IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v181y2020ics0308521x19304755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?

Author

Listed:
  • Worden, David
  • Hailu, Getu

Abstract

Meeting global food demand and achieving environmental sustainability remain key challenges for the future, particularly given continued population growth, rising incomes, shifting dietary preferences, and global climate change. We examine the ex ante economic and environmental benefits of the adoption of genomic technologies to selectively breed dairy cattle for improved feed efficiency and reduced methane emissions. We use a farm-level representative dynamic multi-year enterprise budgeting stochastic simulation and optimization model to examine the effect of on-farm adoption. First, we find positive financial benefits to producers from a reduction in feed costs and environmental benefits to society from a reduction in methane emissions. Second, we find that the economic and environmental benefits depend on the predictive accuracy of genomic selection. Lower accuracies may lead to negative net financial returns, limiting widespread adoption of the technology. While these results are specific to a feed efficiency trait on a representative dairy farm in Ontario, Canada, they highlight potential benefits and challenges associated with selecting for novel traits using emerging biotechnologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Worden, David & Hailu, Getu, 2020. "Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:181:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19304755
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X19304755
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102807?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stott, Kerry J. & Gourley, Cameron J.P., 2016. "Intensification, nitrogen use and recovery in grazing-based dairy systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 101-112.
    2. Sunding, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 207-261, Elsevier.
    3. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 395-424, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Peter Slade & Getu Hailu, 2016. "Efficiency and regulation: a comparison of dairy farms in Ontario and New York State," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 103-115, February.
    6. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    7. Giancarlo Moschini, 1988. "The Cost Structure of Ontario Dairy Farms: A Microeconometric Analysis," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 36(2), pages 187-206, July.
    8. Rajsic, Predrag, 2013. "Cost Structure of the Ontario Dairy Industry Revisited: Distributional Aspects," Working Papers 157407, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.
    9. Glenk, Klaus & Eory, Vera & Colombo, Sergio & Barnes, Andrew, 2014. "Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: An analysis of dairy farmers' perceptions and adoption behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 49-58.
    10. Fredrik Hedenus & Stefan Wirsenius & Daniel Johansson, 2014. "The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 79-91, May.
    11. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    12. Davide Antonioli & Simone Borghesi & Massimiliano Mazzanti, 2016. "Are regional systems greening the economy? Local spillovers, green innovations and firms’ economic performances," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 692-713, October.
    13. White, Robin R., 2016. "Increasing energy and protein use efficiency improves opportunities to decrease land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 20-29.
    14. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    15. Glenka, Klaus & Eorya, Vera & Colombo, Sergio & Barnes, Andrew Peter, 2014. "Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: an analysis of dairy farmers’ preferences and adoption behaviour," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170358, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 67, pages 29-50.
    17. Getu Hailu & Ying Cao & Xi Yu, 2017. "Risk Attitudes, Social Interactions, and the Willingness to Pay for Genotyping in Dairy Production," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 65(2), pages 317-341, June.
    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. Getu Hailu, 2023. "Reflections on technological progress in the agri‐food industry: Past, present, and future," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(1), pages 119-141, March.

    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. Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 67, pages 29-50.
    2. Wakeyo, Mekonnen B. & Gardebroek, Cornelis, 2011. "Farm Size and the Share of Irrigated Land in total Landholding: the case of Water-Harvesting Irrigation in Ethiopia," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115735, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Lionel Richefort & Jean-Louis Fusillier, 2010. "Imitation, rationalité et adoption de technologies d'irrigation améliorées à l'île de la Réunion," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 59-73.
    4. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    5. David Worden & Getu Hailu & Kate Jones & Yu Na Lee, 2022. "The effects of bundling on livestock producers' valuations of environmentally friendly traits available through genomic selection," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 263-286, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Jia, Xiangping, 2009. "Synergistic Green and White Revolution: Evidence from Kenya and Uganda," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Prisca Koncy Fosso & Roger Tsafack Nanfosso, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 51-62, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Lim, Krisha & Wichmann, Bruno & Luckert, Martin, 2021. "Adaptation, spatial effects, and targeting: Evidence from Africa and Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    11. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Negash, Martha, 2015. "Drivers of bioenergy crop adoption: evidence from Ethiopia's castor bean contract farming," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 230226, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Thuo, Mary & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Hathie, Ibrahima & Obeng-Asiedu, Patrick, 2011. "Adoption of chemical fertilizer by smallholder farmers in the peanut basin of Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 1-17, March.
    15. BLAZY Jean-Marc & CARPENTIER Alain & THOMAS Alban, 2008. "An ex ante adoption model of low input innovations applied to banana growers in the French West Indies," LERNA Working Papers 08.32.276, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    16. Bhargava, Anil K., 2013. "The Impact of India’s Rural Employment Guarantee on Demand for Agricultural Technology," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150163, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Arslan, Cansın & Wollni, Meike & Oduol, Judith & Hughes, Karl, 2022. "Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    18. Wang, Honglin & Yu, Fan & Reardon, Thomas & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott, 2013. "Social learning and parameter uncertainty in irreversible investments: Evidence from greenhouse adoption in northern China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 104-120.
    19. 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..
    20. Nicholas Magnan & Abby M. Love & Fulgence J. Mishili & Ganna Sheremenko, 2020. "Husbands’ and wives’ risk preferences and improved maize adoption in Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 743-758, September.

    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:eee:agisys:v:181:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19304755. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.