Is Bt either a necessary or sufficient
condition for cotton productivity increases?
The average productivity for the cotton crop
for the period 2004-10 is 507 kgs per hectare, up 20% than the base year viz.
2003-04 as seen in the graph to the left. Annualized productivity for
eight years since Bt’s commercialization is around 4%, higher than seen in
crops like rice or wheat. More importantly, since the introduction of Bt,
from a net importer of cotton, India catapulted to a net exporter of cotton as illustrated
by the graph in the right. The Bt lobby in this country use both these graphs
to claim Bt a runaway success as a technology.
In 2003, David Zilberman and Matin Qaim,
published a paper "Yield
Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries" (Science,
Feb 7, 2003, Vol. 299) that claimed that Bt introduction will
increase cotton yields over 80 percent and went further to the extent of
extrapolating this "phenomenal
growth in production" to cover the entire range of GM crops for
the developing countries. This paper whipped up a lot of passion with
NGOs and environmentalists then denouncing the paper as fraudulent. With Bt 10
years old in India, NGOs and environmentalists should feel vindicated for their
rage against the paper for over-hyping Bt’s potential yield.
But a 20% decadal jump in productivity is
still 20% jump, which is whopping in agriculture by any yardstick. But is the
Bt gene either a necessary or a sufficient explanation for increased in cotton
productivity rates as observed during the last decade? The Indian Central
Institute for Cotton Research Director Dr Keshav Kranthi in his recent article
in Cotton24/7 admitted that that Bt cotton technology may not have been
singularly responsible for the dramatic improvement of cotton fortunes in
India. The following discussions provide some of the alternate explanations.
1. Bt piggybacked on an already rising yield
curve
In 1951-52, cotton productivity was a mere 92
kg/lint per hectare but increased to 400 kgs/lint per hectare by 2003-04. So
even before the introduction of Bt, the underlying long-term productivity
trendline was fairly buoyant (See above graph). This was fuelled by
factors such as expansion of hybridization in cultivation in the country;
improvement of management practices; better quality inputs; expansion of
irrigation etc. Since Bt genes are backcrossed with local elite hybrids, the
introduction of Bt Cotton varieties only gave further impetus to hybrid
adoption within the country.
Can non-Bt hybrids bring about a quantum productivity jump? We were told they
can’t and that was the reason for introducing the Bt variety. So let’s have a
look at observational data.
(Please note that
in 2003-04 Bt’s share in area of cultivation was 1.1% - a share that reflects
lack of critical mass to impact the overall productivity of the country and so
treated as such by this paper. Besides yield potential of Bt hybrids at the
time of introduction was relatively lower than as now. Desegregated yield data
Bt and non-Bt validates this treatment by this paper).
So what does the data tell us? YoY 2002-03 to
2003-04 the productivity jump was a mind boggling 34%. Bear in mind this is an
overwhelming performance by non-Bt hybrids. And further this happens to be an all-time
YoY record jump - a performance a Bt inserted hybrid has not matched to date.
The very next year, (when Bt’s share is only 5.7% and still lacking a critical
mass), the increase in productivity was 18%. So even before Bt attained a
critical mass to significantly impact overall productivity rates of cotton in
this country, productivity rates spiked 52% in just two years!
So do we really
need to insert a Bt gene into our hybrids or better-off without it?
Bennett et al (2005) who analyzed the effect
of varietal differences showed that the host germplasm played a very
significant role in yield increases. A NGO, Gene Campaign conducted an
experiment that compared Bt cotton varieties Bt. 162 and Bt. 184 belonging to
Mahyco-Monsanto and local hybrids Brahma and Banny and found yields of the
latter 15-17% higher than the Bt varieties compared.
The experiment proved that the Bt gene is neither a necessary nor sufficient
condition for productivity increases in the cotton crop. It is equally possible
that productivity increase observed during the last decade had been entirely
brought about by the spread of hybrids with little or no contribution by the
inserted Bt gene.
Has India this potential to increase
productivity via hybrids? Why not? We were the first to develop a cotton hybrid
and still the leaders of the world in the area of cotton hybrid development.
2. Poor statistical
correlation between Bt and productivity
In 2004-05 the Bt share in area cultivated
stood at mere 5.7%. Contrast this to in 2009-10 where it was a whopping 85%.
Yet in both years productivity rate stood the same - within the 470-475
kgs/lint per hectare band! So where is the much touted correlation that links
Bt expansion in the country with productivity gains? (See table above).
