Bt Cotton Performance in Maharashtra Kharif 2005

- Report of the Monitoring & Evaluation Committee [MEC]

INTRODUCTION

Bt Cotton, under the Monsanto-owned proprietary branded technology of Bollgard, was officially allowed for commercial cultivation in India starting from 2002. Kharif 2005 saw the fourth year of cultivation in India, including in Maharashtra. The companies claim that 30.55 lakh acres have seen Bt Cotton planted this year in the country, with Maharashtra having the dubious distinction of planting the largest number of Bt Cotton acres at a figure of 14.75 lakh seed packets sold in the state. Even in Kharif 2004, Maharashtra had the largest area of Bt Cotton planted in the country, surpassing Gujarat [1][from 54000 acres in Kharif 2003 to 5.25 lakh acres by Kharif 2004, as per Monsanto-India, quoted in Financial Express]. This is probably not too surprising, given that cotton cultivation of any kind is the highest in Maharashtra. Last year, Maharashtra was also one of the largest producers in terms of the lakhs of bales produced in the state.

About 97% of the cotton crop in Maharashtra is estimated to be grown under rainfed conditions and grown mostly on suitable black cotton soils. Hybrids cover about 73% of the cotton area of the state, while improved cultivars are grown on the remaining land. The main cotton regions of the state include Vidarbha region, Marathwada, Khandesh and Deccan canal regions.

In 2002-03, the Maharashtra state government’s reports point out that on an average, 3-5 sprays were needed both for Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton. This was based on the monitoring of 904 plots or 10% of Bt Cotton farmers in that year, selected randomly from every village and from selecting 10 plants per plot for recording observations.

The reports also said that bollworm infestation was low that year and that there was a marginal difference in bollworm infestation on Bt Cotton [5-7%] and on non-Bt Cotton [7-12%]. The number of larvae per plant observed on both Bt and non-Bt Cotton by the official survey in that year is given below:

Farmers who took part in the study also reported that the average boll weight of the Mahyco Bt Cotton hybrids grown that year was very less compared with non-Bt Cotton hybrids (nearly half).

Many complaints about wilt infestation were received from Yavatmal, Amravati and Nanded districts on Bt Cotton varieties, notes the official report [“A brief note on Bt Cotton in Maharashtra 2002-03”, shared by the Director-Agriculture]. CICR studied this phenomenon and reported that it was not pathogenic wilt but a physiological disorder and named it ‘para-wilt’.

The government’s report also notes that ‘as per the feedback of the Officers, the performance of Bt Cotton as compared with other popular hybrid varieties is not satisfactory. These non-Bt varieties yield better than the Bt varieties’.

In 2003-04, the available brief government reports observe that the retention of bolls of first flush is observed more in Bt Cotton fields and that the attack of bollworm was low on Bt cotton.

In 2004-05, 265,200 packets of Bt Cotton were sold in Maharashtra as per the state government. The government’s monitoring report pointed out that there was no significant difference with regard to squares, flowers and bolls between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton. The percentage infestation of sucking pests was found to be more in Bt Cotton than in non-Bt Cotton 12 to 15% in Bt Cotton and 7-10% in non-Bt Cotton. Once again, parawilting was reported on Bt Cotton from districts like Yeotmal, Nanded, Aurangabad and Amravati. The yield of Bt Cotton was found to be higher than the standard check by around 15%, as per the government’s monitoring.

The state government’s report also notes that in Maharashtra, ‘the area under organically grown cotton is increasing at a faster rate’. The organic farmers in Nasik and Amravati divisions are not using Bt Cotton hybrids but are successful in getting higher yields than Bt Cotton, the report points out. The state government also found that farmers using IPM practices are managing disease and pest problems successfully even by reducing chemical pesticides. The produce from such approaches has more demand and fetches better prices, a government report notes. The department’s conclusion on Bt Cotton from its observations in 2004-05 says that “by using Bt Cotton, farmers can safeguard their cotton crop only against bollworm that too for a short period and that it cannot protect the crop from other pest and diseases attack”. The following is an official tabulated picture that compares different farming systems in the state.

Source: Dr. Sudhir Kumar Goel, Commissioner Agriculture, Pune, Maharastra.  Presentation on “Bt cotton Reality and Challenges”, Nagpur, 2^nd 3^rd September 2005.

The above table clearly shows that the net profit for the farmers is clearly highest in Organic and IPM-based approaches. It is in this context that Bt Cotton cultivation in Kharif 2005 should be looked at.

IN 2005-06, the following was the district-wise picture of Bt Cotton cultivation in Maharashtra for a few chosen districts:

ABOUT MONITORING BY THE M.E.C.  

A Monitoring and Evaluation Committee consisting of 20 civil society organizations from the states of Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu was formed to monitor Bt Cotton in 2005-06, led by Greenpeace India and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. This MEC was formed in lieu of the official MEC formed by the Department of Biotechnology, GoI, since it was found to be very ineffective and inefficient in its functioning by most civil society analyses.

