. Do they mean to suggest Cheerios was previously unsafe.

From a business standpoint, by suggesting Cheerios has been made safer, the company puts its other products — those that still contain GM ingredients — in a bad light. The company might be spinning this as providing consumers more choices, but organic cereals (which cannot contain GM ingredients) have been available for years. Cheerios is hardly breaking ground.

I'm not sure I'd expect food companies to make a principled stand for scientific evidence when they could make money doing otherwise.  However, as Julie points out, it isn't even all that clear that this move is in the long-term best economic interest of the company even if it does cause a quick, short term bump in market share.