Wisconsin Farm Research Summary Summaries of research from the Program on Agricultural
Technology Studies No. 6, August, 2001
Update on the Adoption and De-Adoption of GMO Crop Varieties in Wisconsin
Lucy Chen, Bradford L. Barham and Frederick H. Buttel
Introduction
The 2000 and 2001 growing seasons will likely be remembered as a watershed
period concern-ing the diffusion and adoption of genetically modi-fied organism
(GMO) crop varieties (or GMOs) in the U.S. These two growing seasons have been
pivotal in several different respects. First, U.S. producers experienced significant
opposition to GMOs from consumers and governments in several world regions,
particularly Europe. Thus, there was much speculation that uncertainties in
GMO market-ing could interrupt the pattern of rapid GMO adop-tion, particularly
for the two major GMO crops – insect resistant or Bt-corn, and herbicide
resistant or herbicide-tolerant soybeans – that find their way into the
human food supply. However, based on national and regional data, there has been
no strong overall trend toward dis-adoption (or de-adoption) of both GMO crops.1
Second, while American consumers have tended to be less aware of GMO products in the food supply and less vocal than Europeans in their con-cerns about GMOs, the “Starlink™ incident”2 dramatically increased the public visibility of GMO conflicts in the U.S. The Starlink™ incident, which was first reported in September 2000, has increased the awareness and discussion among the public about how widespread genetically modified (GM) products are in the food supply, and has also demonstrated the complexities that would be involved in segregating GMO and non-GMO grains from the farm gate to the consumer. The Starlink™ incident has further increased the marketing uncertainties for GMO crops at home as well as abroad, particularly with regard to Bt corn. Third, following on the rapid adoption of GMOs, several recent reports have questioned the performance of GMO crops in terms of yield en-hancement and pest management.3
The outlook for GMO crop varieties seems uncertain at this crucial juncture. Will farmers continue to embrace GMO crop varieties, given marketing uncertainties and concerns? Or will many farmers discontinue the use of GMOs, as suggested in our previous study? To help to answer these questions, the UW-Madison Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS) has surveyed a panel of randomly selected corn or soybean producers each year since 1998. A most recent follow-up survey was conducted and completed in the winter and spring of 2001. We summarize our basic findings of the 2001 study in this report.4
GMO Adoption Trends in Wisconsin
Our data suggest that the adoption of Bt-corn at the farm level has plateaued at approximately 20 percent of corn acreage since 1998, with the 2001 data suggesting that there has been a slight decline in the percent of corn acres devoted to Bt varieties since 2000 (see Figure 1). We observed a considerable decrease in the Bt corn adoption rate (percent of corn farmers using Bt-corn varieties) from 2000 to 2001 (from about 21 to about 17 percent of corn farmers). Note, however, that our 2001 survey was done before the planting season, and thus measured GMO plant-ing intentions; 13 percent of corn producers in our winter 2001 survey were still undecided whether to plant Bt-corn. The actual Bt-corn adoption level thus could be slightly higher than the reported 17 percent, though our 2001 Bt corn adoption data are very consistent with the results reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of U.S.D.A., and by the American Corn Growers Association in their annual farmer survey.5 In terms of the controversial Starlink™ Bt corn product, our data indicate that this variety was not widely grown in Wisconsin. Less than 2 percent of Bt-corn adopters in our sample reported planting Starlink™ corn, and those that did had no problems in selling the corn as livestock feed.
In contrast to the stable or even declining adoption of Bt-corn, herbicide resistant (HR) crop varieties are increasingly popular among Wisconsin farmers. The 2001 data show that adoption of HR corn and soybean varieties continues to increase over the years (see Figure 2 & 3). Although adoption of HR corn began slowly, HR corn adoption appears to be accelerating and has now reached essentially the same adoption level as Bt-corn (18 percent).
HR soybeans offer a much more dynamic adoption story as Wisconsin farmers have increased their use of HR soybeans each year since 1998. In 2001, HR soybeans account for almost 70 percent of the soybean acres planted in Wisconsin. Coupled with ongoing increases in soybean acreage in the state, these data suggest that GMO soybeans are a significant part of the transformation of Wisconsin agriculture toward cash grain farming, and that HR soybeans will play an even more important role in Wisconsin agriculture in the future.
