Advertisement

Animal Patents pp 100-113 | Cite as

Implications for Agriculture

  • Robert Milligan
  • William Lesser

Abstract

Although a number of individuals oppose animal patents on moral or ethical grounds (see Brody’s paper), a large portion of the expressed concerns is based on economics. This is true in particular of owner/managers of small farms who have been buffeted by change in the farm sector to the degree that US farm numbers have declined by some 60 percent from 1950 to 1984 according to the US Department of Agriculture. Virtually all of this loss has been among the groups of smaller farms, and most studies project further attrition of small farms for the predictable future (US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1986). It is no surprise therefore that among farmers the “family farm” advocates are the most vocal opponents of patenting animals (Huber, 1988; see also Sorensen’s paper).

Keywords

Growth Hormone Small Farm Feed Efficiency Farm Size Large Farm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agriculture Canada, Regional Development Branch (1984) Technology Transfer in Agriculture: What It Is and How It Occurs.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, L. S., R. W. Hemken, R. J. Harmon, and R. G. Eggert (1986) Response of Lactating Dairy Cows to Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH). J. Dairy Sci., 69 (Suppl. 1): 118.Google Scholar
  3. Bauman, D. E., P. J. Eppard, M. J. De Geeter, and G. M. Lanza (1985) Responses of High Producing Dairy Cows to Long Term Treatment with Pituitary- and Recombinant-Somatotropin. J. Dairy Sci., 68: 1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brim, C. (1987) Plant Breeding and Biotechnology in the United States of America: Changing Needs for Protection of Plant Varieties. Symposium on the Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, Ithaca, NY, June 4–5, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, L. J. and B. W. Marion (1983) Impacts of Patent Protection in the US Seed Industry and Public Plant Breeding. University of Wisconsin, NC-117, Monograph no. 16.Google Scholar
  6. Chalupa, W., B. Vecchiarelli, P. Schneider, and R. G. Eggert (1986) Long-Term Responses of Lactating Cows to Daily Injections of Recombinant Somatotropin. J. Dairy Sci., 69 (Suppl. 1): 151.Google Scholar
  7. Connor, J. M., R. T. Rogers, B. W. Marion, and W. F. Mueller (1985) The Food Manufacturing Industries: Structure, Strategies, Performance and Policies. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  8. Fabry, J., L. Ruelle, V. Claes, and E. Ettaib (1985) Efficacity of Exogenous Bovine Growth Hormone for Increased Weight Gains, Feed Efficiency and Carcass Quality in Beef Heifers. J. Anim. Sci., 61 (Suppl. 1): 261–2.Google Scholar
  9. Griliches, Z. (1957) Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change. Econometrica, 25: 501–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huber, S. (1988) Testimony in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administrator of Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary. Patents and the Constitution: Transgenic Animals. Washington, DC, serial no. 23.Google Scholar
  11. Hutchison, D. F., J. E. Tomlinson, and W. H. McGee (1986) The Effects of Exogenous Recombinant or Pituitary Extracted Bovine Growth Hormone on Performance of Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 69 (Suppl. 1): 152.Google Scholar
  12. Kalter, R. J. et al. (1984) Biotechnology and the Dairy Industry Production Costs and Commercial Potential of the Bovine Growth Hormone. Cornell Univ., Dept. Agr. Econ., A.E. Res. 84–22.Google Scholar
  13. Kalter, R. J. and R. A. Milligan (1986) Emerging Agricultural Technologies: Economic and Policy Implications for Animal Production. National Academy of Sciences Conferences on Technology and Agricultural Policy, December 11–13, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. Kelleher, M. (1988) Cornell University, Agricultural Economics, unpublished data.Google Scholar
  15. Leibenluft, R. F. (1981) Competition in Farm Inputs: An Examination of Four Industries. US Federal Trade Commission, Office of Policy Planning.Google Scholar
  16. Lesser, W. (1987) Financing University Research through Patenting and Licensing: Recent Policies and Practices at Cornell University as an Example. Int. Rev. Indust. Property Copyright Law, 18: 360–71.Google Scholar
  17. Magrath, W. B. and L. W. Tauer (1986) The Economic Impact of bGH on the New York State Dairy Sector: Comparative State Results. NE J. Agric. Res. Econ., 15: 6–13.Google Scholar
  18. Manchester, A. C. (1980) Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives and Antitrust Law: A Discussion Paper. Unpublished monograph, US Dept. Agriculture, Econ., Statistics and Cooperatives Service.Google Scholar
  19. Marion, B. W. (1986) The Organization and Performance of the US Food System. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  20. Meitzer, M. I. (1987) Repartitioning Agents in Livestock: Economic Impact of Porcine Growth Hormone. Master’s thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council (1987) Agricultural Biotechnology Strategies for National Competitiveness, Report Prepared by Committee on a National Strategy on Biotechnology in Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. New York Agricultural Statistics Service (1988) New York Agricultural Statistics 1987. Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  23. Perrin, R. K., K. A. Hunnings, and L. A. Ihnen (1983) Some Effects of the US Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970. North Carolina State Univ., Econ. Res. Rpt. 46.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, S. F., W. G. Knoblauch, and L. D. Putnam (1988) Dairy Farm Business Summary, New York, 1987. Cornell University, Dept. Agricultural Economics, A.E. Res. 88–8.Google Scholar
  26. Soderholm, C. G., D. E. Otterby, F. R. Ehle, J. G. Linn, W. P. Hansen, and R. J. Annexstad (1986) Effects of Different Doses of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbSTH) on Milk Production, Body Composition, and Conditions Score in Lactating Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 69 (Suppl. 1): 152.Google Scholar
  27. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1986) Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, OTA-F-285.Google Scholar
  28. US Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting Service (various years) Crop Production Summary.Google Scholar
  29. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1975) Historical Statistics of the US: Colonial Time to 1970, part 1.Google Scholar
  30. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1982) 1982 Census of Agriculture, vol. 1, part 51, US: Summary and State Data.Google Scholar
  31. Van Arsdall, R. N. and K. E. Nelson (1984) US Hog Industry. US Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Service, Ag. Econ. Rpt., no. 511.Google Scholar
  32. — (1985) Economics of Size in Hog Production. US Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Service, Tech. Bull., no. 1712.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Milligan
  • William Lesser

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations