Current contribution of four biotechnologies to New Zealand's primary sector

AgBioForum

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 65-70

  Kaye Blake, William H ^a   Saunders, Caroline M ^a   Dalziel, Paul ^a  

^a LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Bio control agents; Biotechnology; Marker assisted selection; New Zealand; Primary sector

Indexed keywords

EID: 38549094683     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1522936X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Abeledo, L.G., Calderini, D.F., & Slafer, G.A. (2002). Physiological changes associated with genetic improvement of grain yield in barley. In G.A. Slafer, J.L. Molina-Cano, R. Savin, J.L. Araus, & I. Romagosa (Eds.), Barley science - Recent advances from molecular biology to agronomy of yield and quality (pp. 361-385). Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press.
2. Auld, B.A. (1998). On the social value of biological control of weeds. International Journal of Social Economics, 25(6/7/8), 1199.
3. Bajaj, Y.P.S. (1990). Biotechnology in wheat breeding. In Y.P.S. Bajaj (Ed.), Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry 13 (pp. 3-23). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
4. Barney, J.B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.
5. Benbrook, C. (1999). Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup-Ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998 (no. 1). Sandpoint, Idaho: Benbrook Consulting Services.
6. Benbrook, C. (2001). Do GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pesticide Outlook, 12(5), 204-207.
7. Black, M., Guy, M., & McLellan, N. (2003). Productivity in New Zealand, 1988 to 2002 (Working Paper No. 03/06). Wellington: New Zealand Treasury.
8. Burtt, E.S. (Ed.). (2004). Financial budget manual 2004. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
9. Caswell, M.F., Fuglie, K.O., & Klotz, C.A. (1998). Agricultural biotechnology: An economic perspective (Report 687). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
10. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2000). Economic impacts of genetically modified crops on the agrifood sector. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
11. Duffy, M. (2001, December). Who benefits from biotechnology? Paper presented to the American Seed Trade Association meeting, Chicago, IL.
12. Duvick, D.N., Cooper, J.S.C., & Smith, M. (2004). Changes in performance, parentage, and genetic diversity of successful corn hybrids, 1930-2000. In C.W. Smith, J. Betran, & E.C.A. Runge (Eds.), Corn: Origin, history, technology, and production (pp. 65-97). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
13. Evenson, R.E. (2003). Production impacts of crop genetic improvement. In R.E. Evenson and D. Gollin (Eds.), Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity (pp. 447-471). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
14. Evenson, R.E., & Gollin, D. (Eds.). (2003). Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
15. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. (2000). Genetically engineered crops for pest management in U.S. agriculture: Farm-level effects (Report 786). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
16. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. (2002). Adoption of bioengineered crops (Report 810). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
17. Gianessi, L.P., Silvers, C.S., Sankula, S., & Carpenter, J.E. (2002). Plant biotechnology: Current and potential impact for improving pest management in U.S. agriculture. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.
18. HortResearch. (2003). New Zealand horticulture facts and figures. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Author.
19. Kaye-Blake, W., & Saunders, C. (2006, July 23-26). Estimated contribution of four biotechnologies to New Zealand agriculture. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Conference, Long Beach, CA.
20. Kaye-Blake, W., Saunders, C., Emanuelsson, M., Dalziel, P., & Wreford, A. (2005). The economic contribution of four biotechnologies to New Zealand's primary sector (AERU Research Report No. 270). Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
21. Marra, M.C., Pardey, P.G., & Alston, J.M. (2002). The payoffs to agricultural biotechnology: An assessment of the evidence (Report 87). Washington, DC: Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute.
22. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). (2004). Situation and outlook for New Zealand agriculture and forestry. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
23. New Zealand Government (2003). New Zealand biotechnology strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.morst.govt.nz/Documents/work/ biotech/NZBiotech-Strategy.pdf.
24. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2000). Modern biotechnology and agricultural markets: A discussion of selected issues. Paris, France: Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Committee for Agriculture.
25. Porter, M.E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95-117.
26. Shoemaker, R., Harwood, J., Day-Rubenstein, K., Dunahay, T., Heisey, P., Hoffman, L., et al. (2001). Economic issues in agricultural biotechnology (Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 762). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib762/aib762.pdf.
27. Traxler, G., Falck-Zepeda, J., Ortiz-Monasterio, J.I.R., & Sayre, K. (1995). Production risk and the evolution of varietal technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(1), 1-7.