How to Improve Yields and Reduce Pesticide Use

Papers Presented at the Technical Seminar at the 63rd Plenary Meeting of the

INTERNATIONAL COTTON ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mumbai, India November 2004

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

NEW ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES 3T. P. Rajendran, Central Institute for Cotton Research, India

ULTRA NARROW ROW COTTON: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 7Jesus Rossi (Spain), Gabriel Novick (Argentina), Jack Murray (Australia), Juan Landivar (Brazil), Shigui Zhang (China, Mainland), Dimitrios Baxevanos (Greece), Ari Mateos (México), Tom Kerby (USA), Kater Hake (USA) and Dan Krieg (USA), Delta and Pine Land Company

ACHIEVING HIGH YIELDS WITH MINIMUM PESTICIDE USE IN COTTON 11Isa Özkan, Cotton Research Institute, Turkey

OPTIMIZING INPUT USE: A GROWER’S VIEW 14Mumtaz Muhammad Khan, cotton grower, Pakistan

BT COTTON IN INDIA: THE TECHNOLOGY WINS AS THE CONTROVERSY WANES 16T. M. Manjunath, AgriBiotech, India

MULTIPLE USES OF BIOTECHNOLOGY 21Kater Hake, Delta and Pine Land Company, USA

WHY FEAR BIOTECHNOLOGY? 21Lastus K. Serunjogi, National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Uganda

NINE YEARS OF TRANSGENIC COTTON IN MEXICO 26Jose L. Martinez-Carrillo, National Institute for Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research (INIFAP), Mexico

2

IntroductionThe 2004 Technical Seminar at the 63rd Plenary Meeting in Mumbai, India was divided into two parts; a seminar on the topic, “How to improve yields and reduce pesticide use,” and a panel discussion on new developments in biotechnology in cotton. Four papers were presented in the seminar and five re-searchers from Australia, India, Mexico, Uganda and the USA participated in the panel discussion. Dr. Gary Fitt of Australia presented a summary of the report of the Second ICAC Expert Panel on Biotechnology of Cotton. Eight papers are included in this publication.On the topic “How to improve yields and reduce pesticide use,” Dr. T. P. Rajendran of India emphasized that crop nutri-tion should be regulated to basic metabolic needs of the plant instead of luxury consumption of nutrients resulting in exces-sive growth and higher pest populations. Forewarning farmers of pest pressure by studying the relationship between weather and pests, and judicious integration of biotech varieties and IPM strategies can significantly reduce the use of pesticides.Mr. Mumtaz M. Khan, a grower from Pakistan, shared his first hand experience on how to monitor pests, choose chemi-cals and properly spray so that insecticide use remains low. Precision land leveling is the most necessary step for achiev-ing high yields and lowering input use. Nitrogen should be ap-plied in moist soil to avoid leaching, and neighboring farmers should be encouraged to adopt proper pest control measures to reduce pest control costs for everybody. Dr. Isa Ozkan of Turkey presented a wide range of cultural, mechanical, biotechnical and biological options that should be used before embarking on chemical control. Bt cotton is one effective way to reduce insecticide, use but this choice is not yet available to Turkish growers. Growers must employ integrated pest management approaches that are easier and cost effective.Dr. Kater Hake of the USA talked about ultra-narrow row (UNR) technology as a means of reducing the growing period and minimizing pesticide use. From a physiological point of view, crop management for UNR cotton should maximize the Harvest Index (HI), which is the ratio between the harvested yield and the total weight of the plant. Ultra-narrow row tech-nology has been tried but new production conditions are now more favorable for this technology than they were many years ago. In China (Mainland), UNR is called high density pro-duction, and over one million hectares have been planted in this system for 10 years in the Northwest region. Many other countries are adopting this system.Biotechnology is the most discussed subject in cotton produc-tion research. The 62nd Plenary Meeting of the ICAC decided

to form the second expert panel on biotechnology of cotton and report to the 63rd Plenary Meeting in Mumbai, India. The ICACʼs Second Expert Panel on Biotechnology of Cotton ob-served that countries should make their own decisions about adoption of biotech cotton and should not be influenced by external pressures. The panel recommended that novel gene characteristics should be introduced through best technologies and locally adapted varieties. Biotech cotton should form a component of an integrated farming system supporting inte-grated pest management. The Expert Panel considers avail-ability of a centralized regulatory process, technically capable teams to educate farmers, and legislation to protect germplasm and technology as pre-requisites for successful adoption of biotech cotton. Dr. Gary Fitt of Australia presented a summary of the report which was published in the December 2004 issue of the ICAC RECORDER and is also available in five official languages of the ICAC at http://www.icac.org.Dr. T. M. Manjunath of India, Dr. Lastus Serunjogi of Uganda, Dr. Jose Martinez-Carrillo of Mexico and Dr. Kater Hake of Delta and Pine Land Company, USA participated in the panel discussion. Dr. Hake talked about new applications of biotech-nology beyond Bt and herbicide resistance. None of the new products have been commercialized, but work is going on in various labs around the world on fiber quality improvement. The paper from Dr. Lastus Serunjogi of Uganda covers the negative aspect of biotechnology. The paper says that the orig-inal fears of risk to health and the environment have been ex-plained in science-based studies. He hoped that other impedi-ments, which translate as fears, will be overcome gradually. Biotech cotton was planted on 61% of the total area in Mex-ico in 2004/05. According to Dr. Jose Martinez-Carrillo of Mexico, Mexican growers have accepted biotech cotton as an important measure to control the pink bollworm, tobacco budworm and other bollworms. Adoption of biotech cotton in Mexico depends upon the pest complex in each area. According to Dr. Manjunath, biotech cotton was planted on over half a million hectares, 6% of the total area or 11% of the hybrid cotton area, in India in 2004/05. India undertook extensive studies on feed-safety, effects on beneficial and non-target insects, pollen dispersal and Bt toxin expression in plant parts before adopting the technology. Area is expected to in-crease significantly in India. The topic for the 2005 Technical Seminar is ʻRapid Instru-ment Testing of Cotton: Opportunities for Breeders and other Segments of the Industry, and Need for Uniform Definitions. ̓The 64th Plenary Meeting of the ICAC will be held in Liver-pool, UK from September 25-29, 2005.

3

Pesticides were introduced into agriculture to contain or regu-late the destruction of crops by herbivorous pests. These xe-nobiotics (toxins) have been investigated to ensure increasing well-being for human life and to enhance agricultural produc-tivity. After the discovery of Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-eth-ane (DDT) in the 1940s, the aspiration to achieve greater se-curity for human life through that discovery was praised to the extent that in 1942 the Nobel Prize was awarded to Paul Muel-ler of Germany. The evolution of pesticides from inorganic contact and stomach toxins such as arsenic, lead, chromium or mercury salts to organic toxins that generally affect the insectʼs nervous system through contact and ingestion was in line with the need for a fool-proof way to protect food produc-tion. The development of more target-oriented and site-specif-ic organic compounds that effectively prevented the buildup of insect density in crops and animals was a major leap toward the advancement of human life in the past century.However, the discovery of major adverse effects resulting from large-scale use of pesticides, particularly in pest-inten-sive crops such as cotton and paddy, led to a questioning of the need for blind belief and faith in those practices. Cotton is one of the major agro-ecological systems that attracted intensive pesticide use, as shown in table 1.

Principles of HerbivoryUnderstanding the damage done to crops by pests and devel-oping methods to control them is possible only through an intimate knowledge of herbivory. Crop nutrition may be regu-lated down to the basic metabolic needs of the plants instead of allowing a wasteful overconsumption of nutrients. Under organic conditions of crop production, regulating the nutri-ent supply available to crop plants can reduce the intensity of the damage done by herbivorous pests. This, together with the satisfactory activity in the crop of natural enemies of the target pests can produce an appreciable reduction in pest den-sity to enable the crop to recover from the damage and thus compensate for the loss. Farmers need be concerned only with the satisfactory growth and yield of their crops instead of worrying about the few insects that may be observed in their fields. The benefits of these techniques become evident over

Table 1. Highly Skewed Pattern of Pesticide Use in India Crop Area (%) Pesticide Use (%)

Rice 24 17 Oilseeds 10 02 Cotton 05 54Vegetable/Fruit 03 08 Plantations 02 08 Sugarcane 02 03 Others 05 03

New Alternatives to Pesticides T. P. Rajendran, Central Institute for Cotton Research, India

the vegetative cycle of the crop. Therefore, the main efforts should center only on crop production aspects. To reap good harvests, farmers must rely heavily on the recuperative capa-bilities demonstrated by the plants. The challenge implicit in both the type and number of cotton cultivars in India is indica-tive of the hard struggle farmers have waged to protect their crops from heavy depredation by genotypes that have dubious genetic resistance to a few of them at least.Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has been a watchword in cotton for over four decades, but its meaning varies in several aspects among those who preach or practice it. Plant protec-tion experts who specialize in pesticide-intensive crops such as cotton devised more advanced methods and approaches to protection from predatory insects with the hope of finding satisfactory methods of pest suppression that might serve as alternatives to the agro-chemicals that were extensively used. During the past century, most of the cases of pest depredation catastrophes in cotton were found to be due to the abuse of pesticide molecules. The concept of Integrated Pest Manage-ment (IPM) began with the use of pesticides against the pests in the crop and it was only later that it was complemented with the more recent concepts of pest-monitoring and judicious use of pesticides at critical buildup points, along with alternate pest suppression strategies, such as biological and natural sup-pression of life stages in pests. It has been satisfying to see that many Indian cotton growers across the country understood the problems arising from the irrational use of pesticides in crops and were able to adopt pest suppression methods with a low pesticide-to-cotton load. While the cotton area has remained stable throughout the country at between 7.5 and 8.5 million hectares, there has been satisfactory improvement in the aver-age national yield, i.e., 415 kg/ha of lint in 2004/05.The number of dominant hybrids and varieties of tetraploid and diploid Gossypii species are limited to a maximum of around ten (Tables 2 & 3). In a country with 21 agro-ecologi-cal zones and a wide variety of climate and soil characteris-tics, there is a need for a broad genetic base in cultivars. The All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is known for its methodical and systematic work to identify cotton cultivars that test positively for both seed cotton yield and fiber quality. In fact, the long-term stability of high-volume cotton produc-tion has been due to the painstaking and dedicated efforts of the All Indian Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project sys-tem. It may be categorically stated that the number of hybrids and varieties (Table 5) notified by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, pursuant to the recommendation of ICAR and under cultivation at any point in time, is small enough not to cause any wide disparity in lint quality. The

4

fact is that, independently of the cotton cultivars they grow, all farmers sell their seed cotton. This means that there is a market for this product and that this market is driven by the system that supplies the countryʼs industrial raw material re-quirements.In the light of this scenario, the state of opinion on pest sup-pression in cotton is that there must be a reassessment of the pest scenarios that are expected to play a role in the biotic stress on cotton. Cotton hybrids and varieties released through the public release system are guaranteed to have verifiable resistance to various early-season sap-sucking pests and dis-eases. Conversely, the hybrids put on the market by the seed industry and offered to farmers for higher seed cotton produc-tion have been seen to be vulnerable to many pests whose resistance or tolerance level could increase. The licensing sys-tem for the countryʼs seed industry should ensure that cotton cultivars marketed by the private R & D system, as well as by a mushrooming host of seed companies, are resistant to pests that are known to have sources of resistance. Many of these companies have now opted for various candidate alien genes that provide bollworm resistance from parental lines that have been transferred into desirable cotton genotypes through backcrossing. The country currently has four such hybrids un-der cultivation after the necessary approval of these geneti-cally modified varieties. How good their overall agronomical performance will be in the widely varying soil and climate conditions prevailing in the areas where cotton is grown has yet to be demonstrated. There have been several reports from across the country about the susceptibility of various private hybrids, including genetically modified ones, to early-season pests such as leaf hoppers, thrips, lygus bug and mirid bug, in addition to sus-ceptibility to alternaria leaf spot and grey mildew diseases. The data must be carefully studied to be able to determine how various pests and diseases are able to takeover these Bt hybrids that are to be commercially grown in all agro-ecologi-cal zones. The IPM strategy will acquire a more dynamic role against that backdrop (Mathews and Tunstall, 1994; Amerika Singh et al., 2002).

Table 2. Number of Hybrids and Varieties of Tetraploids and Diploids from the Public Sector

Tetraploids Diploids Zone Hybrids Varieties Hybrids Varieties North Zone 3 13 2 3 Central Zone 14 8 1 8 South Zone 6 11 1 4

Table 3. Number of Hybrids of Tetraploids and Diploids from the Private Sector*

Zone Tetraploid Diploid North Zone 2 1 Central Zone 360 4 South Zone 160 2

* Source: Seedmen Association, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), India

During the current year, the cotton crop in north-ern and central India suffered severe defoliation due to Spodoptera exigua. We must have more in-depth knowledge of the interactive species bi-ology of key pests and diseases. Bollworm sup-pression is one aspect of the cotton protection panorama. The judicious combination of geneti-cally modified genotypes, along with other IPM

strategies, shall play a key role in the suppression of all boll-worms, in addition to other major and minor pests. Recent efforts by various projects of the National Agricultural Technology Project of ICAR to develop short-term warning indicators of pest buildup in cotton utilizing the relation-ship between the weather-based influence on pests and crop characteristics have provided promising outcomes in guiding growers and all those involved in managing the pests and dis-eases that affect cotton to be prepared to deal with the impend-ing pest damage to the crop. IPM strategies targeted with such tools can facilitate supervised management of pest buildup in cotton. Preparation by growers who have been forewarned can foster the development of communitywide action plans to thwart the brunt of the damage from anomalous population expansion in the crop. Regulation of depredation by herbivorous pests in cotton must be guided by a precise balance of the nutritional quality of the plant tissues consumed by those depredators in their quest for nutrition. The ultimate goal is to harvest the best fiber at the lowest possible cost so that growers can earn a reasonable income from their cotton farms (Reentrant and Basu, 1999). Cultivars are bred to yield certain desirable fiber properties. In his quest to reduce the cost of cotton cultivation, Ayyar (1937) insisted that fiber quality improvement must be the concern of the breeder and that, in the long run, it will prove more profit-able for the grower. Over the last six decades or more, In-dia, along with the rest of the globe, has witnessed a world of change in cultivar preferences, and farmers obviously chose to grow the cotton varieties that fetched the highest market price. The pressure on breeders to develop cultivars led to the development of genotypes of G. hirsutum vulnerable to various depredating organisms sequentially or together. The fact that these pest species share niches with humans results in a strong challenge posed by these little herbivores whose survival instincts and strategies could threaten to thwart all human efforts to increase productivity through the use of xe-nobiotics. Current principles of pest management have to be suitably al-tered to protect genetically modified cotton. The high cost of biotech seed generally makes it necessary to reduce spending on IPM and to economize further by resorting to less costly in-terventions. The farmerʼs desire to grow pest-proof crops has to be cost effective, sustainable and environmentally stable. The net effect of the GM cotton hybrids that are now cultivat-ed on a large scale as part of IPM has not met the expectations