Remember the underlying long-term
productivity trend? Well we seem to be losing at least some of its underlying
buoyancy after Bt’s introduction. Even worse, for the last 3 years of the
last decade witnessed cotton productivity performing well below its short term
trendline.
3. Huge productivity
variations calls the bluff of the Bt gene magic
Bt has been hard sold as a sort of a magic
remedy call it panacea or silver bullet for all problems confronting cotton
cultivation in the country. 8 years into its commercialization, its bluff has
been called.
Overall productivity numbers mask wide heterogeneity in its distribution
pattern. Apart from huge inter regional variances, even intra- regional data
shows that Bt cotton did not have had the same marginal effects in each
state.The Bt lobby finds difficulty in explaining why for example cotton yields
in Gujarat surged from below the national average to presently occupy the
position as leaders in the country in terms of cotton productivity while yield
rates in Madhya Pradesh have in fact significantly decreased post Bt
introduction?
Or why for that matter Maharashtra with
around 40 lakh hectares under cotton cultivation manages a productivity rate of
only 351 kgs/lint per hectare while Gujarat with 26 lakh hectares under cotton
cultivated possess the highest in the country? Gujarat’s productivity has often
been within reach of the average, international productivity rate (725 kgs/lint
per hectare).
So in the central region that comprises of
these three states and accounting for nearly 60% of the country’s cotton
production, Bt performance is characterized by a high degree of unevenness. In
more adverse conditions, the so-called Bt signature in productivity increase is
either undetectable (Maharashtra) or negatively correlated with yields (MP).
So among the top three cotton states that
account for the great majority of the country’s production, it is only Gujarat
where Bt can theoretically claim success. However even here, as the
discussions in the next section illustrates, there are other conditions
including Gujarat specific conditions that offer more convincing alternate
explanations.
4. Alternate
Explanations for Productivity Increases
a. Seed Quality:
Poor seed quality is a pervasive problem in
cotton cultivation. Only about 35 percent of cotton area is estimated to be
sown with certified seed with assured varietal purity and germination before
the entry of Bt varieties. Commercially available seeds are often of poor
quality, with sale of uncertified, substandard, and second generation (F2)
hybrid seeds not uncommon. Although supplies of certified seed are generally
available, financial constraints lead most farmers to use retained seeds or opt
for lower priced uncertified seeds from the market. Consequently, poor seed
quality emerged a significant constraining factor for realization of the full
yield potential of hybridization of cotton cultivation.
Now the Bt gene is backcrossed with local
varieties. But why then are desi (traditional) varieties excluded? It has
low productivity and is not responsive to agronomic practices in terms of
yield. So they are instead backcrossed with our elite local hybrids. Why? Their
responsiveness to external inputs is much higher.
Now hybrid seeds yield can be as high as 800
kg/lint per hectare (in the US it goes up to 1,200 kg/lint per hectare), under
the right agronomic conditions and practices. So the introduction of Bt Cotton
by default effect fastened the pace of hybridization of cotton cultivation in
the country. Farmers began to get better access to quality and unadulterated
seed materials that reflected in higher yields.
To give the devil its due, Bt entry catalysed
the improvement of cotton seed in the country in relative terms which in turn
reflected itself as higher yields. That said there are as many as 700 brands of
Bt Cotton in the market whose performance in the field and regions vary
markedly. Performance depends into which elite germplasm the Bt gene is
inserted to as they could vary widely in yield potential and agro-climatic
adoption traits. The real problem is that the presence of so many Bt brands
reduces the capacity of the Indian state to regulate Bt in the country.
b. Seed treatment:
Dr Keshva Kranthi pointed out that the
chemical imidacloprid, popularly known as Gaucho, used as protection against
leaf hopper, had been applied as a seed treatment. And since 2000 (two years
before Bt introduction) every cotton seed had been so treated. Now imidacloprid
is observed to generate 20-30% yield increases in the crop according to the
Indian Central Cotton Research Institute. Wait a minute. What's the
growth rate seen during the last decade? 20-30%. What's the contribution of
Gaucho? 20-30%? So what exactly has Bt gene contributed?
Gaucho's main benefits are as follows:
Control of
jassids, aphids and thrips up to at least 45 days after sowing.
No dependence on weather conditions
which may prevent or delay spray operations.
Improved emergence of plants due to
control of soil pests.
Since Gaucho was introduced in 2000, we have
comparative observational productivity data for non-Bt hybrids and those
further treated with imidacloprid to tweeze out the latter’s specific
contribution to yield growth. This was presumably the procedure used by Indian
Central Cotton Research Institute to conclude that seed treatment through
imidacloprid application can contribute upto 20-30% yield increases in cotton.
