NEW STUDY SHOWS BT COTTON NEARLY 700% MORE EXPENSIVE

[Guest guest]

GMW: NEW STUDY SHOWS BT COTTON NEARLY 700% MORE EXPENSIVE

" GM WATCH " <info

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:41:21 GMT

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

 

The Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) in Andhra Pradesh, India,

organised a press conference last week where they released two reports.

 

The first, given below, shows that Bt cotton growers in 2004 incurred

690% higher costs in pest management as compared to those growing

conventional cotton varieties with the help of bio-pesticides and natural

control agents.

 

The other report - a compilation of the experience of the 3 years of Bt

Cotton commercial cultivation in Andhra Pradesh - is to follow.

 

Bt cotton is coming up for review in India in March 2005, when the GEAC

of the Ministry of Environment and Forests is going to decide on the

extension or otherwise of the 3-year conditional approval granted to the

3 Monsanto-Mahyco varieties.

 

Together these new reports give the lie to all the hype about Bt cotton

that is being generated on behalf of the biotech industry, and show the

truth of what Devinder Sharma said at the time Monsanto's Bt cotton was

granted approval: " It is the biggest scientific fraud to have hit

Independent India " .

 

The Centre for Sustainable Agriculture concludes that it is also time

that Monsanto-Mahyco be made accountable for the losses that Indian

farmers have suffered. Even though time and again government committees

have ordered the company to pay compensation to farmers, the company is

still refusing to do so.

 

NEWS REPORT AND ACTUAL STUDY

1.Bt cotton growers in AP feel the heat: study

2.Findings of a study done by Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

------

1.Bt cotton growers in AP feel the heat: study

ASHOK B SHARMA

Finacial Express

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=83351

 

NEW DELHI, FEB 22: Bt cotton growers, in 2004, incurred 690% higher

cost in pest management as compared to those growing conventional cotton

varieties with the help of bio-pesticides and natural control agents.

 

The Secunderabad-based centre for sustainable agriculture (CSA), which

conducted a study in major cotton-growing districts of Andhra Pradesh,

namely Warangal and Medak, said farmers could benefit in the short and

long term by restraining the use of chemical pesticides and transgenic

technology which destroys ecological balance.

 

The CSA study was conducted by a team consisting of entomologist SMA

Ali, extension scientists GV Ramanjaneyulu and Kavitha Kruganthi. The

study covered 121 farmers growing conventional varieties of cotton with

the help of bio-control agents in an area of 193 acre and 117 farmers

growing Bt cotton in an area of 151 acre.

 

In 2004, about 1,82,000 acre was covered under Bt cotton varieties

namely, mech 12 Bt, mech 162 Bt, mech 184 Bt and RCH 2 Bt in AP. About

7,000 acre was covered under conventional cotton varieties. The

conventional cotton varieties grown were brahma, maruthi, dasera,

gemini, sumo,

tulasi, bhagya, durga and kranthi.

 

The study said Bt cotton became adverse with high cost of seeds at

around Rs 1,600 per acre. The seeds of conventional cotton varieties cost

about Rs 450 per acre. Thus, there is a difference of more than 355% in

the cost of seeds.

 

The study said in Bt cotton fields a range of low-value and expensive

pesticides were used namely, monocroptophos, confidor, tracer, avaunt,

endosulfan, acephate, demethoate, imidacloprid, quinalphos,

chlorpyriphos and cypermethrin. In the conventional cotton fields

bio-pesticides

like neem seed kernel extract, trichoderma, panchakavya and natural

bio-control agents were used.

 

It noted farmers sprayed chemical pesticides on Bt cotton fields more

than three times on an average. In some cases it was seven times. The

average cost of spraying chemical pesticides on Bt cotton fields works

out to Rs 2,632 per acre, while the cost of using bio-control agents on

conventional cotton fields works out to Rs 382 per acre. Hence, Bt

cotton growers invested 690% more toward pest management.

 

The study said, " Yields and net income of farmers are not yet

calculated as cotton plucking was still on at the time of data

collection. This

data will be presented in the final report. "

------

2.Findings of a study done by Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

 

A study was taken up by Centre for Sustainable Agriculture based on

season-end interviews with cotton growing farmers in Warangal and Medak

districts, to compare various aspects of Bt Cotton as a solution for pest

problems in cotton crop and NPM (Non Pesticidal Management) approach as

a solution. This study was done with the help of partner organisations

- MARI and CROPS in Warangal district and Navajyothi in Medak district.

