|
|
 
|
Study reveals that Bt cotton performing poorly in India
(Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2003 -- CropChoice news) --
Results of small field study in selected locations in Maharashtra and Andhra
Pradesh, two of the six states that have been granted permission to
commercially cultivate Bt cotton – the first genetically-modified crop to be
cultivated in India.
Suman Sahai, Shakeelur Rahman
Bt cotton is the first genetically modified crop to be cultivated in India.
Gene campaign conducted a small field study to collect data on Bt cotton and
non-Bt cotton performance. The survey was conducted in selected locations in
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, two of the six states that have been granted
permission to commercially cultivate Bt cotton. The survey included a total
of 100 farming families selected by random sampling from those who had
chosen to grow Bt cotton on a portion of their landholding. These farmers
were also growing non-Bt cotton simultaneously. Of the total of 100 families
surveyed, 25 were from Maharashtra and 75 from Andhra Pradesh. Scientists
from the Agricultural University in Hyderabad accompanied the Gene campaign
researchers.
Bt and Non-Bt Varieties:A Comparison
The Bt cotton varieties compared were Bt 162 and Bt 184 belonging to
Mahyco-Monsanto and the non-Bt cotton varieties were the local hybrids
‘Brahma’ and ‘Banny’. The Bt cotton was found to be a shorter duration crop
(90-100 days) than the non-Bt cotton (100 to 120 days) but the plants showed
less vigorous growth, with fewer branches and smaller leaves. A major
problem reported everywhere was the premature dropping of bolls in Bt
cotton.
A comparison of bolls and fibre in non-Bt and Bt cotton in Table 1, showed
that the number of bolls per plant was higher in the non-Bt cotton variety.
Whereas the non-Bt variety averaged 95 bolls per plant in the Bt variety the
average was only 50 bolls. Fibre length was also longer in the non-Bt
varieties, which had better grade cotton. Non-Bt cotton was graded as A and
B quality whereas Bt cotton was graded as B and C.
Table 1: Comparison between Bolls and Fibre of Non-Bt and Bt-Cotton
Item Non-Bt Cotton Bt Cotton
Number of bolls/plant 95 (70-120) 50 (25-75)
Table 2: Comparison of Pest Attack on Non-Bt and Bt Cotton
Pest Non-Bt Cotton vs. Bt Cotton
Leaf sucker: Moderate, Moderate
Although both cotton types demonstrated a range of small to large bolls,
more Bt cotton bolls were of a smaller size than the non-Bt cotton. Cotton
traders admitted that because of the poor quality, demand for Bt cotton was
low and they were mixing Bt cotton with non-Bt to dispose off Bt cotton
stocks.
One of the most significant findings of this study was the indication that
this Bt cotton variety does not offer protection against pink bollworm
(Pectinophora gossypiella). Pink bollworm attack was found to be severe
after 60 to 70 days. There are two possible reasons for this. The first is
that the period of expression of the Bt endotoxin does not coincide with the
time of the bollworm attack. This would mean that when the pest attacks the
cotton, it is not expressing the endotoxin gene and therefore not offering
any protection against the pest. The other explanation is that the pink
bollworm is not susceptible to the Bt endotoxin.
The latter theory receives support from scientific literature. Morin et al
(2003), report that field populations of pink bollworm harbour three genetic
mutations that confer resistance to Bt toxin. Normal pink bollworm
caterpillars die when they eat bolls of genetically modified cotton plants
that produce Bt toxin, but resistant caterpillars survive. This resistance
is inherited as a recessive trait, so caterpillars with two mutant versions
of the gene are resistant, but those with one or none are susceptible.
In another study Liu et al (1999) show that in the laboratory, the larval
stage of the pink bollworm gets prolonged to 21 days when it is feeding on
Bt cotton. When feeding on non-Bt cotton, it is about 15 days. This
difference makes it more likely that resistant bollworm moths would mate
with each other rather than with susceptible individuals. In this case, all
their offspring would be resistant to the Bt cotton, as they would inherit
two copies of the resistance gene. So the Bt resistance would persist and
spread in the bollworm population. Pink bollworm in India has probably been
exposed to Bt toxin from the field trials that have been conducted these
past years and from the use of Bt pesticide sprays.
Agricultural landholdings where both Bt and non-Bt cotton, were cultivated
have been divided into low yielding, medium yielding and high yielding based
on the type and quality of soil, topography, availability of water for
irrigation and resource capacity of farmers.
As seen in Table 3, average yield per acre in low yielding field type is
3.25 quintals and 2.75 quintals in the case of non-Bt and Bt cotton
respectively. In the case of medium yielding field type, the yields are 5.50
quintals per acre and 4.75 quintals per acre for non-Bt and Bt cotton
respectively. Similarly, in high yielding field type, the yield per acre is
9.0 quintals and 7.5 quintals for non-Bt and Bt cotton respectively. Thus,
in all categories of landholdings, Bt cotton has performed worse than its
non-Bt counterpart.
Table 3: Yield Comparison of Bt and Non-Bt Cotton in Quintal/Acre
Field Type
Low yielding 3.25 (2.5-4.0), 2.75 (2-3.5)
Cotton traders confirmed that demand for Bt cotton was low and prices ranged
from Rs 2,000 to 2,100/qt whereas non-Bt cotton was selling at Rs 2,200 to
2,350/qt.
Economics of Bt Cotton Cultivation
The economics of cultivating Bt cotton is clearly not in favour of farmers.
The seed is about four times more expensive than the good local hybrids. The
difference in the price of seed is approximately Rs 1,200 per (450 gm) bag,
which is needed to plant an acre. As against this outlay, savings on
pesticide were meagre, averaging Rs 217 per acre.
