IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v19y2014i06p676-703_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of agricultural biotechnology on supply and land-use

Author

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

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Barrows, Geoffrey & Sexton, Steven & Zilberman, David, 2014. "The impact of agricultural biotechnology on supply and land-use," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 676-703, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:19:y:2014:i:06:p:676-703_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X14000400/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    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. 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.
    2. Scheitrum, Daniel & Schaefer, K. Aleks & Nes, Kjersti, 2020. "Realized and potential global production effects from genetic engineering," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. 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.
    12. Fan, Linlin & Stevens, Andrew W. & Thomas, Betty, 2022. "Consumer purchasing response to mandatory genetically engineered labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    13. 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).

    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. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. 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.
    3. Hurley, Terrance M., 2010. "A review of agricultural production risk in the developing world," Working Papers 188476, HarvestChoice.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Mutuc, Maria Erlinda M. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Pan, Suwen & Yorobe, Jose M., Jr., 2012. "Impact Assessment of Bt Corn Adoption in the Philippines," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-19, February.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Mohan, Sarah, 2020. "Risk aversion and certification: Evidence from the Nepali tea fields," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Maitra, Pushkar & Mani, Subha, 2017. "Learning and earning: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in India," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 116-130.
    15. Xie, Yang & Zilberman, David, 2014. "The Economics of Water Project Capacities and Conservation Technologies," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169820, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Petraud, Jean & Boucher, Stephen & Carter, Michael, 2015. "Competing theories of risk preferences and the demand for crop insurance: Experimental evidence from Peru," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211383, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. de Brauw, Alan & Eozenou, Patrick, 2014. "Measuring risk attitudes among Mozambican farmers," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 61-74.
    19. Mishra, Ashok K. & Khanal, Aditya R. & Pede, Valerien O., 2017. "Is direct seeded rice a boon for economic performance? Empirical evidence from India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 10-18.
    20. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.

    More about this item

    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:cup:endeec:v:19:y:2014:i:06:p:676-703_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    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.