The following is the summary of the findings from this study.

 

Sample size and location:

 

A total of 121 NPM farmers (cotton growers who did not use any

synthetic pesticides and grew NPM cotton on 193 acres) were compared

with 117

Bt Cotton farmers (who grew Bt Cotton on 151 acres) for the purposes of

this study. Out of the Bt Cotton farmers, 85 farmers grew MECH 12 Bt

variety, 1 farmer grew MECH 184 Bt variety and 28 farmers have

experienced the performance of RCH 2 Bt cotton. 3 farmers had grown

both a MECH

Bt variety and RCH bt. In the case of NPM cotton, varieties used by the

farmers include Brahma, Maruthi, Dasera, Gemini, Sumo, Tulasi, Bhagya,

Durga, Kranthi etc.

 

Mandals surveyed for Bt Cotton farmers include Parvathagiri,

Raghunathpalli and Sangem mandals in Warangal district (farmers drawn

from 9

villages) and Thogunta mandal of Medak district (farmers drawn from 1

village). Therefore, 10 villages from 4 mandals in 2 districts.

 

Mandals surveyed for NPM cotton farmers include Parvathagiri,

Devaruppala, Gundala, Raiparthi and Sangem mandals in Warangal

district (11

villages) and Thogunta mandal of Medak district (farmers drawn from 1

village). Therefore, 12 villages from 6 mandals in 2 districts.

 

In Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 saw around 182,000 acres planted with

approved Bt Cotton varieties (93,374 acres with MECH 12 Bt, 1015 acres

with

MECH 162 Bt, 6420 acres with MECH 184 acres and 81375 acres with RCH 2

Bt variety). There were also more than 7000 acres cultivated with NPM

practices without the use of chemical pesticides in around seven

districts of the state in the same season.

 

Scope of the study:

 

The study looked at the incidence of various pests and diseases as well

as incidence of beneficial organisms in the Bt Cotton and NPM fields in

addition to looking at the economics of pest management in Bt Cotton

and NPM cotton on an average.

 

This study puts to question the current pest management paradigm in

which Bt Cotton is being promoted as a safer and better alternative to

conventional cotton cultivation, which has intensive use of

pesticides. Bt

Cotton is thought to be 'the' solution by the scientific establishment

to the cotton pest problems and the industry likes to promote this on

such 'humanitarian' grounds too (saving farmers from suicides, the

industry said). However, Bt Cotton should be assessed to see if it is the

best solution against safest successful approaches known right now

including NPM. This study attempts such a comparison.

 

The study was designed and supervised by Dr S M A Ali, Entomologist; Dr

G V Ramanjaneyulu, Extension Scientist and Ms Kavitha Kuruganti,

development activist.

 

Findings of the study:

 

The following are the findings from the study. The first set of

findings is against incidence of harmful and beneficial insects in Bt

Cotton

and NPM fields. This is for bollworm complex as well as sucking pests.

The next set of findings is for wilt. This is followed by incidence of

beneficial insects in the cotton field.

 

Findings also include economics of pest control in Bt Cotton and NPM

cotton in the case of pesticides used and pest management expenses.

 

Incidence of Bollworm complex: (Bt Cotton n=117; NPM n=121)

 

Level of incidence Spotted Bollworm American Bollworm Tobacco

Caterpillar Pink Bollworm

Bt Cotton NPM Cotton Bt Cotton NPM Cotton Bt Cotton NPM Cotton Bt

Cotton NPM Cotton

High 15 (12.8) 4 (3.3) 38 (32.5) 5 (4.1) 8 (6.8) 2 (1.7) 20

(17.1) 25 (20.7)

Medium 23 (19.7) 18 (14.9) 59 (50.4) 24 (19.8) 34 (29.1) 22 (18.2) 67

(57.3) 57 (47.1)

Low 77 (65.8) 93 (76.9) 20 (17.1) 92 (76.1) 75 (64.1) 93 (76.8) 29

(24.8) 38 (31.4)

Nil 2 (1.7) 6 (4.9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4

(3.3) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.8)

(Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage number of respondents)

 

As can be seen above, a majority of NPM farmers have reported Low

incidence of Spotted Bollworm (76.9% of them, as opposed to 65.9% of Bt

growers), American Bollworm (76.1% of NPM growers against 17% of Bt

growers) and Tobacco Caterpillar (76.8% instead of 64.1% of the Bt Cotton

growers) on their cotton crop. In the case of Bt Cotton, however, it is

interesting to note the number of respondents who have reported High

incidence of American Bollworm (32.5%), an important pest that the Bt

Cotton

is ostensibly designed to control through its endotoxin mechanism. In

the case of Spotted Bollworm, 6 of the NPM farmers reported Nil

incidence, as against 2 Bt Cotton farmers.

 

It is only in the case of Pink Bollworm that NPM farmers reported

differently. Here, most of the respondents reported Medium incidence

(47.1%

of NPM farmers), as in the case of Bt Cotton growers too (57.3% of

these farmers). However, more number of NPM farmers also reported Low

incidence of this pest too (31.4%), compared to number of Bt Cotton

farmers

who reported Low incidence (24.8%).

 

Incidence of sucking pests:

Level of incidence Jassids Thrips Whitefly Aphids Mites

Bt. NPM Bt. NPM Bt. NPM Bt. NPM Bt. NPM

High 52 (44.5) 7 (5.8) 1 (0.8) 0 (0) 39 (33.4) 2 (1.6) 35 (29.9)

1 (0.8) 21 (17.9) 3 (2.5)

Medium 42 (35.9) 20 (16.5) 21 (17.9) 8 (6.6) 35 (29.9) 15 (12.4) 43

(36.8) 20 (16.6) 45 (38.6) 10 (8.3)

Low 22 (18.8) 94 (77.7) 92 (78.7) 107 (91.5) 41 (35.0) 90 (74.4) 39

(33.3) 95 (78.5) 50 (42.7) 101 (83.5)

Nil 1 (0.8) 0 (0) 3 (2.6) 6 (4.9) 2 (1.7) 14 (11.6) 0 (0)

5 (4.1) 1 (0.8) 7 (5.7)

(Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage number of respondents)

 

In the case of sucking pests too, majority of NPM farmers have reported

Low incidence while several of them have reported Nil incidence for

pests like Whitefly, Aphids and Mites. In contrast, there were many Bt

Cotton farmers who reported High incidence of Jassids, Mites and

Aphids in

their Bt fields. Most of the Bt Cotton farmers reported Low incidence

in the case of Thrips.

 

In terms of Wilt, only about 17 of the Bt Cotton farmers said that

their crop did not suffer any wilt during the season (14.5%). In

comparison, around 50 NPM farmers said that they had not experienced

any wilt

problems with their crop (41.3%). The degree of wilt on the crop ranged

from 30% to 70% in the case of Bt. while it was reported to be around

10-15% in the case of NPM approach to cotton.

 

Incidence of Beneficial Insects:

 

An important aspect of the current study is the incidence of beneficial

insects in Bt cotton fields and NPM fields. Farmers surveyed were asked

to report the level of incidence of a variety of beneficial insects.

The findings reiterate a fear expressed by many environmentalists on the

effect of Bt Cotton and its endotoxin on beneficial insects.

 

Level of Incidence reported of beneficial insects Bt Cotton fields NPM

fields

High 0 (0) 85 (70.2)

Medium 7 (5.9) 26 (21.5)

Low 97 (82.9) 8 (6.6)

Nil 13 (11.2) 2 (1.7)

 

The main mechanism by which NPM farmers control pests in their fields

is through predators or beneficial insects. As the above table shows,

there is a High incidence of such insects reported in NPM fields (70.2%

of the NPM farmers reported High incidence). The contrast with Bt Cotton

fields and the reported incidence of beneficial insects there is

telling (only 0%). Not a single farmer reported High incidence of

beneficial

insects. In contrast, about 13 of the Bt Cotton farmers (11.2% of

farmers) actually reported Nil incidence of beneficial organisms on their

crops.

 

Economics of Pest Control:

 

As is obvious, the economics of Bt Cotton start becoming adverse with

the cost of the seed itself – while the NPM farmers used seed worth

around Rs. 450/- per acre of land, Bt Cotton farmers used seed that costs

Rs. 1600/- per acre. This is a difference of 355% more in the case of Bt

cotton.