5

application of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients. A very similar trend was shown by the G. arbo-reum cultivar, viz., AKA 8401 up to 1996-97. The level of carbon and phosphorous, as given in tables 5 and 6, showed that there was an increase in the buildup of phosphorous over four years. A decade-long study of the organic carbon status in farmers ̓fields showed that it rose from 0.35 to 0.90 on average.Organic and biodynamic farming is an ideal step

towards optimal use of resources and ingredients of the natural agro-ecosystem. The methodologies employed in this type of farming were inherent in conventional Indian farming. Thus, many farmers who had adopted intensive chemical-based ag-riculture introduced moderation and reduced their farm input component. Agriculture today is highly commercial in tenor; consequently, it has to be optimized both in terms of resource management and cropping plans.During the early part of last decade, the concept of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) was introduced in an FAO conference held in The Netherlands and devoted to attaining food security, employment and income generation in villages, as well as natural resource conservation to foster environmental protection. The intense development and prog-ress of organic farming in our country also coincided with this resolution, as well as with a similar commitment by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1994). Techniques such as crop rotation, mixed cropping, alternate rows of crops, trap crops, incorporation of crop residues into the soil, in-situ composting, production of green manure along with the crop, improving the microbial content of the soil by first stopping the use of all chemicals and then adding microor-ganisms such as P.S.B. and various rhizobium bacteria are all excellent ways of converting dead soil into living soil. Mod-

of either growers or planners since many of them were found to be vulnerable to many other biotic stresses as well as to the parawilt syndrome. This dreadful malady causes extensive distress to farmers, who have invested a great deal in seed in order to maintain a certain cotton plant density and must then have to watch their plants wilt off before they have a chance to harvest. The present century shall demand more fine-tuned measures, based on the susceptibility of cotton cultivars in all agro-climatic conditions and aimed at ensuring farmers that cotton agriculture will be cost effective while producing a rea-sonable quality of lint.The Deccan plateau comprises a major stretch of rain-fed ag-ricultural lands in India. The states that share this zone are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. These states also share the typical cropping system: low rainfall in vertisol soil whose specific characteristic is such that it can sustain only a limited number of crops, one of which is cot-ton. Conventionally, diploid cottons dominated this landmass. American (hirsutum) cotton was introduced into this area during the colonial period and prevailed extensively togeth-er with grains like sorghum and pulses such as pigeon pea and chickpea. High-quality cotton was introduced mainly to exploit the agro-climate and soil characteristics that support crops with a longer duration in kharif and shorter winter crops in rotation or for relay. However, the varieties of these crops in vogue 30-40 years back were long-duration types with good compensation capabilities. In the quest for higher yield and better productivity, there was a special need to find shorter duration varieties, as well as those that responded to fertilizers and irrigation, wherever they may have been developed, in the interest of enhancing the cotton area in this agro-climatic pla-teau region. The major crops that prevailed in dry lands were sorghum, bajra and minor millets among cereals; groundnut, soybean, rapeseed, safflower, linseed and castor amongst oil-seeds; pigeon pea (red gram), lentils, Bengalgram, green gram and black gram among pulses and lentils; and cotton as a ma-jor cash crop.Some basic experiments on the development of sustainable and cost-effective cotton production were conducted at the Central Institute for Cotton Research at Nagpur. Results in the 2nd and 3rd columns (see table 4) showed that there was stable seedcotton yield, indicating the importance of balanced

Table 5. Percentage Organic Carbon Content*

* Tarhalkar et al. (1996)

Year Organic Non-organic June 1993 0.38 0.38 Feb.94 0.40 0.36 Feb.95 0.46 0.35 Feb.96 0.52 0.38

Table 6. Percentage Organic P Content* Year Organic Non-organic June 1993 12.1 12.1 Feb.94 12.6 12.0 Feb.95 14.5 12.9 Feb.96 15.0 12.0 * Tarhalkar et al. (1996)

Table 4. Organic Cotton Cultivation Experiments Seedcotton Yield (kg/ha)

G. hirsutum - LRA 5166 – CICR, Nagpur Year Organic ICPM* Non-organic 1993-94 464 807 1,159 1994-95 530 740 652 1995-96 849 781 651 1996-97 898 710 623

Soybean - as crop rotation 1998-99 2,769 1,961 1,199

* ICPM – integrated cotton production methods (1:1 of inputs that were used in organic and non-organic plots)

6

The alternatives to pesticides in the judicious management of damage by pest herbivores become apparent: the nutritional quality of cotton plants must be regulated to ensure that it cov-ers the plants ̓metabolic requirements so that they show ef-ficient reproductive activity, produce adequate fruiting forms, and ultimately, the bolls needed to provide the farmer with decent seed cotton yields that will sustain his farm and his livelihood. The price offered in the marketplace in top pro-duction years does not encourage farmers to produce more because when they do, their incomes suffer. Therefore, the top priority for cotton farmers must be to re-duce the cost of planting and to maintain the crop free from serious upsurges of pest herbivores until harvest time so as to harvest bolls at the lowest cost of production. This would en-able farmers to deal with the global competition that is bound to emerge as of next year. Industrial users of cotton and na-tional policies will encourage cotton growers to strive to pro-duce cotton at competitive prices, based on fiber quality.References:Ayyar, V. Ramanatha. 1937. Some aspects of cotton breeding work in India. Paper No.3 presented in Plant Breeding of In-dian Central Cotton Committeeʼs first conference of Scientific Workers on cotton in India. March, 1937, p. 328-368.Mathews, G. A. and J. P. Tunstall. 1994. Insect Pests of Cot-ton, CAB International, 592 p.Puri, S. N., K. S. Murthy and O. P. Sharma. 1999. Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Cotton Production, p. 246-255.Rajendran, T. P. and A. K. Basu. 1999. Integrated Pest Man-agement in Cotton - Historical Perspective, Present Scenario and Future Strategies, p. 205-232 (In.) Singh, Amerika, O. P. Sharma, R. C. Lavekar, O. M. Bam-bawale, K. S. Murthy and A. Dhandapani. 2002. IPM Tech-nology for rainfed cotton. Technical Bulletin, No.11, National Centre for Integrated Pest Management, New Delhi, India.Sundaram, V., A. K. Basu, K. R. Krishna Iyer, S. S. Narayanan & T. P. Rajendran. Handbook of Cotton in India, 548 p., In-dian Society for Cotton Improvement, Mumbai, India.

Tarhalkar, P. P., M. V. Venugopalan, T. P. Ra-jendran, O. M. Bambawale and M. S. Kairon. 1996. Generation and evaluation of appropri-ate technology for organic cotton cultivation in rainfed vertisols. Journal of Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, 21:111-122.

ern agriculture, with its accent on intensive farming to exploit every aspect of farm resources, seed vigor, genetic potential and season was not able to guarantee farmers a market price congruent with their investment on enhanced crop production. The result has been an imbalance in farm-gate economics that forced several farmers to revert to ad hoc optimization based on actual situations. Generalized formulas for farming prac-tices were not well suited to all farms in such a large country. Given the independent thought process of individual farmers with a background in traditional knowledge, the idea of natu-ral farming flourished. These techniques are based on the opti-mization of natural principles to operate farms, focusing only on harvesting what is possible with the available resources that can be used by the plants. It is also heartening to find that over the last 20-30 years, many farmers in different parts of our country have practiced this kind of farming diligently while using modern crop varieties and hybrids. This indicates that these genotypes did support the renaissance of rural In-dian farming techniques and reformed the economic status of these farms. The marketing angle implicit in the products resulting from such farming practices, such as labels claim-ing the product to be “organic,” “eco-friendly,” “green,” etc., might have given a small part of those farmers better profits. But even those who did not share in those profits did derive an adequate economic benefit in terms of reduced cultivation costs and optimized farm returns. Thus the recent farm renais-sance based on optimizing the use of local resources over out-sourced inputs has given a new impetus to no-frills farming free of risks and dangers.Therefore, sustainable plant protection is to be based on the suppression of herbivore pests with the involvement of crop plants, as well as by allowing nature to manage the pest popu-lation in a judiciously equitable manner. The philosophy of host selection by insects is to ensure the best nutrition for their progeny, so that the expected impact on the crop is directly related to the nutritional quality of the plants. Hence, the best way to regulate herbivore pest impact is to regulate the sup-ply of nutrients going to the cotton and help save the farmer and his crop from serious losses. The Helicoverpa population buildup in the CICR experiment is given in Table 7, as a four-year average .

Table 7. Helicoverpa Infestation (mean of four years) Incidence Peak Incidence Final Incidence

Organic 1-1.5 0.5-0.7 ICPM 2-2.5 2.5-2.8

Larva

Non-organic 2.5-3.0 2.0-2.5 Organic >1 >0.5 ICPM 2-2.5 1-1.5

Eggs

Non-organic 4-4.5 2-2.5

7

Ultra Narrow Row Cotton: Global PerspectiveJesus Rossi, (Spain), Gabriel Novick (Argentina), Jack Murray (Australia), Juan Landivar (Brazil),

Shigui Zhang (China, Mainland), Dimitrios Baxevanos (Greece), Ari Mateos (México), Tom Kerby (USA), Kater Hake (USA) and Dan Krieg (USA),

Delta and Pine Land Company (Presented by Kater Hake)

in the soil at harvest to avoid late re-growth and potential boll rot. In some UNR cotton fields, signs of potassium deficien-cies can be observed because of higher yields per acre. Soil nutrient levels should be monitored to see if potassium or zinc supplies need to be supplemented before planting. Finally, good defoliation promotes dry cotton at harvest. In the case of stripper harvesting, desiccants are often used to avoid excess moisture and barky cotton.Early crop cover promotes early season sunlight interception and ground shading to suppress weeds. The adverse yield con-sequences of skippy stands decreases in UNR cotton as adja-cent rows may compensate for skips down a row. Sunlight in-terception is improved under any circumstances but especially under stressful conditions such as poor soils structure, saline soils or drought-prone soils.New technologies such as herbicide tolerant varieties and new post-emergence herbicides, are very useful in a URN system.From a physiological point of view, crop management for UNR cotton should maximize the Harvest Index (HI), which is the ratio between the harvested yield and the total weight of the plant. Research in cotton physiology proves that greater yield increases result from an improved harvest index than from greater biomass and photosynthesis. Total carbon fixa-tion and a reduction in per unit ground area are increased by UNR, but photosynthetic rate per unit leaf area is not necessar-ily increased. Thus, the Harvest Index is maximized through early fruiting with high retention, reduced leaf area at cut-out, a good balance between boll requirements and nitrogen fer-tilizer, and adequate plant height. Compact and determinate varieties, usually with a higher HI, are better adapted to URN system than highly indeterminate or late fruiting cultivars. However, some studies have not found genotype x system in-teraction, so in principle, any locally adapted variety might be grown in with UNR with proper management.

Potential Benefits• Ultra Narrow Row cotton systems should reduce the cost of production under certain conditions.

– Stripper harvest, including maintenance of the harvester, is cheaper.

• Yield increases are possible, especially in poor soils and/or short season areas.• Crops can be up to three weeks earlier, giving better uti-

What is Ultra Narrow Row Cotton?Ultra Narrow Row cotton (UNR) defines a cotton produc-tion system based on high plant populations and narrow row spacing (generally between 20 and 40 cm). The theoretical advantages of this system are an earlier crop cover and high-er sunlight interception under plant stress conditions, which could result in higher and earlier yields at lower cost. UNR production system might produce equivalent yields in fewer days than with conventional row spacing, or UNR can pro-duce higher yields in approximately the same number of days. UNR performs best in high radiation, semi-arid environments where water and nutrient supply can be properly managed.Cotton production under narrow spacing is not a new idea. Research on this topic dates back to the 19th century. In China (Mainland), various UNR high-density planting systems have been beneficially employed on over 1 million hectares of cot-ton for approximately 10 years. However, the new improve-ments in plastic film mulching, planting, growth regulators, defoliants, harvesting and ginning equipment, have made the system commercially viable across a wider range of farming systems. The recent advances in cotton biotechnology also help the application of UNR cotton since adequate pest and weed management is a critical factor to UNR success.

Agronomy and Physiology of Ultra Narrow Row CottonCotton plants growing under the UNR cotton production system generally become more upright and columnar, with a higher percentage of first-position bolls, fewer vegetative branches and shorter fruiting branches. It is very important in UNR cotton to get a uniform stand, since skips and/or low plant density in certain fields produce taller plants with more vegetative branches which make crop management and har-vest more complicated.Crop management is critical, and growth regulators are usu-ally required to avoid excessive plant size. A management tar-get would be to reduce plant height to a maximum of 70 cm. Consequently, the total number of nodes can be reduced from 22-26 to 18-20. A good early boll set is also very important; having more fruit set on the bottom branches is critical to both earliness and plant height control. UNR cotton requires only a smaller number of bolls per plant. Therefore, early pest man-agement is crucial. That is why Bt cotton is a useful tool for this production system. Nitrogen and water should be depleted

8

lization of harvest equipment, personnel, quick turn around at busy gins and better farm rotations.• Early maturity shortens the exposure to harmful insects and diseases.• UNR cotton fits well in reduced tillage systems since cul-tivation is generally not practical in UNR cotton.

Potential Limitations• Crop management is critical (requires more monitoring) and the crop must be harvested dry if strippers are used. • UNR cotton may require improvements in planting and harvesting equipment.• In the past, the acceptance of seed cotton by ginners and lint by textile mills was low because of the higher trash content in stripper harvested UNR cotton. However, with the release of the new John Deere PRO-12 spindle picker, acceptance should not be an issue. Although it is commer-cially available, the adaptation of this equipment to differ-ent growing environments is still under development, but it is performing quite well where it has been introduced.

Ginning and Textile Performance of UNR CottonThe harvest method used in the past for UNR cotton was broadcast strippers. Seed cotton obtained with this system had over three times the foreign matter of conventional cotton har-vested with spindle pickers, according to studies conducted by Cotton Incorporated in the U.S. This reduced the gin turnout from 35 to 30 percent.However, with proper ginning, the marketing classifications (including foreign matter content) were not statistically dif-ferent than conventional cotton. The effect on spinning per-formance, including ends down, was also not statistically dif-ferent. The data revealed no differences between harvesting methods on yarn strength or evenness. As mentioned before, the availability of new spindle pickers that are able to operate in 38 cm (15 inch) row spacing makes UNR cotton quality an issue that has been overcome.

Ultra Narrow Cotton in Different Growing AreasArgentinaUltra Narrow Row cotton was examined in Argentina in the early 1960ʼs with good results. Significant yield increases were reported, both in areas with good yield potential as well as in rain-fed areas. However, UNR cotton was not used com-mercially until the introduction of Bt cotton. Now, both Bt and herbicide tolerant varieties are grown with the UNR sys-tem in Argentina. Commercial UNR fields in the rain-fed area reported an average of 663 kg lint/ha (25 cm row spacing)

versus 480 kg lint/ha with conventional 1 meter spacing, an increase of 38%; earliness increased up to 38 days, with little change in grade. Area planted to UNR cotton is increasing in Argentina. In 2003/04 around 20,000 hectares were planted at 50 cm row spacings or less, out of a total area in Argentina of 378,000 hectares. The crop is harvested mostly with finger stripper harvesters produced in Argentina. The cost to trans-form a used 4 row spindle picker to a 6 meter finger stripper is around US$30,000.Argentina is also looking at the possibility of planting cotton with 50 cm row spacing, which matches the standard soybean row width, in order to share planters and other equipment be-tween the crops. The benefits of UNR cotton in Argentina are increased yields, lower costs (the savings in harvesting opera-tion is especially remarkable) and earliness to escape rainfall at the end of the season.Argentina is looking forward to planting stacked gene variet-ies, combining tolerance to lepidopteran pests and to glypho-sate (total herbicide). This technology, together with UNR cotton and reduced tillage, could be a good alternative for many areas of the country.

AustraliaCotton farmers ̓interest in UNR production started in the mid-1990ʼs reaching approximately 5,000 hectares of UNR cot-ton in 1999/2000, mainly in the southern growing regions. To date, UNR cotton has been successful in New South Wales. Growers were looking at ways to grow cotton in cooler val-leys while maintaining both yield and quality. The UNR sys-tem provides the ability to produce cotton during a shorter growing season.Until the release of new spindle pickers, stripping the crop resulted in big discounts when ginned. Now UNR cotton can be spindle picked while also maintaining quality.Some trials have been conducted in New South Wales com-paring conventional row spacing (95 cm or 36 inches) with UNR (38 cm or 15 inches). The UNR cotton reached maturity three weeks earlier and received one less stage-three insecti-cide applications. The benefit of reduced insecticide use is less significant now with the introduction of stacked gene variet-ies combining Bollgard® II and Roundup Ready®. The 38-cm cotton required one less irrigation application, although UNR cotton still used around the same amount of water per hectare as conventional crops. UNR cotton yielded 340 kg of lint per hectare more than conventional cotton, with no discounts.The same report states that the system is likely to fit well in other areas of Australia. More information is available in the “Australian Cotton Grower”, Vol 24, Nº 3, page 8 (June-July 2003).Nowadays, Australia is still growing around 5,000 hectares of UNR cotton (2% of the national acreage) but it is likely that UNR area will expand with the only limitation being the

9

number of picking heads available to handle the size of the harvest.

BrazilIn the mid-1990ʼs, some Brazilian cotton growers visited US universities and saw the advantages of UNR cotton first hand. Subsequent experiments in Brazil were conducted with 40-50 cm rows, to match soybean row spacing.The Brazilian areas most interested in the UNR system were the North East and Central West regions due to their limited water supply. More recently, research in Mato Grosso has fo-cused on double cropping cotton with early maturing soybean cultivars.Trials conducted by MDM (a Brazilian cotton planting seed company associated with Delta and Pine Land Co. and Maeda Brazilian Holding) reported yield increases of 10-20% with UNR cotton, and the cost of production was significantly low-er with harvest occurring twenty to thirty days earlier. Row closure with UNR cotton occurred 30 days earlier resulting in better light interception and increased water efficiency. The data from these trials also showed that there are minimal ad-vantages to reducing the row spacing to less than 38 cm.UNR cotton seems to be a very good fit in Brazil. Yield in-creases, cost reductions and faster maturity (which allows cot-ton to escape pests like the boll weevil) and better adaptation to reduced tillage systems (which is more convenient when planted after soybeans), are the major advantages of UNR cot-ton.

China (Mainland)There are three main cotton growing regions in China (Main-land): the Yellow River region with over 2 millions hectares, the Yangtze River region with about 2 millions hectares and the Northwest inland region with over 1.3 million hectares. The production systems are completely different among the three cotton growing regions because of different environ-ments. The Northwest cotton production region is the only region to employ UNR cotton, also referred to as high density cotton in China. Growers typically plant over 150,000 plants per hect-are. The growing period in the Northwest region is short with ample sunshine and irrigation water. One million hectares per year have been grown with this system for approximately 10 years. This UNR system, combined with the plastic film

mulching management techniques, have compensated for the short growing period to generate high yields. The average lint yield is about 1,500 kg of lint per hectare in the region, and the highest yielding fields can reach 3,750 kg. Although many early maturation management techniques are combined with UNR, without the use of UNR the cotton plant can not ma-ture before frost occurs in some years. Machines are used for planting, laying plastic film and cultivating, but hand picking is still the main harvest method in a region. The climate and weather conditions in the Yangtze River re-gion are completely different from the Northwest region. The Yangtze growing season is long enough for the crop to mature fully, so double crop systems have been used. Over 50 percent of cotton area is planted to hybrids. The cotton seedlings are transplanted with an extremely low plant population (30,000 plants per hectare) and wide row space (80 to 120 cm) after oilseed rape or wheat is harvested. Thus, UNR cotton produc-tion has not been used in this region.The Yellow River region is the largest cotton area in China (Mainland). Growing conditions and cotton agronomic prac-tices in the Yellow River region are intermediate between the Northwestʼs and the Yangtzeʼs. 45,000 to 90,000 plants per hectare are planted in the Yellow River region. Two kinds of cotton varieties (spring cotton and summer cotton), and di-verse production systems have been used. In addition to the full-season spring-planted cotton, inter-cropping systems of cotton with wheat, watermelon, potato, onion, mungbean and garlic etc. are specialties in this region. So cotton rows are often wide after the early crops are harvested. In some parts of the Yellow River region, UNR cotton has been used for direct seeding short-season summer-cotton varieties after a wheat crop has been harvested. The rainy weather in July and August limits the use of UNR cotton in this region. The dominant use of UNR cotton in China is in the Nortwest region. The Northwest cotton growing region mainly includes Xinji-ang, and part of Gansu province. There is plenty of sunshine (2,700 to 3,300 hours annually); but not enough heat units (the annual accumulated temperature above 15˚C is only 2,500˚C to 4,900˚C). The frost-free period is only 155 to 230 days. Annual rainfall is less than 200 mm so all cotton production relies on irrigation. Because of this special environment, cot-ton yields were low and unstable 50 years ago. The lint yield was only 150 kilograms per hectare, with a population of 90,000 plants per hectare. The average cotton yield increased

from 150 kg in 1950 to 300 kg in 1980, 900 kg in 1990, 1,500 kg in 2000 and 1,800 kg at 2004. This yield increase is partially due to the plant population increase and nar-row rows (90,000 plants per hectare in 1950 and 1980, 120,000 in 1990, 150,000 in 2000 and 225,000 in

Table1. Yield and yield components under different UNR populations.

Plantpopulation per

hectare

Average Boll number per

plant

Average Boll weight in

grams

Lint percentage Lint Yield (kg/hectare)

183,000 5.21 5.6 38.3 1830 227,000 4.37 5.7 37.8 1920 262,000 4.04 5.5 37.7 1980 293,000 3.38 5.3 38.5 1815

10

2004) with row spaces getting narrower and narrower down to 20 centimeters. Other technique have been a part of the UNR production system, such as early-maturing cotton va-rieties, plastic film mulching, drip irrigation, and mepiquat chloride to control the rank growth of the high density cotton plant canopy. Trials in Xinjiang (Table 1) show that the best plant popula-tion is 242,000 plants per hectare, and suitable densities range from 225,000 to 270,000 plants per hectare. The high density production system can make full use of sunshine during the effective growing period to increase the mainstem boll num-ber on lower fruit branches. As a result, earlier cotton maturity is assured. There is no significant production cost and irriga-tion efficiency difference with UNR cotton in Xinjiang. There are two common UNR cotton planting patterns in Xin-jiang. The 4-row pattern uses an average row space of 40 centimeters with 10 centimeters between plants and a plant population of 250,000 plants per hectare. The plant popula-tion at harvest is closer to 225,000, due to some plant loss. 4 rows are planted with one wide plastic film strip. This pattern is suitable to high fertility fields. A second common UNR pat-tern employs 6 rows under each plastic film strip. The aver-age row space is 29 centimeters and the space between plants is 12 centimeters, beginning the plant population to 287,000 plants per hectare. The harvest population is typically 240,000 plants per hectare. This pattern has been widely used in low soil fertility field. Other management techniques, besides row and plant spacing, must also be used in UNR cotton to ensure optimum perfor-mance.

• Early-maturity cotton varieties. Select varieties for a short-season, short plant height, lower node position of first fruit-ing branch, smaller leaves and shorter internodes.• Planting date. The planting date is very important to achieve high yields and reduce the risk of early frost dam-age. Xinjiangʼs lack of heat and the short growing season encourages a compromise. Cotton should be planted as ear-ly as possible to make full use of the growing period, but at the same time should avoid the damage of frost after plant-ing. The suitable planting time is 8 to 10 days before the last frost date. This generally results in seedling emergence through the plastic mulch after the last frost.• Plastic film mulching is a must to guarantee success when planting before the last frost date. Film width is getting wider so 6 or even 8 rows of cotton can be covered by each strip. The increased temperature under the film encourages the germination and seedling growth.• Mepiquat chloride applications should usually be used in the UNR system. From the 2-leaf stage, Mepiquat chloride is commonly applied at a 10-day interval to allow final plant height of 50 to 60 centimeters.

• Irrigation is also very important for UNR cotton in the Northwest. Drip irrigation under plastic is recommended for higher yields. Furrow irrigation should be applied carefully to avoid. Normally, three furrow irrigations are needed per season. Starting with a full soil water profile, the first post-plant furrow irrigation is typically applied at first bloom, which occurs early in these short season cotton varieties. This irrigation amount should not be too large. The interval between the first and second irrigations should not be longer than 15 days. The third irrigation should also be light to avoid late maturity of bolls.

Hand picking is still the dominant harvesting method in Xin-jiang, but spindle pickers and strippers have been tested on a small scale. Data comparing harvest methods in the North-west is not available. Two year study of fiber measurements from several hundred lint samples taken from many cotton varieties from North Xinjiang and South Xinjiang shows that plant densities between 150,000 and 260,000 plants per hect-are have no significant impacts on HVI fiber characteristics compared with wide-row cotton.

European UnionDespite not yet being commercially applied, UNR cotton is an exciting technology for European Union growers. Cotton is a high input crop in both Greece and Spain, with intensive man-agement which results in high yields but also high costs. The growing season is typically short and constrained by rainfall at planting and harvest. Currently, D&PL in Europe is work-ing to evaluate the URN system. A research program was ini-tiated in 2004 combining microplot replicated trials (Greece) and strip trials (Spain).The data shows a 3-week earlier crop at 38 cm row spacing compared to 75 cm rows and the conventional spacing of 95 cm rows. Yield results were variable, but UNR cotton always yielded the same or higher than 75 or 95 cm rows.

MexicoUNR cotton is not commercially applied in Mexico, although research continues to test the benefits of higher plant densi-ties.

United StatesUltra Narrow Row cotton research was facilitated by the in-troduction of herbicide tolerant technology in 1997. Substan-tial interest developed in a system that provided for increased yields in marginal soils. URN technology allowed cotton to be grown on soils that are otherwise suitable only for soybeans. Many of URN fields produced superior yields to conventional cotton, but they were harvested with “finger strippers” with associated higher levels of trash. Cotton merchants signifi-cantly discounted this cotton, and interest decreased.Delta and Pine Land Company, in cooperation with John Deere, conducted a 3-year study of row spacing that included

11

Achieving High Yields with Minimum Pesticide Use in Cotton

Isa Özkan, Cotton Research Institute, Turkey

Introduction Cotton is a strategically important crop for Turkey. In Turkey, cotton is planted on 700,000 ha, and 40% of Turkeyʼs exports come from cotton products.Cotton is affected by insects, diseases and weeds, and pesti-cides are commonly used to control them. Pesticides not only have negative effects on human health and the environment but also raise production costs. In Turkey, 33,000 tons of pesticides were used in 2003, 47% were insecticides, 24% herbicides, 16% fungicides and 13% others (Anonymous, 2003). Pesticide use in cotton amounts to 5-6 thousand tons, 15%-18% of total pesticide use in Turkey. Insecticides alone cost 35-40 million annually.Due to public awareness about human health, the environment and conservation of genetic diversity, a reduction in pesticide use and an emphasis on sustainable agricultural production have become a necessity. Because of the economic impor-tance of cotton, yields must be maintained in sustainable pro-duction system.Studies have been conducted in Turkey to reduce pesticide use in cotton since 1994, and various methods have been investi-gated. Organic cotton production has increased. Since 1995, IPM research results have been implemented with the purpose of reducing pesticide applications. Educational and practical studies are being carried out by farmers in many provinces.

AbstractPesticides are highly toxic chemicals which are deliberately released into the environment. They threaten farm workers and the general population through contamination of drink-ing water and residues on food crops. Pesticides are generally classified according to their purposes, such as insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodenticides. These are used most-ly in agriculture but also for lawns and landscapes, roadsides, schools, playgrounds, parks, libraries and offices.Pesticides damage human health, including damage to eyes, skin burns, cancer, nerve damage and immune system and hormonal system disruptions. Cotton is one of the most im-portant plants on which pesticides are used to control pests. In Turkey, 33,000 tons of pesticides (active ingredient) were used in 2003, 47% was insecticide, 24% herbicide, 16% fun-gicide and 13% other (Anonymous, 2003). Pesticide use on cotton amounts to approximately 5-6 thousand tons, account-ing for 15-18% of total pesticides use. Cotton area in Turkey equals 3% of total agriculture area. Insecticide use has the big-gest share in this sum and amounts to almost 35-40 million annually. It is important to reduce pesticides use for the sake of the environment and human health. Reducing pesticide use in cotton can be accomplished with techniques similar to practices using transgenic cotton variet-ies and IPM. IPM techniques are effective for conditions in Turkey because in the Aegean and South Eastern Anatolia re-gions, rich predator fauna are available.

20 or 40 cm rows compared to conventional rows that ranged from 76 to 102 cm. Yields were equal to or superior in the UNR system. Maturity averaged two to three weeks earlier depending on early boll retention and late season nitrogen and water. In all cases it was determined that 40 cm row spacing provided all the benefits of UNR and thus a harvest machine could be designed to accommodate 40 cm row spacing.

Wrap-upUltra Narrow Row cotton, defined as planting cotton at row spacings in the range of 30-50 cm, is a system that can deliver higher yields and earlier maturity at a lower cost. Adaptation to different environments and farming characteristics justifies research in many different cotton growing areas.Due to the quality discounts often received when harvesting UNR cotton using a broadcast “finger” stripper, grower in-terest in UNR declined. However, in 2004, many Brazilian

and Australian growers conducted evaluations of the new UNR spindle picker focusing on agronomic management and variety performance. Results have been encouraging, but spindle picked UNR remains in the development phase. Although planting rates and agronomic management are gen-erally understood, more experience is required to determine if the advantages of UNR spindle harvested cotton exceeds the increased harvest costs associated with the new machine. Some growing regions clearly have more to gain from UNR cotton than others because of differences in soil type, rainfall amounts, soil fertility, and length of the growing season. It will take time to sort out the environments that provide the greatest economic benefit from spindle picked UNR cotton. With the improvements in planting and harvesting, and new technologies such as Bt cotton and herbicide tolerant cotton, UNR cotton is a promising system that can help cotton sus-tainability across the world.

