!"#
$%&		'(

'&		#	(	)#	*	 +	+'

&	*$,-.

Abstract

+
* 						
**				


			
	
/00123		(	*

 **	
			

		(	*
	

	4	
+
* 	
			
 			



			
 		
		5	

	
		
* 	
				
 

			
			
 
				
	

	+
* 	#	 		
	

	

	
 	
	
	
		

!	"
6						*				
**



Acknowledgments

3	%!#+
+
	&*7	#	%

8
9		$	* 				 3


*(
	
	
	

$	6)	 
	*
	*	
			

)#	*	 +	

/-11#		$

:11;.<-;/ +*:111


Contents

# 

"
 /

%
 =

>				
* =

>	(#
		' 	 9		'			
* <

7	
	3	#	 <

7	
	3	 .

7	
	3	 .

 .

 .


	
 -

3	+&##(	 -

&	 -

'
&	 0


		+
*	 /1

3	+
*"*
	 /1

+
* 9		'			
* /:

+
*&	 /:

*5	+
*'	 /:

&	+
* /:


8	(	' 	 +
* /<

>	
	)	 /<

*?	
 /.

$	&	 /.


	 /-

&	 			 /0


Summary

)	 *						
*				


					
/00-
=1*	

	 	)#	
 	)#	
	=1*		 

	)#				*	
						
(				

		
-	(		
#	/00.	<1

	/00-

	*		(	

 				 						


*			(			 		* 				 

		
	*			
		***		4

			 
*	 	 		*(				 *	

 		(	
		*

*			(
		

 		4*		
		 		4*		


3		(	* 
* 						
**	
		

*	

		(	*
		4	
3		

	/00,

* 	
			


 			

			
 

		
		5		
		
* 	
		

		
 			
			


 
				
		+
* 	#	 

		
	

		
 	
	
	
		

3	**		

	)#+ (			
* 		

				
	
)#	"

		**		

		 		
)#+ (	
		(	

	 	 
*						
	
*	
			



			





	













	




	

















	



	
 	




	











!


	







	 






	





 "


	




 



	

 #$%	
&


	
	

#

&'(

$

)




%

	









	
 

	


	
	




* 


	




	

	


		

+

 ,


	



 

	 
 

	


(






	









		

*


		







*
	





 -

$	










		












	


$.	

, $	
*





	-	



$	
	









 




		

$&




 
	
	!


	 	








/	
	

 


		










#&'. 
0)%

1 
&	


	




 





	


2












  	
#


%( 

 


*





	





	

!&	
	

 




	

 



	


 
 


.
3 
4/( 	
	
	 4(.3567

Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest

Management in U.S. Agriculture

Farm-Level Effects

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo

William D. McBride

Introduction
8 	
	
	 4(.3567 .
3 
4/(

'-
 
	

	

	




	









	 	
 
*
	

( 






2
1


,
&	
	







.&

9
		






	
!	





9


:;<-

9
 




9/=(

#/&


%/=( 





>	


	

	

.

	

/=( *








	
	
!





#
%




>




!	



 

	





















	
 
)#?9
%

	

 







*











	 
	







 

*


 



 9




	 	



1
*



 
#

%


@



	

#/(%


 








	

!


		

&





A	
	
	




$
	
&
	 




	


	


 






	
9


 




	 
	




.	


 


 







	
	

#($(%







 

*

 


#
%
 



=













"






/(

(
B,"	
 










'









/=( 
*)

#5-3CD+CD%




.	






	
  



#






%





	 	 	 
 




	 
 

	




<


		

	


	 



 


!



	#

%3	3#33%	



	


 	




0







	
A


A
9#AA%





$E=
&
!





	




>
#"1"%&


#3%
#!%

	



  

		

 


	


#
%




		





	

	 








	


&



3
/=( 
*

#/=( 



/=( 




% 	



	

Agricultural Biotechnology:

Basic Concepts and Definitions

 
 !




 

	

	



&	




	

		






!
	

&
	



	



	


F
	





>	 
	


	

	
	







	

	
=&		 




/((



31
#(31%&

	






#	
	

%

!		



 	

$



	



	


.
3 
4/( 	
	
	 4(.3567C

(
 





	







&
 

	0


	

 




, 	*
		





		

(


	








	


-

&	
	

 




#			G96H3

6%!
9



	

$				
	

	


	




	


(
&
 	

 	








	



 
 



9


0	



9


		




 9






#3
1%

(
9
$		



$3

9	

 !
	&




	

$






	
	

 




$






	

$



	


$








	




	, . 
B


(
#.B(%*


	



$


	
 
 



#"2
5%

1			


	

18


	 #A%	





	$

9
 



	
'
9


	
),  



			





'

			




9		









)#<
	%

!	

.	


	





( 




	&	










	
#B%(












 




$-/


(


#-/(%







9	'


*
 )	




9!-/( *







9


9





"


 









')'
)




 	





#'
 
)%











'






)#B%

Environmental and Other Concerns
Pest Management 

on Major Field Crops

	


	








	





	
 



!



!	
	"

	

#$%&'(&)
!	


	

#


	"#

		
$
(*
	

!
$
+""
( 

!
+
	$'(

+)
$(

+
	







	

#

	





+
	


+
 

!



!	


	#'	

#

$%&'(,

	!	
	






	#

#$
(-+	

!		

! 

+


!
$.

(!
+$(


	$(/





+	
	

!		

!		
 


 

	

+	
	


+	





	
+	



!



0
!


	







	
 



	

$

12'(


'	

!




#

	
3




	
 



#$%&'(4!	


	


#$..( 

!

++**& $"( 


$"($


3(





 


##

	
3




	



!



!	'



" 	







 5&67 #' 67

	

5%&

Background

Table 1—Major herbicides used on corn, 19971

Herbicide Area Appli- Rate per Total

active applied cations crop year applied

ingredient

Percent Number Lbs./acre Million lbs.

Acetamides 78.86

Acetochlor 24 1.0 1.90 28.16

Alachlor 4 1.0 1.80 4.58

Metolachlor 35 1.0 2.00 43.77

Propachlor <1 1.0 1.95 0.35

Triazines 64.63

Atrazine 69 1.1 1.09 47.16

Cyanazine 14 1.0 1.94 16.49

Simazine 1 1.0 1.36 0.98

Glyphosate 4 1.0 0.53 1.43

Other herbicides 21.132

2, 4-D 9 1.0 0.37 2.09

Dicamba 29 1.0 0.32 5.80

Dimethenamid 6 1.0 1.21 4.73

EPTC 1 1.0 3.71 3.17

Pendimethalin 3 1.0 1.13 1.76

Bromoxynil 6 1.0 0.26 1.03

Bentazon 3 1.0 0.46 0.94

Paraquat 1 1.0 0.56 0.38

Nicosulfuron 10 1.0 0.03 0.16

Imazethapyr 1 1.0 0.02 0.01

Total 164.05

1 62.2 million acres were planted for the 19 States surveyed.

2 Includes other herbicides not listed.

Source: USDA, 1998b.

Table 2—Major herbicides used on soybeans,

19971

Herbicide Area Appli- Rate per Total

active applied cations crop year applied

ingredient

Percent Number Lbs./acre Million lbs.

Acetamides 13.41

Metolachlor 7 1.1 1.87 8.91

Alachlor 3 1.0 2.36 4.50 

Glyphosate 28 1.0 0.81 14.92 

Other herbicides 49.882

Pendimethalin 25 1.1 0.95 17.53 

Trifluralin 21 1.0 0.88 12.27

Bentazon 11 1.0 0.65 4.74 

Clomazone 5 1.0 0.71 2.32

2, 4-D 8 1.0 0.39 2.11

Acifluorfen 12 1.0 0.21 1.69

Metribuzin 10 1.0 0.25 1.69

Imazethapyr 38 1.0 0.05 1.24

Sethoxydim 7 1.0 0.21 1.03 

Total 78.21

1 66.2 million acres were planted for the 19 States surveyed.

2 Includes other herbicides not listed.

Source: USDA, 1998b.
#$%&'(*	!	

 





	#

		
#$
"(&!


$"(!
+
	+	$

(
	
$(

Previous Studies on the Farm Effects of

Genetically Engineered Crops

*+
 




	
+)


	













+




$
8


&
'9

12'9

%
+
.9-
9:





97
;

#97

'9

<
(=!

+
!
	





	
+









 



$>

) 
:) /
'9-


#9*
'92#(


	

	



)

!

Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans

 ,



	

	
+

+
!	
+	
 
+





!	
+	
!


!	 





		


	
+
 

?#

33'"

$%
+
.(@
+

 



	

+	
+

	
7
	
+
		



+	
 
+

!
 


+	

	
	!
	







!

!	




+


 %
!
4



!





+
+	
 
+ 


$7

'(






"	

	

+	


+
!

3

	
	
		



	


+
4	
	
	



	

+	
+


		
	


+
!
	



 7

	
*$&


'(	
	!	
	
+





+	
 
+

 






 
 

*
$'(



		




+	
 
 

+
!

A

	
	
	

67

	

5%& 	







 5&67 #'.

Table 3—Major herbicides used on cotton, 19971

Herbicide Area Appli- Rate per Total

active applied cations crop year applied

ingredient

Percent Number Lbs./acre Mil. lbs.

Triazines 3.87

Cyanazine 18 1.3 0.95 2.20

Prometryn 19 1.2 0.66 1.67 

Other herbicides 22.202

Trifluralin 55 1.1 0.76 5.46

MSMA 29 1.4 1.30 4.90

Fluometuron 44 1.3 0.84 4.85

Pendimethalin 28 1.1 0.69 2.49 

Norflurazon 13 1.0 0.63 1.04

Diuron 12 1.1 0.55 0.88

Metolachlor 5 1.1 1.17 0.74

Glyphosate 14 1.3 0.81 1.54

Total 27.61

1 13.1 million acres were planted for the 12 States surveyed. 2 Includes other herbicides not listed.

Source: USDA, 1998b.

Table 4—Major insecticides used on cotton, 19971

Insecticide Area Appli- Rate per Total

active applied cations crop year applied

ingredient

Percent Number Lbs./acre Mil. lbs

Organophosphates 11.76

Malathion 11 5.9 4.97 7.25 

Methyl parathion 13 2.7 1.22 2.00 

Acephate 10 1.7 0.72 0.90 

Phorate 7 1.0 0.73 0.67 

Profenofos 4 1.6 0.98 0.56 

Dicrotophos 8 1.7 0.35 0.38 

Pyrethroids 0.41

Cypermethrin 8 1.7 0.14 0.14 

Lambdacyhalothrin 18 1.9 0.05 0.13

Cyfluthrin 13 1.7 0.05 0.09

Zeta-cypermethrin 5 1.4 0.05 0.03

Tralomethrin 2 2.1 0.04 0.01

Fenpropathrin 1 1.1 0.19 0.01

Other insecticides 6.112

Aldicarb 27 1.0 0.68 2.43 

Chlorpyrifos 4 1.9 1.45 0.81 

Oxamyl 15 1.6 0.33 0.65 

Endosulfan 2 2.3 0.88 0.27 

Dicofol 2 1.0 1.13 0.26 

Total 18.28

1 13.1 million acres were planted for the 12 States surveyed. 2 Includes other insecticides not listed.

Source: USDA, 1998b.
	


4	
!
	




!



	!

		
	
	





	
+



Herbicide-Tolerant Cotton

 >

&2*$-


(-

$<
(4
8

$:



(




 

+

!

!






+	
	

	



 &
+
+	
 





@	
	


+	


+	
 









	
 


$

12'(B	
+




	

+	
+
$
	



	
+

(!




	

	
!		



+

!


	

!


0

	
 


!
!		

+	
+


Herbicide-Tolerant Corn

 
%& 
 


+	

 


>

) 


:) /
$'(

	


	

 


+
$
	



	
+

(	


4	
+


	!
	


$

+	




	

+(!
+

	
 

	



&	




	

+
4	




!+


Bt Cotton

 
+-


!



	C



+
"




	 C



+
$2#(+ 



!	!





+.

C%

	


A3 
 

	
+

C!

	
)





	
 C





 ,

+*	!






C
	
	


		
 C$-
#(

4!

	




!

C C

	
	
+


C

+	
	






	

	
+



 7

	

8

	







!



C C+





C






$7
;

#(=!

C+
!





	+
 C



 /3 +
+&2C


	
	
+
$

	

	
+

(

'!
+
#

$C+7
D
)///'(

 *
$'(
+3


@		-

&

	+
!


+


C 

	
!
	

$-



&(	



	



	

4	
+	



!
C

!






++
	

4	




!
	

			
!


