| | | | | | |
 

 
GM Crops :: Bt Cotton
     

Bt cotton vis-à-vis environmental protection: An Indian Perspective

Bt Cotton in India -Prospects and problems

 


 

Bt cotton vis-à-vis environmental protection:
An Indian Perspective

S. Manickam, K. N. Gururajan and N. Gopalakrishnan

Evaluation in multilocation and large scale field trials

  

Biosafety tests and assessment of toxicity to non-target organisms

Biosafety tests indicated absolute safety to goats, cows, buffaloes, fish and poultry. Feed-safety studies with Bt cottonseed meal were carried out with goats, buffalos, cows, rabbits, birds and fish. The results revealed that the animals fed with Bt-cotton seed meal were comparable to the control animals in various tests and showed no ill-effects. These studies were carried out by the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal; Central Avian Research Institute, Bareily; Industrial Toxicological Research Centre, Lucknow; National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad; Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai and GB Pant University for Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar.

The Cry1Ac is mainly toxic to the bollworms (cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and spotted bollworm), semiloopers and hairy caterpillars. Bt-cotton expressing Cry1Ac is absolutely non-toxic to all other non-target organisms such as beneficial insects, birds, fish, animals and human beings. Laboratory and field studies carried out in India showed that the Cry1Ac protein deployed in Bt-cotton did not have any direct effect on any of the non-target beneficial insects. Work carried out elsewhere in the world also showed similar results. There was some evidence of a reduction in numbers of predators and parasitoids which specialise on the Bt controlled bollworms, but also of increases in numbers and diversity of generalist predators such as spiders. Generally the decrease in the parasitoid and predator populations were associated with decrease in the densities of the pest populations on account of Bt-cotton. Due to these changes in pest complex, farmers had to spray 3-5 times on bollgard as compared to 6-8 times on non-Bt cottons. Any effects could be assigned to the decrease in prey quality – for example with stunted Spodoptera litura caterpillars which had fed on Bt cotton. In the field situation, partial life studies broadly confirmed this finding. There was no increase in green vegetable bug numbers, aphid or whitefly numbers on Bt cotton. In general, such adverse effects as have been measured are very small when compared with the side effects of the spraying of conventional insecticides.

Year

Area (lakh ha)

Production (lakh bales)

Productivity (kg lint/ha)

2000-01

81.5

167

319

2001-02

85.9

153

309

2002-03

73.9

158

322

2003-04

76.3

179

399

2004-05

89.2

243

463

2005-06

88.2

243

465

Table 2. Bt-cotton area (ha) in India, based on the number of packets (450 g) sold

S. No.

State

2002

2003

2004

2005

1

Andhra Pradesh

3,792

5,199

73,890

226,684

2

Madhya Pradesh

1,482

12,968

87,894

142,062

3

Gujarat

9,104

42,097

134,034

147,335

4

Maharashtra

12,379

18,711

208,715

621,111

5

Karnataka

2,178

3,547

20,443

28,888

6

Tamilnadu

373

3,404

9,756

18,409

7

Haryana

0

0

0

13,309

8

Punjab

0

0

0

51,425

9

Rajasthan

0

0

0

1,610

Total

29,307

85,927

53,4731

1250,833

Source: DBT, Government of India

Source : DOCD, Mumbai

Source:

Fig1: http://monsanto.com.pk/july2k4/images/bullguard1.jpg

Fig2: http://newagnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/SOIL/photos/0214BtcottonbanKaylr.jpg


 

  1. IBSC: Institute Biosafety Committee
  2. RCGM: Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation
  3. GEAC: Genetic Engineering Approval committee
  1. Insecticide use decline;
  2. Reduced pyrethroids: Pink bollworm, mirid bugs &  Spodoptera are re-emergingH. armigera & whitefly are taking a backseat
  3. Parawilt: Some genotypes struggle with high boll retention, water imbalance, punctatum blood of hirsutum, undesirable heterosis (Mayee et al., 2004)
  4. High expectations, less results from rainfed and less fertile soils
  5. Susceptibility to sucking pests –Linkage drag!!
  1. Good control of bollworm species
  2. Significantly higher boll retention and more yield than the control
  3. Reduction in chemical sprays for bollworm control (50% less than that required for conventional commercial hybrids.
  4. Induces earliness about 20 – 30 days than the non Bt.
  5. Substantial increase in net income to farmers.
  6. No adverse impact on non-target organisms and the adjacent non Bt cotton or other crops.

References

Barwale, R. B., V. R. Gadwal, U. Zehr and B. Zehr. 2004. Prospects for Bt cotton technology in India. AgBioForum, 7(1&2): 23-26.

Jayaraman, K.S., Jeffrey L. Fox, Hepend Ji and Claudia Orellana. 2005. Indian Bt gene monoculture: Potential time bomb. Nature Biotech., 23(20): 158.

Manjunath, T. M. 2004. Bt-cotton: Safety Assessment, Risk Management and Cost-benefit Analysis. International Symposium on “Strategies for Sustainable Cotton Production- A Global Visison” 1. Crop Improvement, 23-25 Nov. 2004, UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka, pp: 366-369.

Mayee, C.D., P. Singh, Punit Mohan and D.K. Agarwal. 2004. Evaluation of Bt transgenic intra hirsutum hybrids for yield and fibre properties. Ind. J. Agric. Sci., 74(1):46-47.

Mohan, K. and T. M. Manjunath. 2002. Bt cotton – India’s first Transgenic Crop, Crop J. Pl. Biol., 29(3): 225-236.

Fig2: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/pathogens/bt.diag.GIF

Fig3: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/05/20/images/2006052002550801.jpg

 

 

 
Special Technologies  
 

Home | About Us | Success Stories | Farmers' Association | Farmers' Innovation | TNAU Publications | FAQs | Contact

© 2008-10 TNAU. All Rights Reserved.