12

Main Pests, Diseases and WeedsThe pests, diseases and weeds in cotton fields vary. Cotton aphid Aphis gossypii (Glov.), American bollworm Helicov-erpa armigera (Hbn.) and whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) are widespread in the Mediterranean region; cotton jassids Empoasca decipiens (Paoli.), spider mites Tetranychus cin-nabarinus (Boisd.), T. Urticae (Koch.), thrips Thrips tabaci (L.) and cotton aphid Aphis gossypii (Glov.) are in the Aegean region; thrips Thrips tabaci L., cotton jassids Empoasca de-cipiens (Paoli.) and cotton aphid Aphis gossypii (Glov.) are the main pests of cotton in South Eastern Anatolia region. The most destructive cotton disease in all regions is Verticillium wilt Verticillium dahliae (Klep.) Johnson grass Sorghum ha-lepense (L.), hear leaf cocklebur Xanthium strumarium (L.) and purple nutsedge Cyperus rotundus (L.) are the main cot-ton weeds in all regions (Anonymous, 2000) (Table 1).Apart from the pests listed above, pink bollworm Pectinopho-ra gossypiella (Saund.), can occasionally cause damage, espe-cially in Çukurova.

Reducing Pesticide UseThe methods of reducing pesticide use in cotton are given be-low;

• Producing cotton in low pest environment• Producing transgenic cotton varieties• Use of IPM

Producing Cotton in a Low Pest En-vironmentThe chemical control method is used against pests in cotton after an economic injury threshold has been reached. If there are no pests, there is no need to control pests, and pesticide use is low. Almost no insecticides are needed in Kahramanmaraş province, located in the Çukurova region. The cotton produc-tion area in Kahramanmaraş is approximately 20,000 hectares.

This area is a small part of the cotton area in Turkey. In fact, it is difficult to find another area of its kind for cotton production.

Producing Transgenic Cotton VarietiesTransgenic crops were planted on 53 million hectares in the world in 2002. 19 % of this area was allocat-ed to transgenic cotton (Chaudhry, 2002). In 2004, 25-30% of world cotton production was obtained from transgenic varieties. Although cotton farming is practiced in more than 80 countries in the world, only 9 coun-tries, USA, Argentina, Australia, Co-

lombia, China (Mainland), Indonesia, South Africa, India and Mexico produce transgenic cotton (Barut, 2003).The use of growing Bt cotton in an areas where American boll-worm and pink bollworm are problems, can be advantageous, but Bt is not effective against insects like jassids, thrips, spider mites and Whitefly. Therefore, if the main pests are other than Lepidoptera, the use of Bt cotton will not reduce pesticide use. Whatever effective or not, biotech crop production is not al-lowed in Turkey.

Use of IPM SystemIPM is a multidimensional management system to control pests. When insects, diseases and weeds exceed an economic injury level, suitable control measures are implemented. The aim of IPM is to increase crop production and produce high quality crops without pesticide residue. This aim is achieved by pesticides that:

• onserve and support predators, and• make farmers experts on their own farms,

The main goal of an integrated pest management system is not to destroy pests completely, but to keep them under an economic injury level. All pests, including insects, pathogens and weeds are taken into consideration while deciding on con-trol measures, but decisions are based on the main destructive pest(s). IPM is composed of cultural, mechanical, biotechni-cal, Biological and chemicals controls.

Cultural ControlsCultural methods prevent crop damage from pests by re-stricting or decreasing their life spans and reproduction level (Yaşarakıncı et al., 2004). The objective is not complete de-struction of all pests, but the prevention of pests from spread-ing into crops and reproducing. Providing healthy plant growth, growing plants in a suitable

Table 1. Main Cotton Pests, Diseases and Weeds for Different Production Regions

Aegean Region Mediterranean Region South Eastern Anatolia Region

Pests Cotton jassids (Empoasca decipiens Paoli.) Spider mites [Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisd.), T. Urticae Koch.] Thrips (Thrips tabaci L.) Cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glov.)

Cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glov.) American bollworm [Helicoverpa armigera (Hbn.)] Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.)

Thrips (Thrips tabaci L.) Cotton jassids (Empoasca decipiens Paoli.)Cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glov.)

Diseases Verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae Klep.)

Verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae Klep.)

Verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae Klep.)

Weeds Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pres.) Hear leaf cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.)

Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pres.) Hear leaf cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.)

Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pres.) Hear leaf cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.)

Source: Anonymous, 2000.

13

environment, timely and adequate soil preparation, fertiliza-tion, irrigation and optimum planting density are the main prerequisites to accomplish cultural controls. Adjusting plant-ing time, harvest time and harvest method, crop rotation and destruction of plant residue after harvest are the main cultural practices.Growing healthy and tolerant varieties is an important factor for disease control. It is difficult to control diseases in clay soils or extremely humid areas. Removing harvest residue im-mediately and plowing after harvest will reduce pest popu-lations which otherwise over winter in the soil. Irrigations should be limited because humidity increases insect popula-tions. Crop rotation is one of the most important and effective methods to control diseases and pests.

Mechanical ControlMechanical control is the method that prevents pests from damaging plants, or a method that destroys pests by hand or with tools. Pink bollworm larvae can be controlled by shred-ding plants after harvest, and they can be controlled during saw-ginning of seedcotton. Cotton stalks must be shredded and plowed into the soil following harvest, and seedcotton should be ginned as soon as possible. There is no pink boll-worm problem where these methods are followed. Cultivating by hand or with a tractor can effectively control weeds where labor costs are not high and machinery is available. Weeds should be removed before maturation to prevent them from spreading seeds.

Biotechnical ControlThere are some non-insecticide chemicals which affect on some insect behavior, like feeding, mating, defending, hiding, or escaping. These chemicals are called pheromones. Applica-tions of natural or artificially produced pheromones with the purpose of upsetting the biology, physiology or behavior of pests are called “biotechnical control methods” (Yaşarakıncı et al., 2004). Pheromones can be used directly or indirectly in insect control. Traps used in biotechnical methods are given below.

Mass TrapsMonitoring traps should be used in-tensively as soon as the first adult ap-pears to disrupt mating between males and females. Reduced mating decreases pest populations gradually through de-creased egg laying. Distances between traps, the number of traps in an area and intervals between replacement of phero-mones are some important factors to be taken into consideration (Yaşarakıncı et al., 2004).

Visual TrapsThe main use of visual or color traps is to control whitefly and thrips. Yellow and blue colors attract thrips. Nondrying sticky substances are spread on selected colored plates and placed in fields. Plates are renewed when dirty, usually every couple of weeks (Yaşarakıncı et al., 2004).

Pheromone TrapsPheromone traps are prepared with pheromones that are spe-cific to species and secreted to attract the opposite sex for mat-ing. A tray with an attractive color and a nondrying sticky sub-stance is placed in traps and a pheromone capsule is attached inside it. Insects of the targeted sex are attracted and caught by the sticky plates. Pheromone traps are used against some cotton pests in the USA, Israel and Syria (Yaşarakıncı et al., 2004). Besides these traps, there are some methods such as feeding traps, trap combinations, blocking technique of mat-ing, but these are used more in fruits, vegetables and green-house production than in cotton.

Biological ControlAnimals that feed on pests are called natural enemies/pred-ators. Use of predators in pest control is called “biological control” (Yaşarakıncı et al., 2004). The main philosophy of biological control is to identify predators to preserve them and increase efficiency. There are many predators of cotton pests in Turkey. Biological control methods have an important place in IPM because they are more effective and cheap. Biological contral is also an environmentally sensitive method due to the reduction in pesticide use. Targeted pesticides are preferred to protect and increase predator populations, instead of all-kill pesticides. Heavy all-kill pesticide applications decrease predator populations. Some predators of main cotton pests are given in Table 2 (Anonymous, 2000). If predators are present in a field in large enough numbers, there will be no need for pesticide applications. Pesticide use is very low in the South Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey because of the high num-ber of predators. Insecticide use has gone down to almost zero in the Kiziltepe district located in the South Eastern Anatolia Region owing to an IPM program. Similarly, no insecticide

Table 2. Predators of Some Main Pests in Turkey

Pests Predators Cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glov.) Coccinella septempunctata L.,

Chrysoperla carnea (Steph.)

Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) Eretmocerus mundus Mercet Deraeocoris spp.

Thrips (Thrips tabaci L.) Chrysoperla carnea (Steph.), Scymnus spp.

Spider mites [Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisd.), T. Urticae Koch.]

Stethorus gilvifrons (Muls.) Scymnus spp.

American bollworm [Helicoverpa armigera (Hbn.)] Orius sp., Nabis pseudoferus Rm.

Cotton jassids (Empoasca decipiens Paoli.) Chrysoperla carnea (Steph.) Deraeocoris spp.

Source: Anonymous, 2000.

14

applications are done in Kahramanmaraş province except dur-ing occasional years.

Chemicals ControlDespite the measures mentioned in Table 2, if a pest popula-tion exceeds an economic injury level, pesticides may be the only effective control. Priority should be given to chemicals with low toxicity and with specific application to targeted pests. Integrated pest management studies have produced very successful results in Turkey. The IPM studies conducted between 1996 and 1999 in the Aegean Region gave the same yields as conventional cotton farming, and in some years and some fields, IPM systems raised yields by 200 – 1,200 kg/ha of seedcotton (Tezcan et al., 2000). The same study showed that both the number of pesticide applications (1-4 in IPM, 3-8 in conventional) and the cost of pesticide use were decreased (approximately 90%) (Tezcan et al., 2000). In China, IPM use in cotton led to a 90 % reduction in pesticide use and an 84% decrease in pest control costs. In the USA, 88% decrease in insecticide use, with an average net return of $77 per hectare to farmers (Anonymous, 2004).

ConclusionIPM techniques are the most suitable ways to decrease pesti-cide use in cotton. The results of IPM studies conducted since 1995 in Turkey are being put into practice. Studies indicate that IPM methods in Turkey can result in satisfactory yields and reduced pesticide use. Transgenic varieties are another option in decreasing pesticide use, although their production

has not been allowed in Turkey. Transgenic cotton may not be effective in reducing pesticide use in Turkey since biotech varieties are not effective against important pests in Turkey. ReferencesAnonymous. 2000. Pamukta entegre mücadele teknik talimatı. T. C. Tarim ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Tarımsal Araştırmalar Ge-nel Müdürlüğü, Bitki Sağlığı Araştırmaları Daire Başkanlığı, Ankara.Anonymous. 2003. KKGM yıllık raporu.Anonymous. 2003. XENO-ESTROGEN SOURCES. http://www.georgiastrait.org/xenofacts.php#pestsBarut, A. 2003. TAYEK/TYUAP, Tarımsal araştırma Yayım ve Eğitim Koordinasyonu, 2003 Yılı Tarla Bitkileri Grubu Bilgi Alışveriş Toplantısı Bildirileri, Yayın no: 113, 2-4 Eylül 2003, Menemen-Izmir.Chaudhry, M.R. 2002. Impact of genetically engineered cot-ton in the world. International Cotton Advisory Committee, 2nd Meeting of the Asian Cotton Research and Development Network Tashkent, Uzbekistan, November 14-16, 2002.Tezcan, F., M. A. Göven, M. Topuz. 2000. IPM Applications in cotton fields in aegean region of Turkey. The Inter-Regional Cooperative Research Network on Cotton, 20-24 September 2000, Adana,Turkey.Yaşarakıncı, N., Ö. Altındişli and T. Kılıç. 2004. Tarımsal Savaşın İlkeleri Organik Tarımda Kullanılacak Yöntemler. http://www.bahce.biz/organik/zararli_yonetimi.htm

Optimizing Input Use: A Grower’s ViewMumtaz Muhammad Khan, cotton grower, Pakistan

Cotton is a crop (determinate at times, indeterminate at others) and no doubt a plant as well. Gossypium barbadense, hirsu-tum, arboreum and herbaceum are all primarily grown for the lint. Cotton seed is a prime source of edible oil; cotton sticks are the year-long burning fuel for village dwellers around the world and the green leaves are a fine source of fodder for graz-ing livestock. The ginning residue is the best biomass to return organic matter back to the soil. The cotton crop requires a large investment from basic plan-ning to harvest. The main focus is to get high yields without sacrificing quality. The fundamental step towards the start of any agricultural production is precision land leveling, which is now available everywhere on a rental basis and at an afford-able price. This exercise is durable and ensures uniform avail-ability of water resulting in uniformity in the crop. Tractors compact soils to a depth of about 10 cm and deep till-age, either by chisel plough or, preferably, with a sub-soiler, is necessary every 4-5 years. The next step for optimum harvests with any crop is for the farmer to choose the right rotation

A farmer is the foundation for all crop production in the world, the ultimate beneficiary rather than the end user of any research by agriculture scientists. The farmers of the world are invariably in search of new practical techniques with which to economically earn their livelihood. In olden times, whatever a farmer grew, the produce harvested was his profit, where-as nowadays, it is what the farmer saves in inputs that is, in fact, his profit. However, these savings are not for his per-sonal profit. This meager amount is needed for sustenance and future investment in coming crops. Therefore, in real terms, these savings cannot be categorized as profit. Had this income been net profit, world farmers might never have needed gov-ernment support.

Optimizing Input UseCotton and human beings are interrelated. Throughout our lives, the clothes every human wears while striving to make his livelihood or improve his economic position, and even our currency notes contain cotton. Thus humanity and cotton are interwoven.

