Agricultural Technology and Family Farm Institute
Fact Sheet No. 3, March, 1995
What is currently known about Wisconsin farmers' adoption of
recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST, or BGH)? The Agricultural
Technology and Family Farm Institute (ATFFI) was created in part
to study the social and economic implications of agricultural
technologies like rBST. In line with this mission, the institute
has periodically surveyed Wisconsin farmers on their adoption of
rBST and attitudes towards the technology.
This fact sheet summarizes the results of the institute's most
recent survey, conducted in the late fall of 1994, and compares
those results to the institute's spring, 1994, survey. It
summarizes observed patterns in rBST use and attempts to explain
what those patterns might imply for the future of Wisconsin's
dairy sector.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT RBST ADOPTION PATTERNS AMONG WISCONSIN
FARMERS?
rBST was made commercially available on February 1, 1994. ATFFI
conducted two surveys_one in February and March of that year, and
another in November-December_collecting information on rBST use.
The most recent ATFFI survey shows relatively few Wisconsin dairy
producers using rBST and a small number still waiting to make a
decision. As of December, 1994, 54 percent of Wisconsin dairy
farmers indicated they'd never use rBST under any circumstances,
while an additional 36 percent said they were unlikely to use
rBST in the future. Only 5.5 percent of the state's dairy
farmers reported using rBST by the late fall of 1994, with
another 1 percent expecting to use the technology within the next
six months. Less than 4 percent said they'd wait at least six
months before making a final decision on rBST use.
Comparing these findings to a similar survey conducted in the
spring of 1994, the institute concluded:
Over the first 6 to 9 months that rBST was commercially
available, the number of actual rBST users nearly tripled, from
1.9 percent to 5.5 percent of Wisconsin dairy farmers.
Despite this increase, however, it doesn't appear that rBST
use in Wisconsin will increase dramatically in the foreseeable
future. The institute bases this conclusion on the fact that the
number of those waiting to make a decision about whether or not
to use the technology dropped from over 12 percent in the spring
of 1994 to around 4 percent in December. Furthermore, very few
of the respondents appeared to have changed their minds about
rBST use between the two surveys. Of the 441 farmers responding
to both the spring and fall surveys, only one producer
discontinued rBST use between the spring and late fall, while
three decided to use the technology after initially indicating
they wouldn't use the product.
The surveys also confirmed earlier reports that a much smaller
proportion of Wisconsin producers were using rBST than were dairy
farmers elsewhere in the United States.
Figures from Monsanto Corporation, currently the only
manufacturer of rBST licensed to sell the product (as PosilacTM),
suggest that about 10 percent of all U.S. dairy farmers were
using rBST as of December, 1994.
Survey research elsewhere indicates that almost 20 percent
of California dairy producers were using rBST. But most of these
producers were using it on a small proportion of their herds, so
that only about 8 percent of all California dairy cows are being
treated with rBST.
Using the California experience as a guide, the institute
estimates that about 2 percent of Wisconsin's dairy cows were
being injected with rBST as of December, 1994.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THOSE WHO HAVE ADOPTED RBST?
ATFFI researchers found that dairy farmers who have chosen to use
rBST have several distinguishing characteristics:
* They are younger on average than nonusers (42 years,
compared to 48 years for nonusers).
* They had more years of education.
* They had larger dairy herd sizes on average (97 cows,
compared to 50 cows for nonusers).
* They had higher rolling herd averages (21,136 lbs./cow,
versus 15,842 lbs./cow for nonusers).
* They were more likely to use Total Mixed Ration (TMR)
systems and be enrolled in Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI)
record-keeping programs. These practices are considered
important indicators of "intensive" management capabilities that
can ensure profitable use of rBST.
* They were less likely to support "pro-family farm" policies,
were more willing to take risks, and tended to view biotechnology
in general more positively than non-rBST users.
WHY ARE WISCONSIN'S ADOPTION RATES SO LOW?
There are two main reasons Wisconsin's rBST adoption rates have
been so low. First, the political and economic climate in
Wisconsin has discouraged its use.
* A 1990 University of Wisconsin survey revealed that
Wisconsin consumers had strong concerns that rBST use in milk
production might later be discovered to have ill human health
effects. Consumers surveyed were also concerned about rBST's
potential effects on the viability of the state's small farms.
* When asked in the ATFFI survey to explain why they are not
using rBST on their herds, 80 percent of farmers cited concern
over consumer reaction and possible effects on herd health, and
75 percent were concerned about the price-depressing effects of
higher levels of milk production.
* Intense political pressure from farmer and consumer groups
led the state Legislature to pass a bill permitting voluntary
labeling of milk.
* By fall of 1994, two-thirds of Wisconsin farmers reported
that their handlers either prohibited or discouraged them from
using rBST.
* Most fluid milk sold in Wisconsin is labeled as
"farmer-certified rBST free."
Second, rBST use is not profitable on all farms.
* Its use is most profitable if farmers already have the
managerial and technological capacity to handle the health and
nutrition needs of high-producing cows (for instance, enrollment
in Dairy Herd Improvement programs and use of Total Mixed Ration
[TMR] systems).
* Evidence from other states indicates that when the
manufacturer of PosilacTM raised the price of the product in
early 1995, some farmers discontinued use.
WHAT ARE SOME IMPLICATIONS OF WISCONSIN'S LOW ADOPTION RATES?
Since rBST adoption rates have been lower than expected
nationally, the dairy industry has not experienced the
significant milk production increases, price decreases, and exit
of small and medium family dairy farms which many analysts in the
late 1980s and early 1990s had predicted would follow rBST's
introduction into the marketplace.
Depending on how rBST adoption patterns unfold in coming years,
greater changes may lie ahead. In particular, if rBST use
outside Wisconsin increases over time and Wisconsin adoption
rates remain low_as well they might, according to ATFFI's
research findings_the state's dairy industry will face
competitive pressure to adapt to the new economic realities of
lower production costs elsewhere. Such adaptive strategies might
include: increasing the scale and technical efficiencies of
existing dairy farms; developing low-cost ways to compete in a
market with declining milk prices; developing new markets for
rBST-free products from Wisconsin; and being prepared to consider
the changes needed in marketing, processing, and on the farm to
broaden adoption of rBST.
This fact sheet is abstracted from The Political Economy of rBST
Adoption in America's Dairyland, ATFFI Technical Report #2, by
Bradford L. Barham, et al. To receive a copy of this free
report, contact ATFFI, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1450
Linden Drive, Room 146, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706 or call
608-265-2908.