	4	








!

	
	
	
	



	
+

	
!
	

Bt Corn

 *
$'(


	
C





	
6




+
+"'




 

+
E	
	
	C




+





 

=!




+


!




		




	
+



4	


A3 A





/







	


+)
	






+







!
	



	
+

 





 

4	



	



)



.

 	







 5&67 #' 67

	

5%&
67

	

5%& 	







 5&67 #'#

Table 5—Summary of the effects of genetically engineered crops on yields, pesticide use, and

returns, as reported in previous studies

Crop/ Data Effects on

researchers source Yield pesticide use Returns

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans

Delannay et al., 1995 Experiments Same na na

Roberts at al., 1998 Experiments Increase Decrease Increase

Arnold et al., 1998 Experiments Increase na Increase

Marra et al., 1998 Survey Increase Decrease Increase

Herbicide-tolerant cotton

Vencill, 1996 Experiments Same na na

Keeling et al., 1996 Experiments Same na na

Goldman et al., 1998 Experiments Same na na

Culpepper and York, 1998 Experiments Same Decrease Same 

Herbicide-tolerant corn

Fernandez-Cornejo

and Klotz-Ingram, 1998 Survey Increase Decrease Same

Bt cotton

Stark, 1997 Survey Increase Decrease Increase

Gibson et al., 1997 Survey Increase na Increase

ReJesus et al., 1997 Experiments Same na Increase

Bryant et al., 19981 Experiments Increase na Increase

Marra et al., 19982 Survey Increase Decrease Increase

Bt corn

Marra et al., 1998 Survey Increase Decrease Increase

na = not available

1 Results are for 1996 and 1998. Results were different in 1997 when pest pressure was low.

2 Result is for the lower South (Alabama and Georgia).
	







	



 !





	"


		"			









 

	




"

 

The ARMS Surveys



#
	"

$%"
$%




"$

$
&

&	 


	"'(()

'((* $%

+








		



"",

"

	"	-"


	
	

 












		" 

"	





".



	(/
"	  


'((0'((*'((( "










'((0$% 

Regions


#		"


$





1

	  	"""


$'((( 	"

1#





	

""



"#
 2"

3
$ !	"

$
	
##"


		"
#	"




"	


45
$$    "




	"#	'


"








'((( )
	

* 	







 -$0*) "$-

Data and Methods 

Fruitful Rim 

Fruitful Rim 

Fruitful Rim 

Fruitful Rim 

Prairie Gateway

Basin and Range

Northern 

Great 

Plains

Heartland

Northern Crescent

Southern Seaboard

Eastern 

Uplands

Mississippi Portal 



	





	'(()(*			





 

Estimating Costs and Returns


	

	


""6






	" 	

"

#




	
	

	


"







  

"
 '((0$%





	""


	
 

%
	"
	"$%



6

	





	""
"

	"





#
 	"#


#
4

"+
	



'((*",	"#

 

7""	




"#"


,	






 ' 3





#"
"	"

"


"


	

 8






#"







"	



	3

	

#


"



		




	
 5#"



"	"$%


#'((0 9


	"







#
#"
$%




	

#

,




	"






"	

'(() 

#"
	





"

"$- 	







 -$0*)(

Table 6—Distribution of acreage and production among regions in corn, soybean, and cotton production, 1996-98

1996 1997 1998

Acreage Production Acreage Production Acreage Production

Percent1

Corn

Heartland 65.6 73.1 74.4 75.6 65.4 69.9

Northern Crescent 15.6 9.2 14.0 12.6 13.5 11.6

Prairie Gateway 10.4 11.6 7.1 8.6 12.6 12.1

Northern Great Plains 3.9 2.6 4.1 2.9 5.0 4.6

Eastern Uplands 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.4 1.6 1.0

Southern Seaboard 2.0 1.6 ns ns 1.2 0.5

Soybeans

Heartland 77.8 79.8 69.8 74.4 69.8 76.0

Mississippi Portal 14.4 13.2 12.1 9.0 11.5 7.5

Northern Crescent 4.2 3.4 7.1 7.1 6.1 6.2

Prairie Gateway 1.3 1.7 5.6 5.2 5.5 5.0

Eastern Uplands 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.9

Northern Great Plains id id 1.8 1.6 3.3 2.7

Southern Seaboard id id 2.6 1.9 2.3 1.8

Cotton

Prairie Gateway 41.8 26.6 38.2 25.9 42.1 24.1

Mississippi Portal 26.8 30.7 22.6 26.6 22.8 30.6

Fruitful Rim 18.9 27.0 14.3 21.8 13.5 20.0

Southern Seaboard 11.7 14.9 20.7 21.6 19.5 22.3

Eastern Uplands id id id id 2.1 3.0

ns = no surveyed States in region.

id = insufficient data for a statistically reliable estimate.

