Introduction
In order for a new crop variety to be successful, it must have
characteristics favorable to farmers. This section of the
research investigated under which conditions, in terms of yields,
technology fees, and premiums, would lead to farmer adoption of HAP
corn. In addition, farmers were also asked about other traits
they view as important and whether a GM or non-GM version would be
preferred.
Methods
A survey was targeted towards corn farmers to assess the
feasibility of farmer acceptance and adoption of HAP corn under different
potential scenarios. The last was
essential since the research is an ex ante investigation of adoption,
conducted prior to being certain what characteristics a finalized HAP corn may
possess. In order to understand which
characteristics are most important to farmers in their decisions to adopt new
seed varieties and thus help design the survey, a focus group was
conducted. The focus group consisted of
grain farmers, crop scientists, and Cooperative Extension experts from various
areas throughout Delaware
in order to obtain a wide range of knowledge and opinions.
Using the information gained from the focus group and the
experiences of the investigators, the survey was designed. The main focus was on seed price, yield, and
premium potential. A unique conjoint
design where farmers were asked to project adoption over the next three years
for various possible HAP corn outcomes was used. Other questions were used to judge if it
mattered whether the HAP trait was the result of genetic modification or
not.
The mailing list was provided by the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS), an agency of the USDA. The list provided by NASS included 1,902
Delmarva corn farmers after removing bad addresses and those who do not grow
corn on the Delmarva Peninsula. Timing of the survey was carefully planned to
arrive during farmers’ non-busy season.
To aid response rate it was also kept as short as possible and had
minimal need for farmers to check records to complete. After the first mailing and reminder
postcard, 740 usable surveys were returned, yielding a final response rate of
38.91%, which exceeded initial expectations.
Analysis of survey data was conducted using a Tobit regression model, including
quadratic and two-way interaction terms, and corrected for heteroskedasticity.
Findings
Results indicated that an optimal HAP corn variety for
farmers would have a low technology fee, a low yield drag, and a high harvest
premium. Assuming farmers do not incur
financial losses, the study suggests that HAP corn adoption would increase over
time. However, in the hypothetical HAP
corn scenarios farmers were less tolerant of negative aspects, such as
technology fees and yield drag, as time progressed.
The study also found that certain groups of farmers, such as
those with high soil phosphorus levels, may be more inclined to adopt HAP
corn. This higher willingness to pay for
HAP corn sometimes manifested itself as a higher tolerance for negative
characteristics. Farmers with lower
levels of education were less sensitive to increases in HAP technology fees and
yield drags. Older farmers also appeared
to be more tolerant of yield drags associated with HAP corn. Aside from differences in adoption resulting
from the underlying characteristics of HAP corn, the farmers’ adoption of HAP
corn seemed to be affected by the farm size, the portion of farm income from
corn, and the use of a computer for financial management.
There are, of course, some aspects of development and
management that could improve the ease of adaptation to HAP corn. Ideally HAP corn would not require any
specialized management, such as on farm storage or segregation, but this is
doubtful since it is a nutritionally beneficial product. Segregation would likely deter many farmers
from purchasing HAP corn unless markets offered a very large premium. Therefore, Delmarva grain handlers should
develop an efficient way to segregate corn which does not greatly inconvenience
farmers. This may require handlers to
update processing equipment or to purchase additional storage bins. Another option is to dedicate certain locations
or days to accept HAP corn at grain handling facilities. Fortunately, the precautionary measures taken
to avoid contamination of non-GM foods should not be necessary in segregating
HAP corn.
For HAP corn to be successful it should also be
available in combination with other value added traits, such as YieldGard Corn
Borer and RoundupReady. The results
indicated that the average Delmarva corn farmer would not be opposed to a GM
version of HAP corn. In fact, farmers
may prefer a GM version if it meant they would not have to compromise good
agronomic characteristics for the benefits of HAP corn. While the corn growers do have some
reservations, overall they appeared concerned about the environment and willing
to do their part in reducing pollution.
Implications
The poultry industry and the grain farmers working with it
on the Delmarva Peninsula will be the primary beneficiaries. These two groups make up the majority of
agricultural activity and receipts in the area.
Local poultry companies employ over thirteen thousand people and produce
more than 567 million chickens per year, or over 6% of the US total. Meeting the demand for corn and soybeans to
feed these chickens is the main focus of many of the region’s farmers. Helping find a solution to phosphorus
pollution concerns stemming from this system will thus aid a substantial number
of participants. These benefits,
importantly, would not go to only a small set within the system. For farmers, potential benefits should be
consistent regardless of their scale of operation, length of time farming, or
minority status.
Members of the swine industry should also benefit from this
study. As noted earlier, using HAP as a
feed ingredient in this sector should yield similar results in terms of
reducing phosphorus pollution. Potential
regional differences would need to be examined, but the farmer findings in
particular should be highly applicable.
Answers here will also be beneficial to biotechnology
research companies by helping them more clearly focus research and
development. The encouraging aspect of
interest in products with environmental benefits should indicate a promising
future market. This information is of
great importance in a field where successful creation of a new GM crop is an
expensive undertaking, and understanding here will aid efficiency in effort. The lack of knowledge about their products,
and underlying concerns expressed by many on the survey should additionally
point to the need for better education and marketing.