 

Let us look at the findings with regard to Pest Management Costs in Bt

Cotton and NPM fields, as reported through the current survey. In the

case of Bt Cotton, pesticides like Monocrotophos, Confidor, Tracer,

Avaunt, Endosulfan, acephate, demethoate, imidacloprid, quinalphos,

chlorpyriphos, cypermethrin etc., have been used by the farmers. This

includes

low-value as well as expensive pesticides.

 

The average number of sprays used on Bt Cotton crop per acre is 3.5

times. While two farmers reported that they did not spray any pesticides

at all on their Bt Cotton crop, in the other fields, the number of

sprays ranged from 2 to 7 sprays. In the case of NPM farmers, there

are no

synthetic pesticides used. Material like Neem Seed Kernel extract,

trichoderma, panchakavya etc. have been used here. The difference in

costs

is reflected in the following table:

 

Cost of Pest Management in Rupees, per Acre

Bt Cotton Rs. 2632/-

NPM Cotton Rs. 382/-

 

This is a difference of Rs. 2250/- per acre between Bt Cotton and NPM

cotton fields. This is a 690% higher cost in Bt Cotton than in NPM

cotton. This is the edge that NPM cotton has over Bt Cotton. Yields

and Net

incomes were not calculated in the study since cotton picking was still

going on at the time of data collection. This data would be presented

in the final report.

 

The above study clearly proves that restoring the natural ecological

balance in the cotton fields by removing both synthetic chemicals and

endotoxins (through GE) from the scene is an important step towards

farmers benefiting in the short and long term.

 

Based on the above data and earlier fact finding visits made by Centre

for Sustainable Agriculture, the organisation demands that:

 

- The government admits that Bt Cotton is not the best or safest

technology available to solve the pest problem on cotton in the state

 

- the government admits that Bt Cotton has been a failure given its

extremely uneven performance in all the three years of its approved

commercial cultivation and that the AP government presents the same

picture

to GEAC which would review the first approval in the month of March 2005

 

- that the government cancels the approval of Bt Cotton commercial

cultivation in Andhra Pradesh

 

- that the government makes arrangements to pay compensation to all

farmers who have incurred losses in the past three years with Bt Cotton

cultivation by taking up a comprehensive survey as well as by taking

independent studies on board

 

- that the government fixes liability on the company for the failure

and all negative impacts seen so far

 

For more information, contact:

 

1. Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu at 9391359702 or ramoo

 

2. Annexure : NPM Approach to Crop Cultivation

 

Non-Pesticidal Management of crops believes in removing synthetic

chemicals from agriculture. For this, a complete recasting of the current

pest management paradigm is needed, which at present incorporates a lot

of myths and false notions.

 

First, the myths in current pest management paradigm:

 

- " Pests can be controlled only by killing them " : this is the gravest

mistake that the current pest management paradigm makes – it believes

that pests can be controlled only by killing them. The pesticides and

pesticide incorporated plants (for eg. Bt cotton) are based on this wrong

premise. They all act only on larval stage when the damage already

starts happening. A pest outbreak is waited for, after which powerful

pesticides are brought in. This is only a 'curative' attempt rather

than a

'preventive success'.

 

- " All insects in the field are pests " : there is an indiscriminate

outlook towards the various insects that are present in an agricultural

field and around it. Even though the modern science is talking about the

natural enemies the pesticides they produce and promote kills all the

insects indiscriminately. This obviously destroys the natural predators

of the pests also. When the ecological balance is thus destroyed, the

pesticide-resistant pests take over.

 

- " No relationship exists between mono-culture and pest incidence " : the

current pest management paradigm either does not appreciate or chooses

to ignore the relationship between monocultures and pest incidence. It

is well-established that such mono-cropping over large contiguous

areas, reduced genetic base with mono-culturing germplasm results in an

unobstructed proliferation of the pest. Now with the Pesticide

incorporated plants have made these monocultures to gene level, trying

to put 'Cry

genes' against all pests across crops.

 

- " Chemical fertilisers and pest incidence are not related " : though it

is scientifically known that a plant's vulnerability to pest incidence

is higher with the use of chemical fertilisers (due to increased

'succulence' in the plant), the connection is not made in real life.