1 Percent may not sum to 100 because of acreage and production in omitted regions.

' 
#
	" '((*




&
 



	""


'((* 	





#



	"






 	






:

 

Modeling the Adoption Decision

	""
	

	






				






 "


"

""







"			

	#








6;7"
	%


"%
< 	


"
#"

"
 		"
	




"
	

	


#	
""


"		





	



		 


	"

"

"
	






 




"
"



 '((0$%
#"



"	'
=



>: 

"

"	






#


	



 

?6"



"



	"1


6



	





	"+





	


 

	
"
	

"

 

The Adoption Impact Model

"
	










6"


	#








:'((0$%


 

"
	



"




 2:

"


#"	



2+@


6



#		


"	

:

#

%

 

!"
	


	
""




 





6	"




		"	"
	



 !

"
"



	
	"




"
			



		

#






2
17.  



"
"
"

	






: 2#
	




"
	


"

;	"<#



	

		

"" =

"	"




A
"





"



		"

 #
"	

"
"


"



"

	
	""


"	
 #""

"
,"




6""

'/
#	"  

	

 

'/ 	







 -$0*) "$-

= 
;	"<

B"


"


C


C1  11

"1
"



=D		1"1



"
	 
	"



B

  ""




C

  


"	C





	6"



	  "1
,
		"#
	


		 2
2
17.

 '((( 
"$- 	







 -$0*)''

7"
	"""
1

	"6
"#	

"	;
<"+"

"
 26"
"

"

	


	#
	


,
	



6



;"<  






 


6
".

"

4

"

 

!;
6
"<#"


"
	"	"


"6

 

7
;"<,

	" 
		#"

"	



	"


	

	


"	
	


#

"

"









 

%	"

"

#





"+



" 	






""
		



		""	"	"
	

"

	

#
		





 
	

#

 

$
"	

	


	#


"
"

"
 
		"




""



			


 26"


#	



	

	"1
""



 !

#		


 

""





6"

"
	

+


	"4 







""
"



#





"


1	





	"
#




"
 2"





"
	#	"4


"1
"
	







"
2
17.  

 #"
#


	

"
	 	

	


"
A	



	
#	
""


"		

 



"
"

""

" 


"



#"	



	




"


	"#

	%



		 

"
	

	"




6"



 "
"






"
	A


"

;	"<

	



		 "
"



"""1


,


		







	




%
	"

"


2
17.  

Comparisons of Means and Econometric Models
	




		







	


	
 !	

	

"#$	
%






		











	






	






 &



	'(








(	





'		)
 

Adoption Rates

)
*+
, $ 



, $ 


*+


, $ 
'	


		







 




		



$




-+
		



 

.

		








)



'		'


/

		'%  )

		



-

%

	(



-









	 $

		)





0

 !

0



	1


01)




-

'


	








 





(	




		
 2

(	




		



	

3

(





%






4$





*+





	 2

(	



%
+







 

Comparison with Other Adoption

Estimates

!




"#$(


'


	0"$
	

'



2
'
	(

	'

%

5

(	






0"$
'
*










6



(	

0"$


+







(

6

(


0"$





	'

(


 

Reasons for Adoption



"#$4





-*












		


'





'7


	



	 8!

(*


'7

 8		





'
9
-


	 !	

(








.
	
'

'%

	


	

	





		




 2


%



	




(





		%



	

	


 9  

4


 	







 :0"( 0

"$
:,$;

1996 1997 1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent of acreage

Cotton

Corn

Soybeans

Figure 2

Adoption of genetically engineered crops, 

1996-98: Herbicide-tolerant and Bt technologies

9 <	




 =

%		

	




(	




	




	
/	
(


(	

 ,



	
		









Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops





	

	

	 !













		 2'
		



	

	
	
	


		


 !
	