But in the case of Bt crops, all productivity
increases are equated to Bt introduction as if no other factors may have played
a contributory part. This helps Bt claim runaway success even if it was to be
assumed to play a negative role in respect to productivity increases. That’s
the power of the Bt lobby in this country that even research appears
subservient to promotion of its agenda.
c. Irrigation:
Cotton is highly responsive to water. But in
India, most of the cotton is cultivated under rain-fed condition (Sundaram et.
all, 1999). Thus the variability in yields is largely dependent on the monsoon.
This is why most Bt cotton seed packets carry
the information - “Best grown in irrigated conditions” a statutory warning, but
provided in very small fine print. Union Minister of State for Agriculture and
Food KV Thomas replying to a written query in parliament: “In all other countries cotton is an
irrigated crop whereas in India hardly 35-40% of the cotton is irrigated.
Therefore, the scope of adopting balanced nutrition is limited.”
In simple terms what the Minister was tacitly
admitting that not only the yield potential was lower but the pest infestation
potential was higher under dryland cultivation as compared to irrigated
conditions.
Though India's decadal average productivity
of 502 kgs/lint per hectare may look abysmally low as compared to the
international average of 725 kg/lint per hectare or China's 1260 kg/lint per
hectare or even the US's 868 kg/lint per hectare, much of this difference can
be explained away by lack of irrigation.
The difference between China and US in
productivity rates only reiterate this fact- the relative share of dryland in
overall cotton cultivation of the US being considerably higher than China
though much lower than India. If productivity data is accordingly
desegregated to reflect this reality, what is found is that both dryland and
irrigated cotton productivity of India are not too far away from their
respective international productivity averages.
Dr.Keshva Kranti observed: “Bt-cotton hybrids utilize more nutrients and
water for higher yields and profits, therefore the soils are getting
progressively depleted and need more nutrient recharging.” Minister
PV Thomas commented in the same vein: “The scope of adopting balanced nutrition is limited” Both
were obliquely admitting of Bt’s inappropriateness to dryland conditions that
characterise much of our cotton cultivation. Without water as an input,
the degree of freedom is reduced in the choice of soil nutrition solutions,
whether organic or inorganic.
Both in Maharashtra and Gujarat most of their
cultivation is accounted by dryland. They however offer a striking contrast as
case studies. In Maharashtra 97% of 4 million hectares of cotton is grown under
rainfed conditions with 95% of its cultivation under Bt varieties. Yields
doubled in Maharashtra, from 194 kg/lint per hectare in 2002 to 394 kg/lint per
hectare in 2010. Compare this with Gujarat which manages a productivity rate
around 700 kgs/lint per hectare.
How can we explain this? Dr Kranti gives us a
clue to solving the riddle by revealing that maximum productivity gains were
obtained from just 0.6 million to 0.7 million hectares in Gujarat whose
land quality was enhanced by a watershed development programme that conferred
this swathe of land the benefits of more than 100,000 check dams.
What we can take away from this learning is
that we don’t need big irrigation or dam projects or even the Bt gene. Just
simple micro-watershed projects are sufficed to bring about quantum jumps in
productivity of cotton. Increasing the soil moisture content can make all the
difference in how crops adopt to abiotic stresses like droughts. We don’t even
need to search every nook and corner of the world for solutions but in Gujarat we
have a ready model for replication.
We now know the reason why at least one
cotton farmer in Vidarbha daily commits suicide as painfully documented by
renowned journalist P Sainath and why Gujarat farmers are enjoying the fruits
of their newly found prosperity by going on a consumer spending spree. Now Dr
Keshva Kranthi also took a dig on NGOs and environmentalists for blowing up
Vidharbha suicides by highlighting that Bt cotton has spread almost 94% of all
area cultivation and that productivity rates have more than doubled in
Vidarbha.
Well apart from stating the obvious what he
conceals is that Bt Cotton is a highly input intensive crop and that the
average productivity of 394 kgs/lint per hectare of the state simply does not
offer the same amount of cushion to economically breakeven as compared to
Gujarat’s over 700 kgs/lint per hectare, as per capita per day returns show
wide variations between these two states. (Please note the productivity rate of
Vidarbha is much below Maharashtra’s average).
Without irrigation, Vidharbha farmers face
much more higher risks from abiotic stress and therefore more prone to suicides
than a Gujarati farmer. The result was that in an area with a history of
indebtedness, the high input costs of Bt cotton acted to further increase
indebtedness. A study by Gene Campaign had shown that 70 per cent of small
farmers had already lost their landholdings as collateral for loans that they
could never repay.