15

crop. Green manuring and the addition of farmyard manure, as the real natural additive for soil conservation, should be strictly practiced. Artificial inputs such as nitrogen, phospho-rus, potash, boron, zinc and micronutrients provide optimum efficacy when the soil is rich in biomass (green manuring) and the preceding crop in rotation is leguminous for nitrogen fixa-tion. The best way to optimize input use is to test the soil. In order to control height, tall growing varieties should be plant-ed in clay soils, whereas dwarf varieties should be selected for sandy loam soil strata in order to increase height, thus increas-ing production. The salient features in cotton production may vary from farm-er to farmer and country to country so I will talk about my own situation. I start with the choice of the seed. Indigenous varieties bred to resist soil-borne and local diseases should be grown. The seed must be delinted, either by sulphuric acid or foam delinting. Sinker seeds have better germination, vigor and strength to resist adverse environments. Seed treatment applications keep the farm nearly insect-free for the initial 40-50 days, which is a blessing and a really healthy start for a good harvest. As mentioned before, precision land leveling is a prerequisite for proper water management. Bed and furrow sowing or hand dibbling saves a lot on the quantity of seed used, providing nearly one hundred percent germination. To ensure the desired plant population, non-germinating seeds can be hand dibbled simultaneously. Herbicides are applied in the sowing strips and the rest of the area is cleaned with interrow cultivators, rotary hoes, manual hoeing and a range of tractor implements. Every effort should be made to keep the crop absolutely free of weeds either by manual hoeing, tractor interrow cultivation or herbicides. When the crop has grown taller, chemicals must be applied by band application. Weeds are a real threat to inputs because they drain away ev-erything that is beneficial for the crop. Nitrogen fertilizer in-take is quicker in weeds than in crops. Sunlight absorption is hindered by the rapid growth of tall and ground-spreading weeds, particularly Johnson grass, common cocklebur, field bind weed, tall morning glory, and down under, purple nut sedge. These weeds obstruct the passage of air as well, but above all, weeds serve as hiding places for pests. Timely watering of bed/furrow plantings keeps the crop green and in good health, thus energizing photosynthesis for proper growth and fruit formation. Placement of fertilizers close to the root zone doubles their efficacy. In the past, millet and sorghum were planted along the margins of the cotton crop to attract birds that feed on the worms (starlings, sparrows, mynas, bulbuls and other local birds). This may be a help-ful compliment to the newly developed IPM techniques. Seed treatment is good to have, but ultimately pest scouting must be strictly practiced to assess the pest population and damage to the crop. Pest scouting helps target specific insects with spe-cific chemicals. Monitoring by sex pheromones and yellow traps provides an early warning of pests. However, inappro-

priate spraying of chemicals without pest scouting often leads to a higher number of applications, development of resistance and the emergence of secondary pests. Also, beneficial fauna (predators) may be eliminated with the passage of time. Un-wise spraying of highly toxic chemicals and, at times, broad spectrum chemicals may, on the one hand, pollute the atmo-sphere and, on the other, affect non-target insects. This prac-tice must be stopped and replaced with innovative chemicals. Pink bollworm ropes keep the crop free of pink bollworm throughout the duration of the crop cycle. The efficiency of these techniques may be doubled when similar practices are implemented by neighboring farmers on adjoining fields. The use of light traps at night serves as a monitoring device, but it also kills insects. Spraying machinery must employ state-of-the-art technology and its performance must be foolproof. Pressure at all spray nozzles must be uniform and should be monitored with a pres-sure gauge to ensure that they are dispensing the right droplet size in accordance with the prevailing temperatures. Droplet size should be small enough that it does not run off the leaves, but not so small that it enters into suspension in the air result-ing in evaporation and possible human inhalation. The best time to spray is at night, when the atmosphere is dense and insects are on the upper side of the leaves constituting a direct target, even with lower doses of chemicals or with contact poisons, which may be used at almost half the dosage of sys-temic pesticides. The recommended practice is to have quali-fied pest surveyors repeat the pest scouting after every spray to be able to assess the efficacy of each pesticide application. Investment in a qualified pest scouter saves on the total num-ber of sprays applied. Sometimes the pest scouting surveyor may suggest releasing Chrysopa and Trichograma to feed on worm eggs. Both are commercially bred in many laboratories in Pakistan.Application of granular nitrogen before watering the fields is not a good idea because it will leach down into the root zone. Nitrogen should be applied preferably in split doses and in moist soils.The above are general recommendations. Mechanization en-hances productivity, saves energy, reduces manual labor, en-sures precise application of insecticides/pesticides. It helps ensure precise placement of fertilizer in the root zone of the crop, thus increasing productivity. But some farmers do not have access to mechanization. My farm is 200 hectares. It is a family-owned farm managed by me. Soil testing is a regular practice, along with deep tillage to break up the compacted layer and conserve moisture. First I select sinker seed and delint it. Seed treatment is imperative. Then we water the fields with an incorporated dose of herbicide (Pendimethalin) for uniform mixing. The seedbeds are prepared with a row-combi for good tilt and uniformity. Drilling is done at 61 cm and 91 cm, which is my preferred technique as opposed to the prevailing practice of 76 x 76 cm.

16

The seed is drilled at 10 kg per hectare. Thinning is done to ensure that the plants are 25 cm apart. During the first 40 days, the fields are not watered, but hoeing is necessary for purposes of aeration and weeding. Ridging is done before the first wa-tering. We use an earthing ridger set to form a 91 cm space and a 51cm ridge, at a separation of about 20 cm on either side of the plant rows. This plant configuration and ridging can re-duce water consumption by up to 66%. The ensuing seepage gives the plant a boost. With this method only 5 irrigations are applied and with every irrigation there is a water economy of 66% or more. The tractor-mounted sprayer covers the field with a spray swath 140 cm wide. The water pressure is raised using a dia-phragm pump set at 4 kg/cm2 to produce a droplet size of 600 microns, which is ideal for a uniform spray pattern. The nozzles are fitted at a 45ß angle thus producing a uniform mist for longer distances. The fertilizer applied is single super phosphate (SSP) powder spread by a fertilizer broadcaster, along with an ammonium sulphate application using a locally made drill. It is difficult to spread the fertilizer because it draws in moisture very quickly, but it has to be done. Picking on my farm is manual. The cost of production is around US$635 per hectare. The average production on my farm has never been less than four tons of seed cotton/ha or about 1,320 kg of lint/ha. Cotton sticks are buried with a rota-vator to return nutrients to the soil. Only the fruit or produce of farms belongs to us; the crop residue and stalks should be returned to the earth for further production. I apply seed treatment, as well as pink bollworm ropes and try to purchase innovative chemical products, if available, to

use against target insects/pests. Use of sex pheromones for monitoring is a common practice. Insecticides are sprayed at night, i.e. from dusk till midnight. The Provincial Agriculture Department helps growers in pest scouting and I seek out their recommendations, which help me to control pests. With the above mentioned cotton cultivation requirements, farmers are unable to go very far from their fields and spend most of their time tending their crop production. Farming is a no-holiday business and when professionals in other occupa-tions are out demanding shorter working hours and increased salaries, farmers are praying for God to increase the work day from 24 hours to 48 hours, i.e. double the working hours, in order to have time enough to fulfill their productive chores, and set aside some bonus moments for rest so that they can go on producing to sustain every living thing on earth. There is a lot of talk about organic/biological cotton produc-tion through a range of techniques such as: IPM practices, introduction of Chrysopa, releasing Trichograma, crop rota-tion, planting cover crops, yellow traps, planting Bt cotton, using GMOs or applying organic pesticides. However, there is also a great deal of concern about the implementation of such techniques. If Bt varieties or organic production can save the poor farmer from hazardous applications of toxic chemicals, then such techniques should be awarded a Nobel Prize. If any such exercise could be made foolproof and readily available in any part of the world for large-scale agriculture, every farmer would ask researchers to transfer this life-saving technology by electronic media to this most threatened of all species: “the farmer”. May I take the liberty of quoting an Egyptian saying: “the farmer does not have ears - he simply has the eyes.” Until and unless they can see for themselves, they donʼt believe.

Bt Cotton in India: The Technology Wins as the Controversy Wanes

T. M. Manjunath, AgriBiotech, India

AbstractBt cotton varieties developed by Mahyco (Maharashtra Hy-brid Seed Company) containing the Bollgard® Bt gene, Cry 1Ac, licensed from Monsanto, was approved by the Govern-ment of India for commercial cultivation in March 2002. This approval was preceded by a large number of laboratory stud-ies and about 500 field trials during 1996 - 2001 to demon-strate the safety and benefits of Bt cotton as per regulatory requirements. The area planted with Bt cotton in 2002, was 29,415 ha. Area increased to 86,240 ha in 2003 and to 530,800 ha in 2004. A nationwide survey carried out in 2003 indicated that the Bt cotton growers in India were able to obtain, on an average, a yield increase of about 29% due to effective con-trol of bollworms, a reduction in chemical sprays by 60% and

an increase in net profit by 78% as compared to their non-Bt counterparts. The indications are that the demand for Bt cot-ton will grow significantly in the coming years. Realizing its potential, 19 other seed companies have already joined Ma-hyco-Monsanto as their sub-licensees for Bt cotton. Details of the development of Bt cotton, safety studies, field perfor-mance, opposition it faced, the problem of illegal Bt cotton, and the prospects for this technology in India are outlined in this article.

IntroductionCotton is an important cash crop in India and plays a signifi-cant role in the national economy. It supports millions of peo-ple through cultivation, processing and trade and contributes

17

Development of Bt Cotton (Bollgard®) in India Realizing the economic importance of cotton bollworms and the benefits Bt cotton can offer to growers, Mahyco (Maha-rashtra Hybrid Seed Company), a leading Indian seed com-pany, in collaboration with Monsanto, took the initiative to introduce this technology into India. As per regulatory procedure, Mahyco sent its application to the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of In-dia, in March 1995 seeking permission to introduce this tech-nology. On obtaining approval, Mahyco received about 100 gms of Bt cotton seeds containing the Bollgard® Bt gene, Cry 1Ac, from Monsanto, USA, in March 1996. These seeds were first tested in India under greenhouses for germination, plant vigor and efficacy against the Indian cotton bollworms. These were also used in greenhouse breeding programmes. Thus, 40 elite Indian parental lines were introgressed with the Cry 1Ac gene by crossing with the Bt gene donor parent obtained from Monsanto. Mahyco developed several Bt cotton hybrids suitable for different agro-climatic regions, and these were already popular with farmers. Some of these conventional hybrids were converted into Bollgard® using the converted parental lines and tested for their performance and safety as described below.

Regulatory Studies on SafetyIn India, two federal ministries are involved in the regulation of GMOs – Ministry of Science & Technology (MoST) and Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). The Depart-ment of Biotechnology (DBT) functions under MoST. Two important committees, the Institutional Bio-Safety Committee (IBSC) and the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM), work under the guidance of DBT. Another major committee, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), was constituted under MoEF. These committees are represented by experts drawn from various fields and organi-zations across the country and are responsible to ensure that proactive safety studies are carried out on GM products before they are approved for commercialization.As per the direction and guidelines of the regulatory authori-ties, a number of studies were carried out to assess the safety of the protein expressed in Bt cotton plants with regard to its potential for allergenicity, toxicity, gene flow, cross pollina-tion, effects on non-target beneficial organisms and, impacts on soil microorganisms. These data were examined by expert committees. 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 Industrial

$8 billion to the export income. The area occupied by cotton in recent years fluctuated between 8 and 9 million hectares in India. While India has the largest area under cotton in the world (representing 20 to 25% of the global area), it ranks only third in terms of production after China and the USA. Several factors are responsible for low yields, but losses due to insects are the most important. More than 160 species of in-sects attack cotton at various stages of its growth. Defoliators, tissue borers and sap-suckers cause yield losses up to 60%. Among the insects, bollworms (tissue borers) are the most de-structive. The contribution of Bt cotton in bollworm control is described below.

Cotton BollwormsThe cotton bollworm complex in India includes the ̒ old world bollworm ̓or ʻfalse American bollworm ̓- Helicoverpa armi-gera; pink bollworm - Pectinophora gossypiella; spotted boll-worm - Earias vittella and spiny bollworm - Earias insulana. The tobacco caterpillar - Spodoptera litura, also a lepidop-teron, is a sporadic pest on cotton. Although predominantly a defoliator, it can also damage cotton bolls and squares when there is a severe outbreak.Among the bollworms, H. armigera is dominant and the most difficult to control, chiefly due to its widespread insecticide re-sistance, multivoltine and prolific pattern of breeding and high polyphagy. It is a highly destructive and wasteful feeder in the sense that a single larva can damage many squares and bolls. H. armigera has a wide distribution, but is limited to the old world i.e., Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa, Australasia and the Pacific Islands. The species commonly found in the Americas are Helicoverpa zea and Heliothis virescens, popularly called ʻbollworm ̓and ʻtobacco budworm, ̓respectively. Hence, ref-erence to H. armigera as ʻAmerican bollworm ̓is misleading. To avoid any confusion, it is better to call H. armigera as ʻold world bollworm ̓or ʻfalse American bollworm. ̓Chemical insecticides are used extensively on cotton to con-trol insect pests, especially bollworms. The number of sprays per crop season varies from 5 to 20 or more. Insecticides worth about $660 million are used annually in Indian agricul-ture, of which $352 million are spent for the control of cotton pests, and of this $264 million against bollworms alone. In terms of volume, about 54% of the total insecticides used in Indian agriculture are sprayed on cotton. This indicates the economic importance of bollworms in general and H. armig-era in particular. Despite huge efforts, bollworm control has not been satisfactory because the pest developed resistance to most of the currently recommended insecticides. Neverthe-less, farmers continue to use insecticides repeatedly as they have no option except to “spray” or “pray.” This has frustrated farmers, scientists and policy makers alike. Bt cotton came at a time when they were desperately looking for an alternative, dependable control measure.

18

Toxicological Research Centre, Lucknow; National Dairy Re-search Institute, Karnal; Central Institute of Fisheries Educa-tion, Mumbai; Central Avian Research Institute, Bareily; Na-tional Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad; and Govind Vallabh Pant University for Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. Studies were also conducted on the effects of leachate from Bt cotton plants on soil rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere micro-flora, soil collembola and earthworms. The results showed no differences between the soils where Bt and non-Bt plants had been grown. The information generated on pollen dispersal has established that airborne pollen transmission in cotton is limited to only a couple of meters, and the risk of undesirable introgressive hybridization with related species is minimal. Further, Bt cotton hybrids are tetraploid in genetic composi-tion whereas their nearest relatives, the local “Desi” cotton varieties, are diploid and hence are genetically incompatible for hybridization. Studies also revealed that Bt cotton had no adverse impact on biological control agents like ladybird bee-tles, green lacewings and parasitic hymenoptera. Studies were also carried out to determine the levels of Bt pro-tein expressed in different tissues (terminal leaves, squares and bolls) at different ages of the crop and at different locations.

The results revealed that although the expression varied among tis-sues and with the age of the plant, the amount of protein present in various tissues at any time was ad-equate to bring about mortality of the early instar bollworms.Baseline susceptibility data were also generated for a number of geographic populations of Heli-coverpa armigera so that it can serve as a benchmark for monitor-ing resistance, if any, in the future. These studies were carried out prior to commercial cultivation of Bt cotton by the Project Director-ate of Biological Control, ICAR, Bangalore.Field trials conducted from 1998 to 2001 clearly indicate that Bt cotton hybrids provided effective control of the bollworm complex in all locations and seasons. Data generated on all these aspects were submitted to DBT/RCGM for re-view.

