eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) (04/26/91)
T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET (I support Milton Born With A Tooth) writes: >I would like to have any reaction or any information about >bovine somatropin that can be provided to me by the nets. An interesting topic for discussion.... This seems like a case of a great product with no market. Perhaps someone can inject a few facts here but, it is my impression that a hormone capable of stimulating milk production is the last thing the American dairy industry needs. For all the government subsidies, the tons of milk purchased annually by the Agriculture Dept. to support prices, bovine somatotropin is a biotechnology product that was poorly conceived. I think the health issues raised are trivial; more attention should be given to economic necessity (or lack thereof) of the hormone. Comments? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TTGATTGCTAAACACTGGGCGGCGAATCAGGGTTGGGATCTGAACAAAGACGGTCAGATTCAGTTCGTACTGCTG Eric E. Snyder Department of MCD Biology ...making feet for childrens' shoes. University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347 LeuIleAlaLysHisTrpAlaAlaAsnGlnGlyTrpAspLeuAsnLysAspGlyGlnIleGlnPheValLeuLeu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agengcc@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Gordon Couger) (04/26/91)
In article <eesnyder.672629020@beagle> eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes: >T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET (I support Milton Born With A Tooth) writes: > >>I would like to have any reaction or any information about >>bovine somatropin that can be provided to me by the nets. > >An interesting topic for discussion.... > >This seems like a case of a great product with no market. Perhaps >someone can inject a few facts here but, it is my impression that >a hormone capable of stimulating milk production is the last thing >the American dairy industry needs. For all the government subsidies, >the tons of milk purchased annually by the Agriculture Dept. to support >prices, bovine somatotropin is a biotechnology product that was poorly >conceived. I think the health issues raised are trivial; more attention >should be given to economic necessity (or lack thereof) of the hormone. > >Comments? Any product that can increase production 10% or more has always and always will have a place in agriculture. As long as the cost of the practice used to increase production is less than the value of the increased product including long term cost and risk cost the practice has velue. For example if I produce milk and my cost are $0.50 per gallon a ten percent increase would drop those cost to $0.45 per gallon. If the cost of the hormone is $0.02 cents per gallon of milk then my profit is $0.03 per gallon. this may not seem like much but agriculture profits typicaly run 2 to 4% of gross sales over the long haul. So the small increase of 6% in efficiency would more than double the dairymans profit. If there is a market for the milk he could elect to produce more milk and make more money. If he can only sell so much milk he can reduce his herd and produce the same amount of milk for the same money. I farmed and ran cattle for many years on my own account and I can promise you that if you had something that could increase my efficiency 0.10% you had my undivided attention. When I first got involved in farming one man could take care of about 300 acres before I went broke my brother and I were farming ten times that. Much of that increase in productivity came from small incremental changes. The consumer should see lower milk prices not very much but lower and considerably lower beef prices that we have today. IMHO this kind of increase in production could easily trigger an eight to ten % sell off of the dairy herd. In the past this has resulted in substantial decline of beef prices. IMHO Gordon Couger Agriculture Engineering Okla State Univ 405 744 2794 . State University 405 increase would have to result in a sell off of 5 to 7% of the dairy has paid 2 to 4% profit on gross sales. So small increase in efficiency Any product that can increase B > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >TTGATTGCTAAACACTGGGCGGCGAATCAGGGTTGGGATCTGAACAAAGACGGTCAGATTCAGTTCGTACTGCTG >Eric E. Snyder >Department of MCD Biology ...making feet for childrens' shoes. >University of Colorado, Boulder >Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347 >LeuIleAlaLysHisTrpAlaAlaAsnGlnGlyTrpAspLeuAsnLysAspGlyGlnIleGlnPheValLeuLeu >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cl@lgc.com (Cameron Laird) (04/26/91)
In article <eesnyder.672629020@beagle> eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes: . . . >>I would like to have any reaction or any information about >>bovine somatropin that can be provided to me by the nets. > >An interesting topic for discussion.... > >This seems like a case of a great product with no market. Perhaps >someone can inject a few facts here but, it is my impression that >a hormone capable of stimulating milk production is the last thing >the American dairy industry needs. For all the government subsidies, >the tons of milk purchased annually by the Agriculture Dept. to support >prices, bovine somatotropin is a biotechnology product that was poorly >conceived. I think the health issues raised are trivial; more attention >should be given to economic necessity (or lack thereof) of the hormone. > >Comments? . . . One aspect of this debate that has been neglected is how marginal the practical consequences are likely to be, at least with the regimes I've heard described. Farmers are marvelously efficient now (well, at some things). BST increases production per cow, WHEN part of a larger management program that includes more feed per cow. Yes, BST increases the milk/feed ratio, but not as dramatically as the gross production boosts often reported. There are costs (daily? injections, ...) associated with BST. My conclusion: some operators will find it advantageous, some less so, and more resources will be spent discussing the issue than gained or lost directly applying it. . . . which might not be a bad thing. I agree with your instincts in turning attention to the economics rather than the biology of BST. This touches on a lot of subjects close to my heart, but I'll summarize briefly: BST isn't "needed"; however, I like living in a society which encourages folks to seek out better (OK, different) ways of doing things. To put it crudely, I know I don't need SPARCstations, paper-clips, representative government, sonnets, or paper bags, but I feel happier in this world for them. I have a bias toward the opportunity for innovation. -- Cameron Laird +1 713-579-4613 cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713-996-8546