agriculture world may 2016

AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE W RLDW RLD

The Pulse � Global Agriculture

Echoing Sustainable Environment and Agriculturewww.krishijagran.comkrishi.jagran @krishijagran

Volume II Issue 5 May 2016 `70 | | | ISSN 2455-8184

GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia

GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia

AGRICULTURE WORLDCONTENTS

Editor-in-ChiefMC Dominic

Directors Shiny EmanuelMG Vasan

Sr. Executive Editor Dr. KT ChandyRK Teotia

Assistant Editor Ruby Jain

Sr. Correspondent Imran KhanSonal Handa

CorrespondentManish ChauhanDeepshikhaSameer TiwariAslam Rasool KhanJyoti Sharma

V.P. Int. Business D.D. Nair Gavrilova Maria

Marketing Head Sanjay Kumar GM - Marketing Farha KhanSr. Manager Marketing K J SaranyaSara Khan

Marketing Manager Megha SharmaAfsana Malik Sr. Executive Marketing Chunki BhutiaPoonam BishwakarmaRinki PundirLaxmi PandeySoniya MahajanShifali MahajanPreeti ChauhanKanchan SinghHema SharmaRajni KumariKarishma LehriMeena PandeyPriya TripathiAayesha KhanVanita Singh

Circulation Head Nishant K Taak

Circulation Manager Rahul SinghAbdus Samad

Sr. Executive Circulation Prashant SharmaAnku YadavPappu RayMohitFurkan QureshiShahzeb Ahmed

AGRICULTURE WORLDIN THIS ISSUE

The Pulse � Global Agriculture

Volume 2 Issue 5 May 2016 Total Page- 44

Head Pre-Press Alka Gupta

Graphic Designer Dharmendra KumarYogesh Kumar

AccountsKB Indira

O�ce Assistant Devender KumarJagdish JanaPrem KumarRajiv

DD NairVP International Business (Russia & CIS Countries)6 Mikluho-Maklaya STR, Moscow, Russia 117198Mob: +7903729 98 30, Tel: +7499501 99 10Email: [email protected]

M MezhukanalE-16F - 33, Hamriya Free Zone, Sharjah, UAEMob: +971 50 2870465 Email: [email protected]

For Circulation & SubscriptionNishant Kr. TaakMob: +91-9953756433Email: [email protected], [email protected]

CONTACT [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Printed and Published by: M. C. Dominic60/9, 3rd Floor, Yusuf Sarai Market, Near Green Park Metro Station, New Delhi 110016.Tel: 011-26511845, 26517923Mobile: +91-9313301029, +91-9654193353Email: [email protected], [email protected] � Web: www.krishijagran.com

Printed at: Pushpak Press Pvt. Ltd., 203-204, DSIDC, Okhla Ph.-I, New Delhi - 110020

All rights reserved.Copyright @ Krishi Jagran Media Group.Agriculture World is published by Krishi Jagran Media Group.Editor: MC Dominic

Disclaimer:While every care has been taken to ensure accuracy of the information contained in this publications, the publishers are not responsible for any errors or omissions that might have crept into this publications.No part of this publication may be reproduced or kept in a retrieval system, without the express permission of the publishers.

08. GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia

12. Indian Private Industries in GM Crop Research

INTERVIEW

14. The Fate of Indian GM Mustard:

18. Twenty Successful Years Of Gm Crops

24. Status of Bt Brinjal in India

26. GENETIC TRANSFORMATION IN INSECTS

32. Colour Coding of Land Classes

krishijagran.com

M C DominicEditor‐in‐Chief

[email protected]

EDITORIAL

ndia is deplorably deficient in oil seed production and negatively poised in its oil seed export-import ratio. In 2014-

I15 alone 12 million tonnes of edible oil was imported. Among the oilseeds in India rapeseed and mustard are the two most important oilseeds after groundnut. In this respect GM mustard is a very promising oil seed crop to meet our

edible oil deficiency. However anti-GM lobby has blocked it from cultivation which is certainly a national crime and shame. Further it is a slur on the scores of scientists who developed GM mustard after several years of painstaking research. Dr C. D Mayee, Founder President, South Asia Biotechnology Centre, New Delhi in his article on “GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia” explains how political populist decisions go against the scientific truths.

There was time when too much emphasis was on the public sector enterprises. Today it is public-private partnership that is stressed more; in many times the private enterprises are taking lead in key areas of science and technology. That is true also in the genetic engineering and related fundamental and applied research. Dr. Shivendra Bajaj, Executive Director, ABLE AG, in his article on highlights the role of “Indian Private Industries in GM Crops Research” refers to the GM phobia created by anti-science and anti-technical people who think of only social development.