  '
	

	

(

	


	




	




	

 =


	(




		



$



%

	




 

0

"$
:,$; 	







 :0"(9

Table 7—Extent of Bt and herbicide-resistant seed technologies used in corn, soybean, and cotton

production, by region, 1996-98

1996 1997 19981

Technology/region Acreage Production Acreage Production Acreage Production

Bt corn Percent

All surveyed States 1.4 1.5 7.6 7.8 19.1 20.7

Heartland 1.5 1.6 8.1 8.0 19.4 20.3

Northern Crescent id id id id 16.2 18.3

Prairie Gateway id id id id 19.2 23.7

Herbicide-resistant corn2

All surveyed States 3.0 3.1 4.3 3.9 18.4 19.4

Heartland 2.8 2.8 4.8 4.3 19.7 20.6

Northern Crescent id id id id 9.5 11.6

Prairie Gateway id id id id 18.3 16.7

Herbicide-resistant soybeans2

All surveyed States 7.4 7.2 17.0 17.5 44.2 44.8

Heartland 6.9 6.8 14.7 16.1 44.3 45.1

Mississippi Portal 9.8 10.1 30.8 29.2 46.6 45.5

Northern Crescent id id 15.2 14.8 27.5 28.0

Prairie Gateway id id 17.5 20.2 59.2 64.4

Southern Seaboard id id 17.3 19.1 72.0 76.3

Eastern Uplands id id id id 59.0 57.4

Bt cotton

All surveyed States 14.6 19.0 15.0 18.3 16.8 23.5

Mississippi Portal 23.8 25.3 23.1 23.3 34.8 38.0

Southern Seaboard id id 21.5 24.7 18.2 18.2

Fruitful Rim id id 22.2 22.9 18.9 22.7

Herbicide-resistant cotton

All surveyed States id id 10.5 11.1 26.2 29.3

Mississippi Portal id id 16.9 16.2 24.5 23.0

Southern Seaboard id id 16.1 14.5 28.1 31.7

Prairie Gateway id id id id 34.2 56.9

id=insufficient data for a statistically reliable estimate.

1 1998 estimates for corn and cotton include acreage and production with stacked varieties (with both Bt and herbicide-resistant genes).

2 Includes seed obtained by traditional breeding but developed using biotechnology techniques that helped to identify

the herbicide-resistant genes.












	(









	
			
	

''
	

'




(


		
 	'



		

	

	'




(	



,$;0"$ 
* 	







 :0"( 0

"$
:,$;

Table 8—Main reason stated by U.S. farmers for adopting herbicide-tolerant soybeans/cotton and 

Bt cotton, 1997 

Percent of acreage among adopters 

Herbicide- Herbicide- Bt cotton 

Stated reason for adopting genetically engineered crops tolerant tolerant

soybeans cotton

Percent

1. Increase yields through improved pest control 65.2 76.3 54.4

2. Decrease pesticide input costs 19.6 18.9 42.2

3. Increased planting flexibility (for example, easier to rotate 

crops, reduce carryover, use reduced tillage or no-till systems, etc.) 6.4 1.8 2.2

4. Adopt more environmentally friendly practices 2.0 0.9 0.0

5. Some other reason(s) 6.8 2.3 1.2 
	





	
	


	


		
	


		

	



	
	
		


	




	

	
 
		!	
			

		
	


		


				
	 

Pesticide Use

"		
	




	!	
	
					
	

	!		







		

	
	
!
	



#$ 

 %


		
		


	

		



	

		#	



		$






		 




!
	

 

%
	
	
	

	
	
	



	

!		

	
	
#&$ 

 '


		





		
!


	
	

	

!


	 


!
	 

 

	!

		
		
!
	



 (

 '

		
		


	
	!




)		
		
!
	



		
	


		



 

*	
	
"+,-+% 	







 ,%*"./0

Farm-Level Effects of Adoption

Table 9— Econometric results on the impact of adopting herbicide-tolerant 

and insect-resistant field crops

Effect with respect to an increase in the adoption of:

Herbicide-tolerant Herbicide-tolerant Bt cotton, 1997

soybeans, 19971 cotton, 19971 (Southeast)1

Change in yields small increase2 increase3 increase3

Change in net returns 04 increase3 increase3

Change in pesticide use:4

Herbicides—

Acetamide herbicides 05

Triazine herbicides 05

Other synthetic herbicides decrease3 05

Glyphosate increase3 05

Insecticides—

Organophosphate insecticides 05

Pyrethroid insecticides 05

Other insecticides decrease3

1 Based on Fernandez-Cornejo, Klotz-Ingram, and Jans (1999).

2 Small increases or decreases are less than 1-percent change for a 10-percent change in adoption.

3 Increases or decreases are more than 1-percent change but less than 5-percent change for a 

10-percent change in adoption.