India Approves Bt Cotton – The First Agribiotech Product

Based on the recommendation of RCGM, the Genetic Engi-neering Approval Committee (GEAC), in its 32nd meeting held in New Delhi on 26th March 2002, approved Mahycoʼs Bt cotton for commercial cultivation, pronouncing it to be beneficial and safe. This was a landmark decision as Bt cot-ton is the first-ever agribiotech product to receive such ap-proval. With the decision, India made its entry into commer-cial agricultural biotechnology. This approval specified three Bt hybrids, Mech 12, Mech 162 and Mech 184, which had undergone all the trials, and approval was initially granted for three years. The approval also stipulated other conditions. Every Bt cotton field must be fully surrounded by a ʻrefuge ̓crop comprising the same non-Bt cotton hybrids, and the size of the refuge shall be at least five rows of non-Bt, or 20% of the total sown area, whichever is greater. The “refuge” is to ensure the survival of Bt-sensitive insects, thereby helping to prevent or delay the development of resistance by bollworms to the Bt protein produced in each plant. “Refuges” also act as a “pollen sink” area.The chronology of events that led to the development and ap-proval of Bt cotton in India are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Chronology of Development and Approval of Bt Cotton in India

1995 (March) Mahyco applied to DBT (Department of Biotechnology, Govt. of India) for permission to import a small stock of Bollgard® (Bt cotton) seeds from Monsanto Company, USA.

1996 With the approval of DBT, a nucleus stock of about 100 gms of cotton seeds containing the Bollgard® Bt gene, Cry 1Ac, was received by Mahyco from Monsanto, USA.Initiated crossing with the Indian cotton breeding lines to introgress Cry 1Ac gene.40 elite Indian parental lines were converted into transgenic Bt lines.

1996-1998 Risk-Assessment Studies conducted using Bt cotton seeds from converted Indian lines.

- Pollen escape studies - Aggressiveness and persistence studies - Biochemical analysis - Toxicological studies on ruminants (goats) - Allergenicity study on rabbits

1998 – 1999 Field trials at 40 locations in 9 states to assess agronomic benefits and safety. Data submitted to RCGM (Review Committee for Genetic Modification), Ministry of Science & Technology, Govt. of India.

1999 – 2000 Field trials repeated at 10 locations in 6 states. Data submitted to RCGM.

2000 (July) Based on the recommendation of RCGM, the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee), Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, gave approval for Mahyco to conduct large scale field trials on 85 ha and also undertake seed production on 150 ha.

2001 Kharif 2001 – Large scale field trials covering 100 ha. Field trials were also conducted by the All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

2002 On 26 March 2002, GEAC approved Mahycoʼs three Bt cotton hybrids, Mech 12, Mech 162 and Mech 184, for commercial cultivation in India. This approval was initially valid for three years and also stipulated other conditions.

This is a landmark decision as Bt cotton is the first-ever transgenic crop to receive regulatory approval in India.

19

Field PerformanceThree Bt cotton hybrids, Mech 12, Mech 162 and Mech 184 were commercially planted in 2002 on 29,415 ha in six states - Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. Area increased to 86,240 ha in 2003 and to 530,800 ha in 2004. The results demonstrated the fol-lowing benefits from Bt cotton:

• Good control of bollworm species (false American boll-worm, pink bollworm, spotted bollworm, spiny bollworm) in all locations and seasons• Significantly higher boll retention and higher yields than the control or non-Bt cotton crop• Reduction in chemical sprays for bollworm control• Substantial increase in net income to farmers• No adverse impact on non-target organisms and the adja-cent non-Bt cotton or other crops

During the growing season of Kharif 2003, commercial per-formance trends were tracked by Mahyco for approximately 3,000 farmers covering most cotton growing states in central and south India. Data were taken for all three Bollgard® hy-brids. The largest sample was taken in the state of Maharashtra due to greater availability of resources. From a total sample size of 1,700 Maharashtra farmers, trends for relative eco-nomic gain in favour of Bollgard® hybrids ranged from $330 to $420 per hectare among the three hybrids. For all Bollgard® hybrids, the average number of insecticide applications for the bollworm complex was about 50% less than that required for conventional commercial hybrids. Seed cotton yields, with Bollgard® hybrids ranged from 1,900 to 2,170 kg per hectare, compared to conventional hybrids where yields varied from 1,100 to 1,309 kg per hectare. Similar trends were document-ed in other surveyed states. The average net economic benefit from Bollgard® hybrids over non-Bt hybrids among all states in the survey ranged from $208 to 685 per hectare. A nationwide survey carried out by ACNeilsen-ORG MARG in 2003 which included 3,063 farmers (1,672 Bt farmers and 1,391 conventional farmers) from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat (Tamil Nadu could not be included as the harvest was yet to be completed) clearly indicated the benefits of Bollgard® cotton. It indicated that the Bt cotton growers in India were able to obtain an aver-age yield increase of 29% (range 18% to 40%) due to effec-tive control of bollworms, a reduction in chemical sprays by 60% (range 51% to 71%) and an increase in net profit by 78% (range 66% to 164%) as compared to non-Bt cotton. The net profit translates to an average of $161 (ranging from $123 to 265) per hectare. According to the survey, over 90% of Boll-gard® users and over 40% of non-users expressed the intent to purchase Bollgard® seeds in the coming season.

Opposition to Bt CottonBt cotton faced opposition from organizations and individu-als from the beginning of its introduction and even before it had complete regulatory studies. A farmers ̓ organization in Karnataka, Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS), uproot-ed and burnt a few approved experimental crops in 1998 and 1999, wrongly accusing that Bt cotton contained the so-called “Terminator Technology” and the gene would escape and cause “Gene pollution” and sterility in other plants. They also alleged that Bt protein is harmful to humans, farm animals, other beneficial organisms and soil. They threatened farmers with serious consequences if they planted Bt cotton. They also held repeated public demonstrations against this technology.There were also other critics. Whenever a cotton crop failed in a certain area, be it due to drought or other environmen-tal stress, wilt or other diseases, sucking pests or any other reason, critics attributed the failure to the Bt-technology and blamed the company as well as the government. They encour-aged farmers to claim compensation from the company, ignor-ing the fact that Bt cotton was developed specifically to offer protection against bollworms, not against any other adverse factors. Their actions and statements received prominent cov-erage in the print and electronic media and created doubt and confusion in the minds of farmers and the public. It took enor-mous efforts on the part of Monsanto and Mahyco to miti-gate such negative publicity. The role played by DBT, which stood by this technology and organized several educational seminars on biotechnology in several states, is commendable. Except for a very few scientists, the rest of the scientific com-munity remained silent when this emerging technology was unreasonably attacked and misinformation was spread.The practical results obtained in India with Bt cotton dem-onstrated that it is safe and beneficial. The results are com-parable with those in other countries where Bt cotton was commercialized, starting from 1996 in Australia and the USA. Critics of Bt varieties have little impacts on farmers who have personally cultivated or observed Bt cotton and realized its benefits. It is apparent that as the technology wins, the con-troversy wanes.

Illegal Bt Cotton in IndiaRealizing the potential of Bt cotton in India, certain unscru-pulous agencies are exploiting the situation through sales of unapproved Bt cotton or spurious seeds. In fact, illegal seeds were introduced into the market while Mahyco was still carry-ing out regulatory trials and waiting for government approval. Illegal seeds were first discovered in Gujarat in 2000, and Navbharat was identified as the offending company. Later, il-legal seeds were found in several other states also where they occupied, and continue to occupy, considerable area. It has the following implications:

• Unapproved commercialization of biotech products is a

20

blatant violation of bio-safety norms and is a punishable of-fense.• Spurious producers are not accountable for purity, per-formance and safety. They may spoil the credibility of the product and technology.• Ilegal sellers can afford to sell their products at a much lower price as their investment on research is meager.• Illegal sales will affect the confidence and enthusiasm of genuine technology developers who invest a lot of time, tal-ent and money in developing new products and getting their approval through due regulatory procedures.• Farmers will be misled and confused.

Illegal Bt cotton is a blatant contravention of bio-safety norms and business ethics. Although the government has shown some concern and initiated action, this serious issue needs to be curbed more urgently and more strictly with severe penal-ties.

Prospects for Bt CottonBt cotton was first commercialized in the USA in 1996 and subsequently in Australia (1996), Argentina (1997), China (1997), Mexico (1998), South Africa (1998), Colombia (2002) and India (2002). As of 2003, transgenic cotton varieties were planted on 7.2 million hectares in nine countries. Substan-tial increases in yields due to effective control of bollworms, considerable reductions in chemical sprays and significant in-creases in net profit to farmers are reported in all countries. In India, bollworms are a major threat to the cotton crop. Hybrid cotton is more severely attacked than local varieties. The total area under cotton in India is about 9.0 million ha of which 4.8 million ha are occupied by hybrids and rest by non-hybrid varieties. In 2004, Bt cotton occupied only 530,000 ha which constituted less than 6% of the total cotton area or 11% of the hybrid area. Indications are that the area will continue to increase significantly in the coming years. Realizing this potential, about 19 seed companies in India, who have their own cotton hybrids suited for different regions, have already joined Mahyco and Monsanto as their sub-licensees for Bt cotton. Their hybrids, as well as Mahycoʼs new hybrids in-corporated with Cry 1Ac, are already undergoing regulatory trials. In fact, a Bt hybrid, RCH 2, developed by Rasi Seed Company already received regulatory approval in 2004. Mahyco is also carrying out regulatory trials with Bollgard® II stacked with two Bt genes, Cry 1Ac along with Cry 2Ab, also licensed from Monsanto. Bollgard® II already received commercial approval in Australia in September 2002 and in the USA in December 2002. It is superior to Bollgard® in per-formance and host range (in addition to other bollworms, it is also effective against Spodoptera spp.) and also makes a very good product for insect resistance management (IRM).Planting refuge crop is mandatory in India as in the USA,

Australia and other countries as a strategy towards insect resistance management. In India, Helicoverpa armigera, by far the predominant bollworm attacking cotton, also infests a large number of other crops like chickpea, pigeonpea, tomato, sunflower, maize and sorghum. These crops occupy substan-tial areas and are cultivated around the cotton crop at the same time in several parts of south and central India. These crops, especially chickpea and pigeonpea, support larger populations of H. armigera than cotton, thereby serving as natural refuge and helping IRM. Further, as the area presently occupied by Bt cotton is very small (i.e., less than 6% of the total cotton area or 11% of hybrid cotton), a huge crop of non-Bt hybrids and varieties are also available as refuge. In view of this, it ap-pears that growing non-Bt cotton as structured refuge may not be required in India. In fact, in China, for the same reasons, structured refuge is not mandatory. Bt cotton is a well-researched scientific product. The facts re-veal that in the last 7-8 years of its commercial cultivation in various countries, it has brought significant economic and environmental benefits and did not cause any untoward in-cidents related to bio-safety, environment or pest resistance. While it may not be worthwhile trying to convince opponents, efforts should be made to prevent misleading and incorrect in-formation going unchallenged. Public relations will continue to be a tough challenge for biotechnology and calls for greater efforts towards biotech awareness and education. Scientific outreach is a highly skilled job where science should be made understandable to common people. Bt cotton is a remarkable product, and Indian farmers should be encouraged to derive the maximum benefit from it like millions of farmers in other countries. References AC Neilsen-ORG MARG. 2003. Nationwide survey under-scores benefits of Bollgard® cotton.Barwale, R. B., R. B. Gadwal, U. Zehr and B. Zehr. 2004. Prospects for Bt cotton technology in India. AgBioForum, 7 (1&2): 23-26, http://www.agbioforum.Ghosh, P. K. 2001. Genetically engineered crops in India with special reference to Bt cotton. IPM Mitr 1: 1 – 21.James, C. 2002 & 2003. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002 & 2003. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications Briefs, ISAAA, Ithaca, New York, USA.Jayaraman, K. S. 2002. India approves GM cotton. Nature Biotech, 20 (5): p 415.Manjunath, T. M. 2004. Bt cotton: Safety assessment, risk management and cost-benefit analysis. pp. 366-369, In Khadi et al. (Eds) - “International Symposium on Strategies for Sus-tainable Cotton Production – A Global Vision”, Vol. 1, Crop Improvement, 23-25 November 2004, University of Agricul-tural Sciences, 482 pp., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.

21

Mohan, K. S. and T. M. Manjunath. 2002. Bt Cotton – Indiaʼs first transgenic crop. J. Plant Biol, 29 (3): 225-236. Qaim, M. and D. Zilberman. 2003. Yield effects of geneti-cally modified crops in developing countries. Science, 299: 900-902.Ravi, K. C., K. S. Mohan, T. M. Manjunath, G. Head, B. V. Patil, R. J. Rabindra, J. Peter and N. G. V. Rao. 2004. Relative Abundance of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctui-dae) on different host crops in India and the role of these crops as natural refugia for Bt cotton. Environmental Entomology

Population Biology (accepted, in press).Zehr, B. E. and S. Sandhu. 2004. Commercial performance of Bollgard® cotton hybrids in India during the Kharif 2003 season and future prospects for transgenic cotton breeding and technology improvement. pp. 353-356. In Khadi et al. (Eds) - “International Symposium on Strategies for Sustainable Cotton Production – A Global Vision”. Vol. 1, Crop Improve-ment, 23-25 November 2004. University of Agricultural Sci-ences, 482 pp., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.

Multiple Uses of BiotechnologyKater Hake, Delta and Pine Land Company, USA

herbicide tolerance categories. Fiber and seed quality im-provement is a long term challenge. However cotton research continues in China (Mainland), Europe, Australia and the US.Increased tolerance to stress by cotton plants could lower risk and enhance productivity. Targets are being investigated in cotton that could confer drought tolerance, salt tolerance and chilling injury tolerance. Disease tolerance could have a huge impact on tropical cotton due to weather patterns that favor disease progression and the lack of cold temperatures to break disease cycles. Biotechnol-ogy is being applied to traits targeted at both fungal and viral diseases. Current planting seed adoption patterns suggest that farmers will continue to want seed-based technologies that address multiple efficiency robbing problems. Delivering multiple so-lutions in the seed is a highly efficient mechanism to address the yield and efficiency robbing hazards that cotton farmers face. Although plant breeders and seed companies will be challenged by the incorporation of multiple traits into elite germplasm, benefits to farmers should encourage the neces-sary investment. Whether this investment is available depends less on scientific limitations and more on regulatory hurdles and delays, business models that provide a return from the long term investment, and product stewardship and utilization skills.

