PRB 98-1E
THE
IMPACT OF rbST
ON THE DAIRY INDUSTRY
Prepared by:
Frédéric Forge
Science and Technology Division
October 1998
In September 1994, Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada set up a task force on rbST, made up of representatives of industry,
producers, consumers, and government. The task force examined the potential impact of this
product on the dairy industry in Canada in its May 1995 report entitled Review of the
Potential Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) in Canada.
In this report, the task force
considered the costs and benefits of adopting rbST for the dairy industry as a whole, for
the supply management system, for dairy farms and for the dairy processing industry. It
also studied the impact of rbST on the genome and on the genetic evaluation of dairy
cattle in Canada. The following paragraphs are based on this report.
Supply Management
and the Processing Industry
According to the task force
report, the use of rbST would have only a relatively modest impact on the production
calculations used to determine the target price for milk, unless its use became widespread
among producers. Similarly, the value of production quotas would change very little in the
long term.
A dual marketing system in which a distinction
was made between rbST-free milk and undifferentiated milk(1) would be very expensive in Canada. The
differentiation of these products would involve a complete reorganization of the Canadian
supply management system and substantial costs for the dairy processing industry.
Dairy Operations
According to the task force
report, prices would fall, regardless of whether milk consumption remained unchanged or
whether a negative reaction by consumers led to a decline in sales. Consumers would
benefit if all the savings achieved were passed on to them. If there were a 3% decline in
sales, the profitability of the industry would decline by 2.4% on average; however, net
revenues from dairy operations would be maintained.
Since rbST is a management
tool, it is unlikely that its use will become very widespread. Farm management is a more
important factor in profitability than the use of rbST. Unlike the construction of a
building, for example, the use of this product does not require any major additional
investment. However, there would be certain additional costs in the administration of this
product, for example the cost of additional feed. It would be up to each farmer to make
the choice on the basis of his or her own economic calculations.
According to studies, the
influence of this product on the number of dairy operations in Canada would be minimal and
its use would be cost-effective for most commercial dairy operations. The quality of the
dairy operation, rather than its size, would determine the increase in dairy production.
Animal Genetics
Scientists
who have assessed the impact of rbST on the genetic assessment of dairy cattle have
concluded that approval of the product must not be dependent on its impact on animal
genetics. However, they have made 15 recommendations designed to reduce the impact of the
product on genetic upgrading programs; in particular, they recommend continuation of the
research into the relationship between rbST and animal genetics.
(1)
"Undifferentiated milk" would be milk from cows that might or might not have
received rbST. |