4 Percent change in acre-treatments.

5 Underlying coefficients are not statistically different from zero.

( 			
		
		


	
 1	2




	
	
		
!	&3


	!
	
			

+	


+	
	





4	#-+%*"+$ 
		!
!
		


	
5	- + 	
	

		


	

	
	 1		
		
	

	

	
	(0


!
/
.



		
		
	
3 	



/	3 (6	

.# 6$


		

		
	

	
	3 0	
# ($ %

		
	




3

	 

Crop Yields

"		
	



	!	
	
			



	
!





		
		





		
	



#$7

 8

		
		
	

	

		





 

 8

		
	)		



		



 

 8

		
		
	



		

#


$

 9




	3


		
 



		





		!	

	


		
 :	
	
	






!






		
		
	





	






		

	



		

				

#-+%*"+$ 0

Net Returns

	
	


	!

	
	
			

	



	
!









	

	
		





	#$7

 8

		
		
	

	
	





 

 8

		
	)		
	







 

 8

		
		
	



		







 


			

	

	

)		
			



	


	




		
	
!			


 ;
	
		

/ 	







 ,%*"./ *	
	
"+,-+%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Cotton

Soybeans

Corn

1996 97 98

Pounds per planted acre

Use of glyphosate herbicides

Figure 3

0

1

2

3

Cotton

Soybeans

Corn

1996 97 98

Pounds per planted acre

Use of all herbicides, other than glyphosate

Figure 4

0 )				


	



		

!	




 

		
	




			



 <	!
2
	


	
 '



	

	
	
	

	



		

		




	!

	
	
	
#3$ 




	
	
	


!

	=(3


<
!
	
3
		


	 


		



		
!
	





		
	
 

*	
	
"+,-+% 	







 ,%*"./

Table 10—Costs of and returns from herbicide-tolerant seed technology used in soybean production

compared with all other seed technologies, by region, 19971

Heartland Mississippi Portal Southern Seaboard

Item Biotech All other Biotech All other Biotech All other

Dollars per planted acre

Value of production 330.80** 287.88 204.80 225.78 239.63 205.68

Seed and weed-control costs:

Seed2 30.03** 17.70 26.78** 14.96 29.43** 15.74

Herbicide 19.20** 28.16 20.61** 28.15 12.54** 24.64

Herbicide application 2.88 3.34 3.57 3.91 2.20 2.83

Weed scouting 0.45 0.29 0.21** 0.60 1.12 0.69

Weed cultivation 0.31** 1.27 0.38* 1.35 0.28 1.04

Total seed & weed-control costs 52.87 50.75 51.54 48.96 45.56 44.94

Value of production less costs 277.93* 237.12 153.26 176.82 194.07 160.74

**significantly different from all other at the 5-percent level.

*significantly different from all other at the 10-percent level.

1Statistically compared using a difference of means test. The biotech category includes all acreage on which herbicidetolerant soybeans were planted. The “all other” category includes acreage planted to all other purchased and homegrown

seed. Differences between the mean estimates cannot necessarily be attributed to the use of the seed technology since

they are influenced by several other factors not controlled for, including irrigation, weather, soils, nutrient and other pest

management practices, other cropping practices, operator management, etc.

2Includes seed technology fee.
	












	





















	








	











	





























	


























































 


!"















#$ 	







 %&'()$* '(

"	%+"&

Concluding Comments
	

				


		
	
	
 !	"	# 

$	%
			


&	
		'	


' ()		
		

# &	
	"	
	" *+	


		"	,-.	# (

	/	"0	
1		/0		20

0
% '	3	/-	'


	3	'		4

	










	5	
	

	# 6	-!#		)*)7*+

	8
		8

99111.9
	# 6

8	:	28	/	;	

/4		






			81	/	'

/	# (	-#		)!7) 

8
	<	5/	0.		=	>?	