The Decisions and Evaluations on GMO Crop Varieties
Why have a majority of Wisconsin soybean producers favored HR soybeans over other varieties? The three most important reasons are that HR soybeans allow better weed control, reduce overall herbicide use, and reduce the labor required to grow soybeans. When asked to compare the performance of HR soybeans with conventional soybean varieties, seventy-three percent of HR soybean adopters reported using less herbicide and 63 percent of adopters said they had lower or much lower ex- penses. More than half of adopters (53 percent) said they received higher profits from planting HR soybeans. However, the yield of HR soybeans was not necessarily higher than conventional varieties. Only thirty-eight percent of producers surveyed in 2001 reported that HR soybeans had higher yields than traditional varieties (see Table 1).
Farmers’ experiences with Bt-corn have been considerably different than with HR soybeans. The three most important reasons to use Bt-corn are to increase corn yields, to allow better insect control, and to reduce overall insecticide use. The perfor- mance of Bt-corn has received mixed reviews by Wisconsin farmers (see Table 1). While seven out of ten Bt-corn adopters (72 percent) reported less pest damage than with conventional varieties, only 37 percent of adopters reported applying less insecti- cide.8 Although sixty-one percent of Bt-corn adopt- ers said they received higher or much higher yields of Bt-corn, a majority of corn producers (68 percent) also reported higher expenses in adopting Bt-corn.
Less than half (44 percent) of adopters reported that profits from planting Bt-corn were higher than with conventional varieties.
Based on this evaluation, we can conclude that HR soybean adopters are more likely to report lower expenses and higher profits than are Bt-corn adopters even though higher yield is more commonly associated with Bt-corn than with HR soybeans. In other words, HR soybeans are essentially an “input-reducing” technology, saving farmers both time and labor in weed management, while Bt-corn is more of a “yield-enhancing” technology, but one with gener-ally higher expenses. The strong differences between farmer adoption patterns and experiences with regard to Bt-corn and HR soybeans suggest that “GMOs” are much more diverse in their costs and benefits than is widely appreciated.
In the 2001 PATS survey, farmers who did not plant Bt-corn and HR soybean varieties were asked why they chose not to use GMO crop varieties. The most important reason farmers gave for not adopting GM varieties was satisfaction with their current corn or soybean varieties. The next most commonly reported reason is the lack of information about these biotechnologies. Marketing-related problems such as uncertainties about marketing GMO grains, lower prices, and the need to segregate GMO varieties were also mentioned, but were not among the major reasons for non-adoption.
The Dynamics of GMO Adoption in Wisconsin
The PATS panel data (data collected on the same farm operators over time) can be particularly helpful in understanding how adoption of new technologies occurs because they enable us to understand why farmers adopt or “dis-adopt” a particular technology over time. For example, in both the 2000 and 2001 surveys we found that about 30 percent of farmers who had adopted Bt-corn in the previous year chose not to use this product in the next growing season. By contrast, in the case of HR soybeans only 13 percent of 1999 users decided to dis-adopt in the 2000 growing season, and only 3 percent of 2000 HR soybean adopters discontinued their use in 2001. In other words, in each of the last two growing seasons, almost one out of three Bt-corn adopters has become a disadopter the next year, compared to one out of seven, and then one out of thirty-three, for HR soybeans.