Pests

are sought to be dealt with in isolation to the land fertility

management issues. This is a classic example of the reductionist views

that

modern science can take

 

- " Pest resistance is a genotypic issue rather than an environmental

one " : there is much research going on to develop varieties of plants that

are pest-resistant by playing around with the genes. The game plan is

obvious here – genes will go hand and in hand with intellectual property

rights, which in turn ensure secure markets and profits for the

industry. Pest resistance therefore is made a genotypic issue rather

than one

that involves broad ecological management in the farm. That is where

Genetic Engineering in agriculture also finds its space. In this narrow

perspective, what is not understood is that the problem only gets

accentuated especially in pest-resistant GE crops when other

environmental

factors related to the pest's life cycle etc., are not managed.

 

- " Resistance management is about using newer and newer generation

pesticides " [as per the industry], and " about using more pesticides,

including mixtures of upto five pesticides " [as per the farmers]: The

way to

get around the problem of resistance is usually seen in inventing newer

and newer molecules by the industry. In a patent regime, such newly

developed pesticides mean more profits through secure markets. First came

the OCs [organochlorines], followed by the OPs [organophosphates] and

Carbamates, followed by the much-touted Synthetic Pyrethroids. Each

generation's problems were sought to be solved by the next generation,

only

to end up by creating more problems. The cost went on increasing for

the farmers. A 100 ml. pesticide of the newest generation can cost upto

Rs 1000/ per container. The industry continues to grow at 4-5% per

annum. However, the older molecules which were found to be

problem-causing

or ineffective were not removed from the scene. For some farmers, the

way out is to mix four to five different pesticides and spraying them

together – no one knows the ecological and health disaster that such

desperate measures might be causing!

 

- " Prevention of pest/disease incidence is about spraying pesticides

even when the pest is not present " : Farmers in many parts of the country

have made pesticide spraying a part of their daily routine – they take

a tanker on their back to go and spray pesticides in their fields….

" just in case " . Pesticide use is no longer related to a pest and its

manifestation in the field. Prevention is understood as spraying

regularly,

as per a schedule drawn up by the farmer or his industry-advisor

irrespective of whether such treatment is needed or not

 

- " The benefits from the use of synthetic pesticides outweigh the

risks " : Finally, it is genuinely believed by many in the scientific

establishment and the industry that the benefits from the use of

synthetic

pesticides outweigh the risks and problems associated with it. However,

this is simply not true. It might appear to have an advantageous

cost-benefit ratio given their simplistic and reductionistic economic

calculations. In fact, the suicides in the cotton belts of the country

prove that

even the economics has turned adverse with pesticides. However,

complete calculations of the entire social, economic and ecological

disaster

that pesticides have created, especially in the face of safer

alternatives, instructs us that the risks and hazards far outweigh any

probable

benefits.

 

The message is clear - 'Nature makes insects, humankind makes pests'.

 

The approach that needs to be taken towards pest management, to ensure

economic, ecological and social benefits to farmers is completely

different from the above, of course.

 

Such an alternative non-pesticidal approach recognises the importance

of the following:

 

* that natural insect balances in a farm are important to control what

we consider as `pests'. For this to happen, the fields cannot be in a

toxic-contaminated state

* that pest life cycles have to be understood and pest management has

to begin right from the beginning – before the eggs are laid. Several

steps along the way at each stage are needed. This understanding includes

close pest surveillance and decisions based on the incidence· that crop

diversity plays an important role in pest management; in that sense,

seeds play an important role and therefore, control over seeds by the

farm communities. Trap crops and repellent crops have a role to play too

* that local and naturally-occurring materials can be used for pest

control; this will also have its own political-economy dimensions which

are of benefit to the farmers

* that since many of the pests are polyphagous, these pest management

principles have to be applied across different crops and at a particular

scale, for maximum benefits

* that soil nutrient management in organic ways plays a crucial role in

the plant's ability to withstand pest and disease incidence

* that a new paradigm of pest management can not only benefit the

farmers economically and ecologically but can also address certain

developmental and social issues including gender

* that such pest management need not result in decreased yields, as it

is usually made out to be

* that such pest management principles and practices are pretty often

drawn from farmers' experiential knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------