Suman Sahai, Director of Gene Campaign was
quoted saying “that despite specific
knowledge that Bt cotton would not work in rainfed areas, the government had
introduced it in Vidarbha.” She further observed that irrigated
farmers performed better in Vidarbha and suicide rates of the latter were much
lower than dryland farmers. It follows that if we want to attain quantum jumps
in cotn yields, irrigation rather than Bt would be a better and safer bet.
d. Quality land and
agronomic conditions:
These are key factors in bringing about
quantum jump in productivity rates. In the 0.6 million to 0.7 million hectares
in Gujarat where cotton experienced a phenomenal jump in productivity,
according to Dr Keshav Kranti farmers previously grew groundnut crops,
which being a legume enhances soil fertility. Cotton on the other hand depletes
the soil by decreasing its nutrient content. Cotton can of course grow on
even mediocre soils but throw some soil fertility to it and its yields spike.
This held true in the case of Gujarat. The land was fertile to begin which that
made it all the more conducive for higher yields.
Further, since cotton was not previously
cultivated in these lands, cotton specific pest pressure is low. But unless
crop rotation is practice, Gujarat farmers too will experience progressive
increase of pest pressure if they continue to cultivate cotton year after year.
But compare the Gujarat experience with
Vidarbha which has over a 1000 year history of cotton cultivation and where
cotton was described all through history as white gold, being the principal
economy of the region. It’s a no brainer to conclude pest pressures are higher
in this region and consequently the challenges in maintaining and increasing
yield rates are much higher in Vidarbha than Gujarat.
Significantly, where yield increases were
needed most (Vidarbha), Bt failed to deliver the goods and where it was perhaps
least needed (Gujarat), Bt claims credit for bringing about productivity increases!
e. Resource rich
farmers:
A review of literature finds many studies
pointing to Bt’s unsuitability for small-scale and resource-poor farming
systems. Early adopters tended to be the most prosperous and well-financed
farmers, who were any way getting better yields than other farmers even before
Bt seeds were adopted. (Stone). Bt or no Bt they were more adept in
increasing yields. And so part of the explanation for increased productivity
need to be credited to the ingenuity of this category of farmers.
In hindsight, NGOs and environmental groups campaign against the exorbitant
introductory prices for Bt seeds only succeeded in playing right into the hands
of Bt seed manufacturers. Lowering of Bt seed prices can be identified as the
single most significant factor that led to their rapid adoption within the
country. If prices remained exorbitant, normal hybrids (without Bt gene
inserts) would have acted as bulwark against the spread of Bt, confining the
latter to few irrigated pockets and more resource rich farms.
But since this had not been the case, the
high investment for cotton cultivation induces small and marginal farmers to
cut corners by trying to procure cheaper but less effective or even spurious
pesticides and seeds that are responsible for much of their lower yields, if
not crop failures leading to higher suicide rates.
So back to the question: Is Bt either a
necessary or a sufficient explanation for increased in cotton productivity?
We can conclude it is a complete perversion to attribute productivity increases
solely to the Bt gene though it may have indirectly contributed by catalyzing a
quicker pace of hybridization of cotton within the country and relatively
improving supply of quality seeds to farmers. Other factors such as irrigation
and newer lands played a much more significant role in increasing productivity
of the crop than the Bt gene itself.
Here ends Part II
Click here for Part I and Part III. This paper is
written by Rajan Alexander, Development Consultancy Group, Bangalore. Rajan is
a livelihood consultant and had been in the NGO sector for more than 31
years. He can be contacted at rajan.alexander@yahoo.co.in
good read. how can we consumer protect us? I do not want to buy a Levis Jeans made out of bt cotton. Anke
ReplyDeleteHi Anke. For that you need to read the third part. Since you don't want to buy BT Levi jeans, tailor your own jeans. 5% of all cotton grown in this country is organic. Buy it, and stitch into jeans that you want.
ReplyDeleteYou do two things - make a statement and also reduce demand for Bt Cotton.
But there is no evidence that by wearing BT Cotton there is a health risk.
I posted in Part I and because I wanted to comment I started a blog. titled "We Are All Connected"
ReplyDeleteKerryMclainMann@blogspot.com
How can you be so stupid to not consider that there is a big difference from irrigated farming and crops to dry land crops. My grandfather had a ranch just outside Billings, Montana and I heard him say "dry land crops" and "irrigated crops" and with just a little science education in biology you should know that when you change mother natures equation that she formulated over thousands of years that "it is not nice to fool mother nature" because bad and unintended things will happen.