2	-		8	/	

@4	A			






	# 6

/	
		/	B@	25	

	=
7%	/4		





		# 6#*7#6!

"
	C	%%	8	":	8
	

8	:"	/.	
	"A	/5	"

%	"@	>	=	
	:	A=	:@


	:	8	>3		>D	5	>

<5		/<			@	"	,@

"<	;1	:	'		>	'@	'

0
	"8	0
	5<	0	A5	0

'>	
@	>	%	/,	%	0:

5@	>	5D	:"	5		
0	'

2B	-			=
7%	

.

>		%	1	=
4		


+!# !#(#7(*

A@7E		8		=	%D		20	/

	".		%	/			$
4

"					0



	.	$-
	.		'	

	
		2	'
	0	

	0	4	,/7)F6		/7

B%		8	D		!7*	# 6

A?7/G			/	<?7

2	-		'
		

$	=
		/		'

4		
					# 6

,			0	

	,0				,B			))7

)+	# 6

A?7/G		/	<?7		
	

2A7>-				=


	/			$
4	'		

		/	2%	

.			

		'
4	,7

#(!	5	"/		)7)!	# 

=	>'		8		




	
 !""#$		09".	,

/		A			'
	5

"/	;.	# (

=.	3	5	"	>	0=	>	"'@

	0			:	2/		/	

0		1	:	0	8	/

	,70	34		






	/		

@	/	# *	-#		)7)*

=	">	/	=
		/		

<	25	/	

		0	0
%

/4		






	/	5	
	0

/	# (	-)		#!+)

:
		2
	/			8	


	/		/D4			%&

#)A	# 6+7!!	

	/		2=.	0-1		/?

%	/	# 64		 
'(		


	,B	# 

<	5	'	"
	/			
	


20% 0
	/	 '	,1	5

	%			%D	:	'4

	





)

/	5	
	0	/	# (	-	)

	#!) 

>
	5	>	
	0
			/

2%				-4	'

+ )F	
	# 	)#

@		=A	8
		=	<	2%

:.	=
4	%	)# 6 #*7)!

	0	
-9$
" *
+	


,	& 9	07*6(							# 

References
		=	/		8	:..		2

			A	/	84

9911179
99

9FF#	# 6

8	5		,	8@		2
-
	-	

'	$		/		=
	


4		'					/

2%		.				

	

'
4	,7#(!	5	"/		)7)!	# 

;1	"<	21	D	1	:.7

0	/4		








	5	

		5	


# *	-!F		 7##

'		2=		,H	=
		/4

'		8	,	+F	;.	# 6

99111199

'
	
		>0	;-	2:.	'	

"	0	0
% 

.4		








	
	5


	

	# 6	-	!#		*76

0	0	<	=	"	:		/

/	2	
			


		%	8	/	'	


	/4		






	/			@	

/	# *		-#		)*7)!#

0						
&


&-

+	
./

	



*0

,/	$		/	
	5

"/	".	# +

0.	0<	0	'		0	:


2A7>-		
		0	0
%



.4	'				


				>

0@	@	A.	#7	# 6


@		/0	2		%	/


		8		=	'4

	







/			@	/		# *

-#		)!#7)!

$
	"			,	


	
-	%&
10	,-.	# *

$
	"			,	


	
-		2	/	$	# (

A	/	

4	
.	# *

$
	"			,	


	
-		
-
!""2
&&


	# 6

$
	"			,	


	
-		2	/	$	# *

A	/	

4	
.	# 6.

$
	"			,	


	
-		2	/	$	# 6

A	/	

4	
	# 

$
	"				0	
-

2,1	$
	A	0	04		

99111-911999D

		# 		

$
	"				0	
-

2,1	$
	A	0	04		

99111-91199.9D

		# .		

$
	"			2I	

1	$
" 	8
4

99111-919.J		

;.	# 

3	5<	25		

	$?

:.70	/4		






	/	5	


0	/	# (	-)		#!+)7++

3@	>;		2	=		/	'

%4			.

&	# 6(	B.@	

		$
	"			# 6*

5		0	2/		>	# *4

	
	
	9911197


9	# 6

5	<	2"		'.	'	;-	8	/	

	84		
		
	# 	))7

)+

)F *
+	


,	& 9	07*6( 	0	
-9$
"