Table 1. Distribution of Responses to Questions
Comparing GMO Varieties to Conventional Varieties
Much Lower No Difference Much Higher
1 2 3 4 5 Totals
Per Acre Comparison (percent)
HR Soybeans
Yield 1.8 11.3 49.3 31.9 5.7 100.0
Expenses 16.7 46.0 19.4 13.5 4.4 100.0
Pest Damage 13.1 12.8 70.6 3.5 0.0 100.0
Profit 6.7 14.8 25.1 51.1 2.2 99.9*
Herbicide Use 28.8 44.0 21.4 5.7 0.0 99.9*
BT Corn
Yield 2.3 1.7 35.5 43.5 17.0 100.0
Expenses 2.8 2.8 26.8 56.6 11.0 100.0
Pest Damage 25.4 46.3 19.8 8.6 0.0 100.1*
Profit 7.3 11.4 37.5 39.3 4.5 100.0
Insecticide Use 28.0 8.6 59.8 1.3 2.3 100.0
*Percents do not always total 100 due to rounding errors
How do dis-adopters explain their decision to switch away from GMOs? Based on results not shown here, PATS researchers have found that Bt-corn dis-adopters are more likely to report higher expenses and lower profits and yields than continual adopters. Similarly, HR soybean dis-adopters are more likely to report lower profits and yields than HR continuing adopters. Logically, then, disap-pointing production experiences, where farmers do not get what they are looking for from GMO crops, are surely part of the explanation of dis-adoption. However, even though production performance appears to be the dominant factor reported by farmers in explaining their decisions to dis-adopt GMO varieties, these dis-adopters were also far more likely to cite marketing-related uncertainties as reasons for not using the technology than were non-adopters when asked why they had not chosen to use GMOs. This added twist suggests that for some producers marketing related issues are influencing their adop-tion decisions. Further analyses are underway to clarify the relative roles of GMO production perfor-mance and marketing in farmers’ decision-making processes concerning GMO adoption.
Conclusion
Our continuing research on GMO adoption in Wisconsin provides new perspectives on GMO crops. First, despite continuing uncertainties about the market acceptance of GMO varieties and increas-ing scrutiny of GM food products in this country, there has not been a significant trend toward dis-adoption of GMO crops in Wisconsin. Indeed, farmer adoption continues to increase for the two herbicide-resistant crop varieties – HR corn and HR soybeans – with HR soybeans being by far the most dynamic of the three major GMO varieties available in Wisconsin. By contrast, adoption of Bt-corn appears to have plateaued at the 20 percent level in Wisconsin and the percent of farmers adopting Bt corn has apparently declined noticeably since 2000. Given the recent decline in overall corn acres in the state, Bt-corn diffusion is therefore proving to be much less dynamic than HR soybeans. Second, the distinct adoption trends and production experiences of the three GMO crops clearly indicate that when discussing genetically modified crop issues, the use of the umbrella term – GMOs – often masks major differences across these biotechnology crops. Third, a closer analysis of the panel data shows that market-ing concerns may have encouraged some grain producers in Wisconsin to drop GMO crops, even though, on the whole, production performance issues seem to dominate farmers’ GMO adoption decisions. Thus, more fine grained analysis, including follow-up discussions with farmers, is needed in order to assess the relative role of production and marketing factors in their GMO adoption decisions. This work could be especially valuable in predicting how farmers will respond if the marketing and distribution channels evolve toward a stronger emphasis on segregation of GMO and non-GMO crops, and hence toward distinctive price and risk possibilities.
Endnotes
1 See PATS Factsheet No. 10, “The Adoption and De-adoption of GMO Crop Varieties in Wisconsin,” and PATS Staff Paper No. 4, “Dynamics of GMO Adop tion Among Wisconsin Farmers” for more details.
2 Starlink™ is the Bt corn variety marketed by Aventis CropScience that became controversial in 2000 because of its having gotten into the human food supply despite the fact that it was not approved for human consumption by the Environmental Protection Agency.
3 For example, see Charles M. Benbrook, “Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans” AgBio Tech InfoNet Technical Paper No. 4 (May, 2001), and John Obrychi et al., “Transgenic Insecticidal Corn: Beyond Insecticidal Toxicity to Ecological Complexity,” BioScience 51, 5 (2001): 353-361.
4 A more detailed description on our sample and surveys and a discussion of our results will appear in a forthcoming report on PATS’ research on GMO adoption.
5 “Survey: Six Percent Fewer Acres in GMO Corn.” Agri-View (26 July 2001): D-7.
6 The Bt-corn adoption numbers in 1999 and 2000 are different from the ones reported in PATS Factsheet No. 10 because of adjustment in statistical weighting. For more details on weighting proce-dures, please see our forthcoming GMO report.
7 The HR-soybean adoption data for 1999 and 2000 differ from those reported in PATS Factsheet No. 10 because of adjustments in statistical weighting. For more details on weighting procedures, please see the forthcoming PATS report on GMO adoption.
8 Please see the previously citied BioScience article for a more detailed discussion on the point that Bt-corn does not reduce the use of pesticides.
*Some graphs in the PDF or print versions of this publication may not be available in text-only versions.