The Dynamics of Agricultural Biotechnology Adoption: Lessons from series rBST Use in Wisconsin, 1994–2001

This article exploits panel data from Wisconsin dairy farmers to examine the dynamics of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) adoption and to identify the characteristics that distinguish among nonadopters, disadopters, and early and late adopters. Panel methods are used to control for omitted variables and endogenous regressors that call into question coefficient estimates derived from cross-section adoption models. The results, however, confirm previous findings that larger farms with complementary feeding technologies are more likely to adopt rBST, nonadopters appear quite unlikely to become adopters, and rBST adoption will remain at rather moderate levels in Wisconsin.

[1]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[2]  Jeremy Foltz,et al.  The Adoption and Profitability of Rbst on Connecticut Dairy Farms , 2002 .

[3]  Robert E. Evenson,et al.  The importance of feed management technologies in the decision to adopt bovine somatotropin: an application to California dairy producers , 2001 .

[4]  M. Khanna.  Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model , 2001 .

[5]  L. Cameron,et al.  The Importance of Learning in the Adoption of High‐Yielding Variety Seeds , 1999 .

[6]  Zdenko Stefanides,et al.  The Empirical Impact of Bovine Somatotropin on a Group of New York Dairy Farms , 1999 .

[7]  B. Barham.  Adoption of a Politicized Technology: Bst and Wisconsin Dairy Farmers , 1996 .

[8]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture , 1995, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  L. J. Butler,et al.  The Role of Information in Technology Adoption: The Case of rbST in the California Dairy Industry , 1995 .

[10]  Lydia Zepeda,et al.  Simultaneity Of Technology Adoption And Productivity , 1994 .

[11]  D. Guilkey,et al.  Estimation and testing in the random effects probit model , 1993 .

[12]  Anne Case,et al.  Modeling Technology Adoption in Developing Countries , 1993 .

[13]  M. Hallberg.  Bovine Somatotropin and Emerging Issues , 1993 .

[14]  L. Zepeda.  PREDICTING BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN USE BY CALIFORNIA DAIRY FARMERS , 1990 .

[15]  W. Huffman,et al.  The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables , 1984 .

[16]  Gershon Feder,et al.  The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology , 1984 .

[17]  David Zilberman,et al.  Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey , 1985, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

[18]  E. Mansfield.  TECHNICAL CHANGE AND THE RATE OF IMITATION , 1961 .

[19]  Z. Griliches.  HYBRID CORN: AN EXPLORATION IN THE ECONOMIC OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE , 1957 .

[20]  L. Tauer.  The Estimated Economic Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin on New York Dairy Farms for the Years 2994 through 1997 , 2001 .

[21]  B. Barham,et al.  THE ADOPTION OF RBST ON WISCONSIN DAIRY FARMS , 2000 .

[22]  L. Butler.  The profitability of rBST on U.S. dairy farms , 1999 .

[23]  F. Kuchler,et al.  The Simple Analytics of Technology Adoption: Bovine Growth Hormone and the Dairy Industry , 1990 .

[24]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .