Science has given us the supercomputer, the superconductor and the superhighway. Nothing could be left but the supercow.

This cow could produce 10 to 20 percent more milk -- chemically identical to ordinary milk -- and eat about 10 percent less feed per pound of milk. And all it would need is a shot every two weeks.

Last November, after more than 10 years of research, the use of the hormone bovine somatotropin (bST) was approved for use in boosting milk production in cows. But as soon as the hormone was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Congress put a 90-day moratorium on its use.

Ronald Kensinger, associate professor of animal nutrition and physiology, said bST has been stuck in the test stage for a decade even though there are no health concerns about the use of the hormone to stimulate higher milk production.

"We have used bST in my lab in growth experiments," he said.

What the approval of bST will mean to the University is hard to calculate, said Kensinger. The greatest impact the controversy about bST has had so far is an increase in questions to the College of Agricultural Sciences from farmers.

"It's been affecting us already for a couple of years," said Kensinger, who added that the college has been handling questions about bST for some time.

Bovine somatotropin works by slowing down the use of nutrients in the bloodstream of a cow, thus supplying more unused nutrients to the mammary gland of the cow for the production of milk, Kensinger said. At the same time, bST increases the synthesis of glucose, which is necessary for the creation of milk, or lactose, in the cow's liver.

The only effect on the cow would be an increased appetite.

"After treating them a few days, they'd begin to eat more," said Kensinger, adding that this would only occur because of the increased efficiency of the cow's systems.

Some people are still uncomfortable with this more-efficient cow. Protestors have sprung up in cities around the country.

Keith Ashdown, East Coast coordinator of the Pure Food Campaign, a grass roots organization that has lobbied Congress about mandatory labeling of bST-produced milk, said studies also show bST-treated milk carries higher levels of some growth hormones. He said the hormone levels make the milk potentially harmful and different from other non-enhanced milk.

"Our belief is that it is not the same," he said. "For example, compositionally, water and oil are quite similar."

Some students are just as skeptical. Kristie Dougherty (senior-nutrition) said she probably would not drink milk that had been produced with hormones.

"I think they should tell you which milk has the hormones," she said. Currently, individual milk processors can choose to label which milk used bST in its production and which did not.

Jason Staley (sophomore-history) said he wouldn't mind drinking the milk.

"I don't see the problem with it," he said. "The hormone's in the cow, not in the milk."

Lisa Watson, a spokeswoman for Monsanto Co. of St. Louis, which produces bST, said, "The milk is the same, so a label which differentiates between treated and untreated milk is potentially misleading," she said, adding that there is no test that could determine what milk incorporated bST in its production and what milk had not.

Kensinger has even higher hopes for bST. Because the hormone also seems to stimulate the production of an insulin-like chemical over a long period of time, it could be used to help diabetics.

"I suspect people are trying to apply it toward insulin delivery already," he said.