As Table 4 shows, the investment per acre is much higher for Bt cotton than
for non-Bt cotton varieties. The Bt cotton farmer had to invest on average,
Rs 983 more per acre than his non-Bt counterpart.
Table 4: Comparative Investment in Bt and Non-Bt Cotton in Rs/Acre
Seed 400, 1,600
Yield /acre of Bt cotton was lower than non-Bt cotton and the cotton was of
poorer quality thus fetching a lower price per quintal. Added to this was
the higher investment in Bt cotton fields. The net result was significantly
poor results from Bt cotton which are reflected in the data on comparative
incomes, in Table 5.
Table 5: Comparative Income from Bt and Non-Bt Cotton
Farm Non-Bt Cotton Bt Cotton
Farmers
(Per Cent) Income/Acre
(Rs) Net Profit/Acre
(Rs)
Farmers
(Per Cent) Income
(Rs) Net Profit/Acre
(Rs)
Low yielding 35 7,394 2,661 60 5,637 -79 (losses)
Medium Yielding 58 12,512 7,779 35 9,737 4,021
High yielding 7 20,475 15,742 5 15,375 9,659
Net profit from Bt cotton was lower per acre compared to non-Bt cotton in
all types of fields (low to high yielding). In fact, 60 per cent of the
farmers cultivating Bt cotton were not even able to recover their investment
and incurred losses averaging Rs 79 per acre. The performance of Bt cotton
in the areas studied in Maharshtra and Andhra Pradesh, has been decidedly
poor and the farmers have had to suffer losses. Not surprisingly, an
overwhelming majority of the farming families surveyed (98 per cent) said
they were not interested in growing Bt cotton again.
The study examined if any pre-cultivation training was given to farmers by
any of the government agencies or Mahyco-Monsanto. It was found that neither
state nor central government agencies had provided any training. The seed
company had made available pamphlets showing that spraying had to be done on
Bt cotton if number of pests exceeded a certain level. The major efforts of
the company were directed towards broadcasting taped messages extolling the
virtues of Bt cotton rather than any tips on cultivation.
No technical assistance was provided to the farmers during cultivation
either by any governmental agency or by Mahyco-Monsanto. In the absence of
any extension help, farmers had no one to assist them when they faced
problems during cultivation and pest attacks.
One of the most shocking revelations of this investigation was the fact that
neither state level nor district level committees had been set up in either
Maharashtra or Andhra Pradesh where Bt cotton was being commercially grown.
This is a breach of law and a direct violation of the prescribed rules for
the manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous
micro-organisms and genetically-engineered organisms and cells, under the
Environment Protection Act, 1989.
Enquiries made during the survey also revealed that no one had come to that
area to collect field data for monitoring insect attacks and crop
performance so at least in this area, no baseline data is being collected to
evaluate the impact of Bt cotton on the environment, on beneficial insects,
on other cotton crops and on the ecosystem. This amounts to gross
negligence.
A number of factors have probably contributed to the failure of
Mahyco-Monsanto’s Bt cotton. The first is the poor quality of the variety
itself. It is well known that Mahyco-Monsanto’s cotton varieties, MECH 162
and MECH 184, which were transformed to Bt 162 and Bt 184, are poor to
modest performers, giving modest yields. A better performing cotton would
give a better Bt cotton so the GEAC must answer why it approved this Bt
cotton when better quality Bt cotton hybrids belonging to Indian companies
are in the pipeline.
With the substantially higher cost of seeds, the economics of the Bt crop is
not favourable for the farmer. In addition to the high cost of the seed is
the modest saving in pesticide, which does not make up for the large expense
incurred on seed. Tilting the balance further is the fact that Bt cotton
must be grown with a refuge, necessary for resistance management. This is
recommended as 20 per cent of the cultivated area by the GEAC. ‘Wasting’ 20
per cent of the land on managing resistance makes the Bt cotton even more
nonviable, especially for small farmers.
A further problem appears to be the vulnerability of Bt cotton to pink
bollworm, which is a significant cotton pest in India. If this is indeed the
case as the study demonstrates, then the Bt strategy for cotton is likely to
fail because if the Bt endotoxin protects only against the green bollworm
and not against the pink bollworm, then farmers will have to continue
pesticide sprays. Another factor, which needs to be investigated with some
rigour, is the period of gene expression of the Bt gene in each of the
varieties in which it is being incorporated. If the period of endotoxin
expression does not coincide with the period of pest attack, then no
protection will be available against the bollworm.
The GEAC has to be held accountable for the failure of Bt cotton as much as
the company providing the seed. Why did it keep the field trial data of Bt
cotton secret when there were so many demands to examine this data? We need
to know from the GEAC how approval for commercial cultivation in Andhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra was granted when no state and district level
committee was set up. The GEAC must also fix responsibility for the failed
cotton crop and make Mahyco-Monsanto compensate those farmers who have
suffered losses. This is required under the Indian law, the Protection of
Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act 2001. Section 39.2, of the law states
clearly that:
Where any propagating material of a variety registered under this Act has
been sold to a farmer or a group of farmers or any organisation of farmers,
the breeder of such variety shall disclose to the farmer or the group of
farmers or the organisation of farmers, as the case may be, the expected
performance under given conditions, and if such propagating material fails
to provide such performance under such given conditions, the farmer or the
group of farmers or the organisation of farmers, as the case may be, may
claim compensation…
References
Morin, Shai et al (2003): 'Three Cadherin Alleles Associated with Resistance
to Bacillus thurengensis in Pink Bollworm', PNAS, 100:5004-09.
Source: http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=07&filename=6073&filetype=html
| |