As part of the MEC’s effort, in addition to monitoring failure of regulation when it comes to marketing of Bt Cotton [including proliferation of illegal Bt Cotton], conducting of field trials, upholding of biosafety guidelines and so on, a scientific study of comparing Bt Cotton with non-Bt Cotton in terms of field-level performance was taken up in each of the above states.

The following pages present findings from this scientific study from the state of Maharashtra where the study was conducted by YUVA, Nagpur, supported by Greenpeace India and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. The Principal Investigator was an agriculture scientist, assisted by a team twenty volunteers. Youth from the study villages, having both Bt and non-Bt Cotton farms, educated, with no pre-conceived notions about performance of Bt and non-bt crops and ones who were willing to give time for the study were selected as the volunteers for the study.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

• To assess the performance of Bt Cotton in the fields of farmers as compared to the performance of non-Bt Cotton hybrids
• To record specifically the incidence of various pests on Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton and to compare the economics of Bt Cotton cultivation with cultivation of non-Bt Cotton
• To look at other issues with Bt Cotton cultivation including any human health problems and environmental problems experienced/observed

STUDY DESIGN AND TOOLS

The study had a comparative design, of comparing the performance of Bt Cotton along various parameters of cost, pest incidence, yields, other effects etc., with non-Bt Cotton grown in similar conditions, within a distance of 2 kms from the Bt Cotton farmers. This is to ensure that the same agro-ecological conditions are present for both kinds of hybrids. Any separate management practices adopted for Bt Cotton or non-Bt Cotton were sought to be factored into the analysis. The socio-economic background of the farmers including total landholding, education levels, total members in the family etc., were also sought to be studied.

Analysis also sought to distinguish the findings from irrigated and unirrigated lands separately.

Wherever possible, if the same farmer cultivated both Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton, both the plots were included into the study and reference samples.

The monitoring was done on a fortnightly basis throughout the season by trained volunteers who were into farming themselves and from the same area. Observations on the pest incidence were recorded based on study of 20 plants selected randomly per acre of Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton in the sample. Data on other questions was collected with the help of a questionnaire. This questionnaire was pre-tested and finalized.

In all, more than 500 person-days of monitoring went into the observations and findings reported here. The investigators monitored the performance upto the 10^th flush of harvest in the regions selected. Monitoring continued upto January-end 2006.

LIMITATIONS

• The study, in its design, was unable to quantify the differences in the “lalya” disease between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton. This was mainly because the initial design and trainings covered only other aspects like pest incidence related to sucking pests and bollworm complex. The vulnerability of Bt Cotton to diseases like Lalya was evident throughout the season, not just from our sample plots but from reports emerging from various parts of the state. However, the study was unable to capture this reality scientifically other than being captured in terms of economics etc.  
• It was difficult to get equal numbers of Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton plots/farmers. In Nanded district, especially, it was very difficult to get control non-Bt Cotton plots given the large proliferation of illegal Bt Cotton there.
• The study collected data on a wide variety of issues which need deeper investigation. For instance, farmers who had grown Bt Cotton before had reported that subsequent crops had seen lower yields on the same land, indicating some impact of Bt Cotton on soil fertility condition.  Similarly, many farmers also reported skin allergies while handling Bt Cotton. However, the nuances of the problem could not be captured properly within the scope of this study. These aspects need deeper investigations. Such investigations should also be with agricultural workers and not just the farmers. Farm laboring women, who harvest the cotton and are involved in picking, transportation etc., should also be interviewed which was out of the scope of this study.
• The study could not also evince responses related to the quality differences in cotton, between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton, though it was planned to collect response on color of cotton lint and so on.

SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE

For the purpose of the study, 165 Bt Cotton farmers and 120 non-Bt Cotton farmers were selected from the 4 districts of Amravati, Buldana, Yavatmal and Nanded.

Sampling was done in an opportunistic and random manner, evolved during initial group discussions in the chosen villages. This was followed by selection of sample farmers depending on the willingness of the farmers to be studied. The villages themselves were chosen based on the largest extents of Bt Cotton grown as per reports from dealers and agriculture department officials [the four districts and the talukas were chosen on the same basis of largest Bt Cotton extents].  The talukas and villages selected for the study are given in the table below:

Once the Bt Cotton farmers’ sample was identified, the nearest non-Bt Cotton farmer or preferably, the same farmer’s non-Bt Cotton plot were then included into the Reference sample.

Care was taken to ensure that the Bt Cotton sample included all varieties of Bt Cotton, irrigated and unirrigated growing conditions and farmers of different kinds of landholdings.

Profile of the Farmers in the Sample

The following table presents a brief picture of the sample of Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton farmers chosen for the study:

* – it was difficult to find equal number of non-Bt Cotton farmers in Nanded district because of the large proliferation of illegal Bt Cotton here. This resulted in a smaller sample size for Non-Bt Cotton overall

All the sample farmers in both the study group and the reference group [non-Bt Cotton] had their cotton crop on black cotton soils in Kharif 2005. 

PART 2 OF THE REPORT: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6445