Cotton farmers are benefiting from the significant research in-vestment that has applied modern tools of biotechnology and genetics to the control of both weed and insect pests. This in-vestment has resulted in the following commercialized insect control and herbicide tolerance genes in elite cotton germ-plasm: the Cry Bt proteins (Cry 1Ac, Cry 1Ab, Cry 1F and Cry 2Ab), Cowpea Trypsin Inhibitor (CpTI) a non-Bt gene, and the herbicide tolerance genes for bromoxinyl, glyphosate and glufosinate.In addition to these commercialized genes, the following nov-el technologies are being tested in cotton: non-Cry insecticidal proteins, additional herbicidal genes, fiber quality, seed qual-ity, stress tolerance and disease tolerance. Looking towards the future, several biotech traits could play a significant role in improving the efficiency with which farm-ers can produce cotton. Additional insect control genes could be beneficial to further delay insect resistance to Cry 1 and Cry 2 proteins, and could be essential for production efficien-cy if resistance develops to these two commercialized classes of proteins. A loss of efficacy from the current Cry genes may necessitate a return to previous insecticidal usage unless alter-native insect control genes are developed in elite germplasm. Some of the alternative genes currently being considered in cotton include: lectins, additional protease inhibitors, and a vegetative insecticidal protein. Herbicide tolerance research continues to expand in cotton with additional glyphosate tolerance mechanisms and novel

Why Fear Biotechnology?Lastus K. Serunjogi, National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Uganda

IntroductionThe scope of biotechnology is large (ICAC, 2002). Biotech-nology includes experimental techniques for evaluating and manipulating the genetic materials of organisms. Experiments indicate molecular analysis of genetic material, hybridiza-

tion (even among least related parents), organ and cell cul-ture, plant regeneration, microbial biochemistry and molecu-lar biology and genetics. However, this article on “Why fear biotechnology?” is, confined to the biotechnology involving genetically engineered (GE) plants. These are plants whose

22

Fears on health include, among other things:

• Toxicity of the Bt proteins to humans and animals This fear has generated studies ranging from detailed un-derstanding of the biology of cotton and products and bi-products (e.g. cooking oil, livestock meals) through char-acterization of the introduced proteins and their levels in the products, to feeding studies of the products in rats and other animals.• Human and animal development of resistance to antibiot-ics used in treatment of diseasesThis arose from a realization that antibiotic genes were inserted in the experimental cotton cells for ease of iden-tifying those transformed from the non-transformed types (ICAC, 2000b).

Fears about environmental degradation are expected to stem mainly from;

• Creation of “super weeds” through gene – flow between biotech cotton and wild relatives. This was coupled with a fear of affecting the composition of plant genetic resourc-es and biodiversity. The incompatibility among, and geo-graphical distribution of the concerned species have allevi-ated fears to some extent.

• Emergence of other weeds not controlled by the herbi-cides in use on the herbicide – resistant cotton, and over use of herbicides on biotech cotton which would eventually contaminate the environment.

• Emergence of other pests in cotton not affected by the Bt proteins.

• Lepidopteran target pests developing resistance to the Bt toxins due to their continuous exposure to the delta- endo-toxin. Such resistance, and even cross resistance (resistance of a pest to different types of toxins e.g. Cry 1Aa-c series) have been reported (Shen et al., 1998). New technologies involving deployment of Bt genes with different modes of action in biotech varieties over time periods and distances, coupled with use of refugia crops which dilute the build up of resistance through mating of insects susceptible to the toxins with those which have developed resistance, are among the reasons this fear has been alleviated (ICAC, 2002b).

• Adverse effects on non-target insect species by Bt tox-ins, including beneficial insects in farming systems, which are useful in biocontrol programs for other crop pests. It is now realized that the fears about biotechnology-based risks to human health and the environment will continue as new developments in biotechnology take place. The risks to the environment can be minimized through proper case-by-case assessment of the necessary precautions required while applying biotech innovations to particular uses and environments or geographic regions. Fears of effects on hu-man health can be abated through wide harmonization of

genetic materials have been altered through recombinant DNA (r DNA) technology making them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions.

GE plants have potential roles in increasing productivity of food and cash crops. This can be through enhanced resistance or tolerance to adverse environments, and resistance to severe pest infestations. GE plants can play a role in easing crop storage and transportation arising from grain/seed resistance to post-harvest micro-organisms and invertebrate pests. GE plants also play a role in the availability of essential nutrition-al requirements, including vitamins and amino acids. The nu-tritionally-enhancing or “nutraceutical” GE crops have appli-cations for improving diet and health of people and livestock (Atikins, 2003). These include, for example, rice modified to express increased levels of ?-carotene (precursor of vitamin A) or legumes modified for increased levels of the essential amino acid Methionine. This article will describe the reasons of fear and skepticism about GE cotton. Since the applica-tion of modern biotechnology tools is resulting in expanding the number of products in cotton other than those of modified genetic composition, a preferred term for biotechnology-fa-cilitated cotton is “biotech cotton” (ICAC, 2004a). Biotech cotton has been produce commercilly for ten years since it was introduced by Monsanto in 1996 (ICAC, 2000). This was after Perlak et al., (1990), introduced Cry 1Ac and Cry 2Ab genes into cotton plants and showed high levels of resistance to cotton bollworms (Helicoverpa spp.). The genes inserted in the first generation of biotech cotton offered management of production inputs. Bt Cotton offered control of Lepidopteran pests, the Helicoverpa group e.g. and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) cotton produced resistant to herbicides. Research on biotech cotton for increased outputs e.g. yields and qual-ity, have come later (ICAC, 2004 a&b). In spite of expanding research on production and use of biotech cotton, there have been fears and skepticism about these varieties specifically and about biotechnology in general.

Categories of Fears of Biotechnol-ogy in CottonPotential Health and Environmental Risks from Biotech CottonBiotech cotton may offer many benefits, but potential users have recognized or expressed concern over the potential risks to human health and the environment. These constitute the first category of “fears” of biotechnology or of biotech cotton. The fears in this category have in the 10 years period been dis-cussed and some resolved through scientific-based studies. To address those fears risks to human health and the environment must be assessed before biotech varieties may be released. Risk assessments are the essence of biosafety regulations and protocols in the biotechnology arena. These have become mandatory in countries using biotechnology.

23

regulatory requirements (ICAC, 2004a).

Fears due to Impediments to Biotechnology Ap-plicationsThe second category of fears about biotechnology arises out of impediments, or hurdles, in the course of effecting biotech-nology applications. This is the major source of fear about biotechnology today in developing countries. The magnitudes and impacts of this category vary with the type and levels of the national economy and the development of agricultural farming systems such as large commercial scale vis-avis sub-sistence farming. These impediments can be sub-categorized as:

Requirements of Enabling Policies and Regulatory Le-gal Frameworks on Biotechnology

The required assessments for risks toward health and the environment mentioned above require individual countries or regions having policies and legal frameworks on develop-ment, testing, application and protection of biotechnological innovations. These include, among others:

• Policies on biotechnology and biosafety regulations. Sci-entists may realize the need for the legal framework to be in place before they can introduce or work on biotechnological options. This is especially so on requirements for handling, containment and confinement of materials during testing. Scientists depend on the perception and pace of policy mak-ers who may have biased attitudes toward biotechnology and may slow the regulatory processes. There are a number of guidelines and options on the formulation of policies and regulations on biotechnology. There are, for example, inter-national treaties and conventions, which if the country is a party to, could be ratified for preliminary use before being fully domesticated into national laws. These include, inter alia, the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (1992), and the Cartagena (2004) protocol on biosafety. There are also examples of regional guidelines for countries intending to formulate bio-safety regulations, for example the OAU (now African Union) Model on Biotech Regulations (OAU, 2001). The required policies need to be widely embraced to safeguard human health and the environmental prior to use. The use of biotechnology requires multidisciplinary teams to formulate required policies and to be enacted into laws by legislative bodies.

- Once regulations are developed, a regulatory authority is needed, and this must be an infrastructure that em-powers the authority to monitor and enforce the regula-tions. These add costs to the processes of biotechnology application and regulation.

- It is encouraging to note that, in addition to existing guidelines on biosafety regulations, there are interna-tional programs which are ready to support interested countries in setting up biosafety regulations. These

programs offer technical, financial and information re-sources. Many African countries have utilized programs funded by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and its associated unit our Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF) biosafety unit, the United Nations Industrial Development Program (UNIDO) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to develop bio-safety regulations (Atikins, 2004). Uganda, with the as-sistance of UNEP-GEF, developed a draft biotechnology biosafety framework (Anon., 2000).

• Intellectual property (IP) management policies are es-sential at institutional and national levels to provide protec-tion for technologies. Effective negotiations are needed on appropriate terms for use of biotechnological innovations by needy countries/firms. Lack of basic policies discour-age private technology suppliers from operating in coun-tries where there are no agreements on the disclosure of information, licensing for exchange/accessing of material and deciding on royalties for the technologies. In return, the licensee (recipient) of the technology in countries lacking such policies lacks confidence to negotiate the terms of use (Erbisch and Maredia, 2003). Such arrangements call for having in place Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs) and of-ficers, which have associated costs. The guiding principles for developing IP management programs can be drawn from international conventions or agreements. For example, the Trade Related Intellectual Property Right (TRIPS) agree-ment, the CBD convention and the FAOʼs International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) are available.

Costs of Infrastructure and Capacity for Biotechnology Development

The development of biotechnology innovations requires in-vestments in laboratory infrastructure and trained personnel. In countries with still developing economies the costs become prohibitive. Solutions could be produced by the development of international or regional co-operations/networks which can enable sharing of resources for laboratories and personnel. For example the East African Regional Program and Research Network for biotechnology, biosafety and biotechnology pol-icy development (BIO-EARN) is now developping biotech-nology regulations for Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (Anon., 2003). The absence of relevant national policies on biotechnology is a hindrance at the start of such cooperation, even if a country decided to deal with multinational private companies.

Systems of Input Supply and Costs

• Additional fears towards biotech/biotechnology stem from the development levels of agriculture in individual countries. This is especially so with regard to arrangements for the source and distribution of transgenic planting seed.

24

In subsistence agriculture, farmers depend traditionally on farm-saved seed and exchanges between farmers for food and cash crops. In Uganda, for example, cotton farms av-erage one hectare. There is organized seed replacement regulated by the Cotton Development Organization (CDO). Seed from line-varieties developed through conventional breeding by public research institutions traverse through five generations of planting. Seed moves from a small pro-duction area in a given season to cover a larger zone the following season. This arrangement makes planting seed af-fordable to subsistence farmers. Biotech seed is replantable over seasons while maintaining their intended attributes (ICAC, 2000 and 2002b) but intellectual property require-ments of the biotech seed developers prohibit seasonal seed saving and replanting. Seasonal replenishment of planting seed will disrupt arrangements for input distribution in such a case. • The cost of the biotech seed is unaffordable for resource-poor farmers such as those targeted in a Uganda develop-ment program, Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). Cotton is a poverty alleviation crop in Uganda and is pro-duced in 35 of 56 districts in the country by over 500,000 farm-families of approximately five people per family. Production is about 30,000 metric tons of lint annually that provides increased livelihoods for poor framers. Twelve kilos of seed required for planting one hectare cost $4.5 in Uganda. However, farmers cannot afford to pay in ad-vance and seek credit to be settled at the end of the season to be included in seed cotton prices. When the situation is compared to the reports on the costs of biotech seeds in South Africa at $60 for 25 kg of seeds to plant a hectare in 2001 (ICAC, 2002a), the cost was expected to rise to $ 70 in 2002/03 season). In India (Madhya Pradesh, Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu etc areas), Bt seed was expected to be sold at $71 for planting a hectare in comparison to $20 for conventional hybrids (ICAC, 2004b). In China, Bt seed costs $60/ha (Russel, 2004). The cost of seeds alone would drive most cotton farmers in Uganda (and in other develop-ing countries) out of production. It should be noted that in Uganda, the use of scouting and other integrated pest man-agement (IPM) options has led to a reduction from four cal-endar sprays per season to three or fewer. Seed cotton yields have been reported to range between 500-2,500 kg/ha (Rus-sel, 2004). Therefore the cost of insecticides, or the load of pesticides in the environment, would not justify the farm-ers high cost of biotech seeds. South Africa farmers use an average of eight sprays, (ICAC, 2002b), and India reported over 19 sprays per season. The most appropriate biotech op-tions would be those which do not exclude resource-poor farmers from cotton production. In addition to the cost of biotech seeds, farmers in Uganda would still need to control other pests, including aphids, lygus and stainers. Further-more, the high cost of biotech seeds would be a disadvan-tage in Uganda where seed cotton prices have never been

above $0.50/kg since they are dependant on international prices for lint. The high cost of biotech seeds have also been decried as prohibitive in Mali according to BBC-News of November 2004.

Inadequate Knowledge on Intentions for Biotechnology Innovations

Other fears about the use of biotechnology products arise from inadequate knowledge of users about the intentions of the innovations.

• An outstanding example is the system developed by the US Department of Agriculture, jointly with Delta and Pine Land Company, that would have caused transgenic cotton plants to produce sterile seeds. The technology was called “Terminator” or “Technology Protection System.” It was meant to protect companies ̓investments in biotech cotton. It was patented in 1998 (ICAC 1998, 2000 and 2002b). It was not commercialized due to the implications for small scale farmers and their supporting organizations who wished to save seeds. However, even though the technology was abandoned, it sent harmful signals about the intentions of biotechnologists. In many debates today on biotechnology, the issue of terminator still dominates other issues and leads to wrong decisions even by policy makers who suspect that the technology could also “terminate” or affect reproduc-tion ability of humans.• Atikins (2004) cited other examples where the use of bio-technologies could be inhibited by the potential users ̓ in-ability to adhere to the required precautions in the use of a given technology. For example, one management prac-tice to reduce the risk of transfer of modified genes from a GE crop to wild relatives could be to harveste the plant before it flowers. If there were chances of farmers or users neglecting such a step, through lack of understanding of the implications, then the use of technology would affect the level of risk posed by biotechnology. In such cases, the fear of release of biotechnology would be on the innovator not the user.

In essence some of the fear about biotechnology arises through a lack of inadequate information and training on the part of potential users or policy makers.

Efficiency and Implications of Technology Use on Conventional Breeding Programs

• The first generation of biotech provided varieties having single gene attributes with limited efficiency on pest control (type and period of control), For example, Monsantoʼs Boll-gard cotton with the Cry 1Ac gene. This continued narrow spectrum of bollworms and had little effect on late pests due to low expressions of Bt toxins in floral parts. Whereas the breadth of control has now been expanded in Bollgard II with the addition of the Cry 2Ab gene (ICAC, 2004b), and in Wide Striketm cotton from Dow Agro Sciences with

25

a combination of Cry 1Ac and Cry 1F Bt proteins which offer season-long protection against a wide spectra of lepi-dopteran pests. However, the initial limitations on biotech efficiency instilled fear in some users. Additionally, the Roundup Ready cotton had a limited window of applica-tion of up to only 4 leaf-stages when cotton would be safely protected from herbicide. The difficulty in adhering to such a narrow window raised fears. There are new options pro-viding a large application window of up to 10 leaf-stages in the Bayer Crop Sciences Liberty® Link cotton and up to 14 leaf-stages in Monsantoʼs Roundup Ready Flex variety. (ICAC, 2004 b).• Whereas producing countries may wish to utilize biotech. they may be limited by the acceptability of the resultant produce in traditional markets. A case for citation is Uganda which produces high quality G. hirsutum cotton: The fibers have been improved and now classified as long-stapled and even fetch premium prices in some markets. Uganda ex-ports 90% of its cotton, mainly to European market. If Eu-rope demanded non-biotech products, Uganda would lose the market. On the other hand, changing to biotech cotton may not offer another market, since already in 2003/04 bio-tech contributed to 21% of world cotton area, 30% of the world production and 34% of international trade (ICAC, 2004b). Uganda would therefore not be able to compete with its limited production with the already enlarging bio-tech supply after losing its traditional markets. This fear is now being alleviated on learning that European consumers are not rejecting biotech products.• The procedures for regenerating transformed cotton cells into plants raised concerns among conventional breeder be-cause not all cotton varieties had the capability of regenera-tion. Transformation was therefore made in “foreign” va-rieties, rather than a recipients ̓own elite lines which were endowed with specific attributes to increase yields and or important fiber quality or provide resistance to disease and pests other than lepidopteran pests. East African varieties are selected for hairiness on leaves and stems for the control of jassid. The jassid problem would resurge if the varieties were replaced by hairless or glaburescent types. (The situ-ation though could be corrected by a series of backcrosses of the transgenics to the “elite”, desired varieties). The con-sequences of adopting biotech varieties in foreign countries would mean the loss of traditional attributes such as fiber quality, resistance to the local races of bacterial blight and wilt diseases incorporated in traditional varieties over de-cades would be lost. It is notable that new methods of ge-netic engineering are being developed where the need to regenerate plants from a single cell is avoided (ICAC, 2004 b).• Another source of fear to potential users of biotech arises from the number of biotech varieties to be used. This arises from having a single or a few advantageous genes put in the

transgenics separately rather than stacking them in single varieties for insect resistance and resistance to herbicides. Large numbers of varieties are difficult to handle in small scale production systems. This may lead to “Technology Fatigue” on the side of the farmers and the input supplying agents.• As new transgenic varieties come into countries, ethical issues arise on the side of conventional breeders in local programs. Will conventional breeders lose their life-long career as policy makers may opt for the new biotech cot-tons, or will appropriate collaborations and partnerships be drawn up between conventional breeder and the biotech in-novators? If the “elite” lines or local varieties (developed for decades for incorporation of attributes) are not thrown away but used for the transformation with new genes, will conventional breeders or their domestic institutions share royalties out of the biotech varieties?• The number of players in the development of biotech is expanding in the form of multinational companies. The biotech products developed may differ in a number of transformed genes or in their mode of action. Examples are genes in the Monsanto Bollgard I and II vis-à-vis the Vegetative Insecticidal Protein (VIP) biotech by Syngenta; and the Wide Strike Cotton by Dow Agro Sciences with Cry 1Ac and Cry 1F Bt genes against bollworms (ICAC, 2004b). When so many innovators approach new potential users, they searouse fears over the ultimate intentions of the proposed technology especially when the ʻnew innovations ̓appear similar to the policy makers who may not be familiar with the technology details. This may also lead to “technol-ogy or partnership fatigue”. The solution to this would be the creation of mergers among the innovators for a particu-lar regions e.g. for East and Central Africa.

SummaryThe fears about the risks of biotechnology on health and the environment have been around for over a decade. Science-based studies have alleviated in fears to some extent. There are impediments or constraints to the application of biotech which translate into fears, especially in the developing coun-tries. Since some of these countries are already running IPM programs using biological control, host-plant genetic resis-tance in the domestic elite lines, cultural practices and other options which have kept levels of spraying low, the use of biotech may not be advantageous to all agricultural systems. Such countries should be given time to develop their policies and legal frameworks on biotechnology regulations and on in-tellectual properly management without pressures for hasty decisions. Biotech may be introduced gradually as part of IPM options. This approach would help to keep resource-poor farmers in cotton production. Training and educating potential users and policy makers about the intended benefits of biotech would alleviate some of the fears and enable than to take ap-propriate decisions on whether to use biotech cottons or not.

26

References Anon. 2003. BIO-EARN. Biotechnology for development. A presentation of the East African Regional Program and Re-search Network for Biotechnology, Biosafety and Biotechnol-ogy Policy Development. Stockholm Environment Institute – SIDA.

Anon. 2000. UNEP/GEF Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activ-ity Project. Uganda Biosafety Framework, Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST).

Atikins, W. S. 2003. Uganda Review of the Proposed Biotech-nology Policy and the Implications of this Policy to the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Status of ratification and en-try into force, 2004.

ICAC 2004a. Report of the Second Expert Panel on Biotech-nology of Cotton. International Cotton Advisory committee, November 2004.

ICAC 2004b. Update on Genetically Engineered Cotton. The ICAC Recorder, Vol. XXII, No. 2, June 2004.

ICAC 2002a. The ICAC Recorder, Vol. XX, No.3, September 2002.

ICAC 2002b Commonly asked questions about transgenic cotton. The ICAC Recorder, Vol. XX, No.2, June 2002.

ICAC 2000. Report of the Expert Panel on Biotechnology in Cotton. International Cotton Advisory committee. November 2000.

ICAC 1999. The ICAC Recorder, Vol. XVII, No. 2, March 1999.

Erbisch, F. H. and K. M. Maredia. 2003. Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural Biotechnology. 2nd Edn. Biotechnol-ogy in Agricultural, Series No. 28, CABI Publishing ISBN 0-85199-739-2.

Organization of African Unity (OAU 2001). The OAU Draft Model Legislation on Safety in Biotechnology.

Perlak, F. J., R. W. Deaton, T. A. Armstrong, R. L. Fuchs, S. R. Sims, J. T. Greenplate, and D. A. Fischaff, 1990. Insect resistant cotton plants, Biotechnology, 8 939 – 943.

Russel, D. 2004. Facilitating Adoption of best agronomic practices by small holders. ICAC 63rd Plenary meeting, Fifth open session, December 2004, Mumbai, India.

Shen, J. L., W. J. Zhen, Y. D. Wu, X. W. Lin, D. F. Zhu, W. J. Zhar, Y. D. Win, and X. F. Zhu. 1998. Early resistance of Helicoverpa armigera to Bt and its relation to the effect of transgenic cotton, Acta Entomologica sinica 41, 8– 14.

United Nations. 1992. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Nine Years of Transgenic Cotton in MexicoJose L. Martinez-Carrillo, National Institute for Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research (INIFAP), Mexico

IntroductionThe use of transgenic crops continues to grow worldwide and it is estimated that 67.7 million hectares were planted to biotech varieties in 2004 by an estimated seven million farm-ers in 18 countries. Almost one-third of the area planted to transgenic crops was located in developing countries. It is also estimated that in the next five years, 10 million growers in 25 countries will grow 100 million hectares of transgenic crops (James, 2003). Mexico has adopted this new technology, and since its release in 1996, Bt cotton has been used by farmers interested in obtaining better yields with reductions in pesti-cide use and production costs. Nine years after commercial re-lease, biotech cotton reached 61% of 107,346 hectares planted in Mexico in 2004/05. In some states more than 70% of the area was planted to transgenic cotton. Cotton production in Mexico has been influenced by interna-tional cotton prices, drought and high production costs. These factors cause cotton area to fluctuate. In 1993, only 42,539 hectares were planted to cotton, mainly due to whitefly out-breaks observed in the early 1990ʼs (Martinez-Carrillo, 1994). In 1994, 175,375 hectares were planted to cotton, and area

reached a peak of 314,776 hectares in 1996. This was mainly due to an increase in prices that reached US$2.04 per kg of lint in 1994. After 1994, cotton area and production in Mexico decreased. By 2001/02 only 40,483 hectares were planted to cotton, a record low. Higher prices in 2003, and better govern-ment support stimulated cotton area to 62,892 hectares and the area grew to 107,346 hectares in 2004/05. Good yields and better pest control have motivated growers, and another increase in area is expected for 2005/06. The main cotton producing states are Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Coahuila, Durango and Tamaulipas in north-ern Mexico. Cotton is irrigated in all these areas. In 2003/04, Chihuahua planted 49% of the area in Mexico, Sonora, 18%, Baja California 17% and Comarca Lagunera, (a region that includes the states of Coahuila and Durango) 15% (Table 3).

Main Insect Pests The key insect pests differ in each region. In Chihuahua, pink bollworm, stink bugs, whiteflies, bollworm and tobacco bud-worm are important pests in the northern part of the state, while boll weevil is the key pest in the rest of the state. In

27

duced to only two applica-tions per season (Sánchez, 2000; Nava et al., 2002). Cotton is irrigated in the north part of the state of Tam-aulipas, whereas in the south part it is rain feed. The key pest is boll weevil, which is sprayed 5 times in the north and 15 times in the south Tamaulipas. Other entomo-logical problems include cot-ton bollworm, tobacco bud-

worm, beet armyworm, whiteflies and fleahoppers, for which growers spray two or three times during the cotton season.

Transgenic Cotton in MexicoBollgard (BG) cotton which contains the Cry 1Ac toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki has been used in Mexico since 1996 when 897 hectares were planted in south Tamaulipas. Adoption of Bt varieties has increased because of higher yields, better pest control and a reduction in insecticide ap-plications (Sanchez, 2000; Nava et al., 2002). In 1997, 8% of total cotton area was transgenic, 14% in 1998, 13% in 1999, 33% in 2000, 27% in 2001, 38% in 2002, 41% in 2003 and 61% in 2004 (Table 1). A new material that contains the BG traits and a gene that provides resistance to the herbicide glyphosate was introduced in 1999. In Mexico, this product is known as Bollgard “solución Faena” (BG/SF). The area under the stocked gene varieties increased from 25 hectares in 1999 to 17,327 hectares in 2004.Chihuahua had the most area planted to transgenic cotton in 2003/04, 37,828 hectares of which 11,574 were BG/SF. Co-marca Lagunera grew 11,760 hectares of transgenic cotton, 9,898 were BG and 1,862 were BG/SF. Sonora had 11,067 hectares, 8,098 were BG and 2,969 BG/SF. Tamaulipas did not plant transgenic cotton, and only 7 hectares were planted in Sinaloa as an experiment. Chihuahua planted 72% of its area with transgenic cotton, Comarca Lagunera 76%, South Sonora 75, North Sonora 21% and Baja California 25% in 2004/05 (Table 3). Because of the restrictions imposed by the resistance management strategy in Mexico, a maximum of 80% of the area will be planted with transgenic cotton.

After nine years of transgenic cotton in Mexico, these mate-rials have been accepted and are now required by growers to control insects, especially pink bollworm and the com-plex of cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm. Boll wee-vil and a complex of suck-ing pests such as lygus bugs,

2001, a program was initiated to suppress pink bollworm and boll weevil at the state level. This program was started in co-operation with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Results are encouraging and sprays for the control of key in-sect pests have been reduced considerably.Sonora State has two main cotton producing areas that pres-ent different characteristics, the north region, composed of Caborca and Sonoyta, produced cotton with well irrigation, and the area is arid and semiarid. The key insect pests are ly-gus bugs and whiteflies. The pink bollworm, cotton bollworm and tobacco budworm have been reduced with increased use of Bt cotton. In south Sonora, the climate is semiarid, and cot-ton is irrigated by water obtained from wells. The key pest is the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis), followed by a complex of sucking insects such as lygus bugs, cotton fleahopper Pseu-datomoscelis seriatus, and whitefly Bemisia argentifolii. The bollworm and budworm complex, Helicoverpa zea and Helio-this virescens, are also a problem during fruit formation.The Mexicali Valley is located in the state of Baja California where pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella, lygus bugs Lygus hesperus, L. lineolaris and L. elisus, silverleaf whitefly Bemisia argentifolii, Helicoverpa zea and Heliothis virescens are the main pests. The Comarca Lagunera region integrates parts of the states of Coahuila and Durango. This region used to have a serious problem with pink bollworm, and farmers sprayed up to seven times against this pest. The use of Bt cotton has drastically reduced pink bollworm and other insect pests such as tobacco budworm. Now, the main problems are sucking insects like stink bugs Chlorochroa ligata and Nezara viridula, whiteflies, aphids and cotton bollworm. However, spraying has been re-

Table 1. Transgenic Cotton in Mexico

Year Total Cotton Area* (ha)

Bollgard Cotton**

(ha)

BG/SF *** (ha)

% Transgenic Area

1996 314,776 897 0.3 1997 214,378 16,677 7.8 1998 249,602 35,630 14.3 1999 149,299 18,653 25 12.5 2000 80,166 26,300 461 33.4 2001 91,899 23,393 1,819 27.4 2002 40,483 13,960 1,235 37.5 2003 62,892 23,897 2,161 41.4 2004 107,346 47,679 17,327 60.6 * Source: Sagarpa (SIACON) ** Source: Monsanto Commercial S. A, de C.V. *** Bollgard plus Roundup Ready (known in Mexico as Bollgard Solucion Faena)

Table 2. Adoption of Bollgard and BG/SF Cotton by Region in Mexico in 2003/04

REGION Bollgard BG/SF TOTAL Baja California 3,429 915 4,344 Sonora North 868 361 1,229 Sonora South 7,230 2,608 9,838 Sinaloa 0 7 7 Chihuahua 26,254 11,574 37,828 Comarca Lagunera 9,898 1,862 11,760 Total 47,679 17,327 65,006

28

stink bugs, whiteflies and others are still a serious problem. However, in some states as Chihuahua and Sonora an eradica-tion program has been established for boll weevil and pink bollworm that includes transgenic cotton, pheromones, traps and sprays. This program is expected to reduce insect prob-lems in cotton and thus limit production costs. The xxx that cotton will become again an important crop in Mexico again.

ConclusionsThe adoption of transgenic crops continues to grow world-wide. Transgenic technology has been accepted in Mexico, and biotech cotton area increased from 0.3% in 1996 to 61% in 2004/05. Since 1999, a new variety has been introduced that contains the Cry 1Ac toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis, and kurstaki, a gene that codifies for resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Higher prices and better government support

stimulated growers to produce more than 100,000 hectares of cotton in 2004/05. Good yields and better pest control has motivated growers. Consequently, an increase in area, including transgenic cotton, is ex-pected in 2005/06.

ReferencesJames, C. 2003. Preview: Global

Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003. ISAAA, Briefs No. 30, ISAAA: Itaca, NY.Martínez Carrillo, J. L. 1994. Problemática fitosanitaria causada por la mosquita blanca en méxico. In: Memoria de la Segunda asamblea anual del CONACOFI, 14-15 de noviem-bre, pp. 77-88, Montecillo, Edo de México. Nava, Camberos U., E. Valenzuela Herrera y E. López Ríos. 2002. Efectividad del algodonero transgénico para el manejo integrado del gusano rosado en la Comarca Lagunera. Ento-mología Mexicana ,Vol. 1, 356-361, México.Sánchez, A. J. 2000. Situación actual de la campaña contra las plagas del algodonero en la Región Lagunera. In: Memorias de la 7ª. Reunión Anual del CONACOFI, 24-25 de octubre, Puebla, Pue. pp. 146-147.

Table 3. Transgenic Cotton Area by Region in Mexico in 2003/04

REGION Cotton Area (ha)

Percent of Total Area

% Transgenic Area

Tamaulipas 2,043 1.9 0.0 Baja California 17,697 16.5 24.6 Sonora North 5,921 5.5 20.8 Sonora South 13,204 12.3 74.5 Sinaloa 294 0.3 2.0 Chihuahua 52,645 49.0 71.9 Comarca Lagunera 15,542 14.5 75.7