The article by R. K. Teotia, Aslam Rasool Khan & Sameer Tiwari pose a wonderful challenge to the government which in its unreasonable ban on the Bt Brinjal and GM mustard have been insulting the scientists who after many years of painstaking work have developed them. They are the Indian scientists working in the public sectors and there is no involvement of external multinational companies as in the case of Bt Cotton. Why can't the government asses the Bt inventions objectively and learn from our neighbouring country Bengladesh on Bt Brinjal? Why the govt is importing Rs 85000 crore worth GM oil? These are legitimate questions raised by the authors of this article.

GM crops are making a-fast-track-in-roads into the agricultural production scenario not only the developing countries but also in the developed countries though there are well calculated opposing forces working against it. Drawing much from the field level raw data on the spread of GM technology in a number of crops and the resulting rise in the production both in the Asian-African countries and developed countries Clive James, Emeritus Chairman and Founder, ISAAA, convincingly presents the real scenario of GM crop-acceptance by the farmers all over the world. The “Top Ten Facts” he has enumerated and explained in this article are based on solid research findings.

The medicinal and nutritional importance of Brinjal is indisputable and India being one of the places of origin of Brinjal in the world its importance in the life of the people in this country needs no debate. Because it is available abundantly many people ignore its importance in their life as medicinal food item. Brinjal being the same family as the cotton plant the Bt technology become very handy to control the fruit and shoot borer infestation found to be a major constraint to yield. Miss Rashmi Verma, PhD research Scholar, Graphic Era University Dehradun in her article on Status of Bt Brinjal in India describes the noble efforts of scientists in developing the Bt Brinjal contrasting with the hypocritical attitude of the government of India.

In the modern world of science and technology genetic research is contributing perhaps more than any other to the wellbeing of humans in the world. Ever since man has discovered genes as the basis of all living being's characters genetic engineering has gone into gene mapping of almost all the living beings including humans. Genomics is the wholesale descriptive analysis of an organism's genome, including DNA sequence and gene expression information. By now we have witnessed the realization of the long-sought goal of genetically transforming insects of medical and agricultural importance. The article on Genetic transformation in insects by Prashant K. Natikar, D. N. Kambrekar and R. A. Balikai, Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, details the technical details of the GM in insects is another milestone in the genetic research in India.

Often the quality of agricultural land varies from plot to plot. This is due to the variations in the various parameters of the soil such as soil depth, soil texture, permeability, moisture content, drainage, soil fertility, organic matter, topography etc. Hence the capability of the land to produce crops too varies from plot to plot. The ordinary farmers do have have some innate knowledge about it. However a scientific approach will strengthen the native knowledge or the common man's understanding of the land capability classification. Soils are colour coded in order to distinguish their production potential. Dr. K. T. Chandy in his article presents the universally accepted colour coding on the soil.

Why The Hue and

Cry on GM Crops?

krishijagran.com06 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy

he decision of the Minister of TEnvironment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF &CC) not to allow commercial planting of GM mustard after the meeting of the apex scientific body, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), is yet another blow to the wishes of small holder farmers of the country. More so it is an utter disappointment to the s c i en t i f i c commun i t y. Wh i l e pronouncing the decision on GM mustard, the Minister of MOEF&CC detoured from the science-based decision making, dodged the main purpose of GEAC's meeting and indirectly doubted the capacity of scientific community of India. It was a classic example of continuing the policies adopted by UPA government to dec l i ne approva l fo r t he commercialization of genetically improved crops irrespective of its being developed by public or private sec tor ins t i tu t ions . Even th is Government appears to hold the

same lame duck arguments as earlier ones to deny permission. There seems to be a no sign of revival and clarity in policy from the current regime on genetically i m p r o v e d c r o p s u s i n g biotechnological approaches. In fact the current advances in agri-biotechnology have led to the developments of series of transgenic varieties of crop plants popularly referred as GM or GE crops ( g e n e t i c a l l y m o d i f i e d o r engineered).

There has been confusion amongst public about Bt technology that Bt is all that GM or GM means Bt. GM mustard is about development of a hybrid technology using the biotech tools but the utter confusion with Bt amongst the public has been exploited conveniently by the anti-G M O a c t i v i s t s t o s t o p i t s commercialization. Bt is one of the many GM technologies that has been developed as an insect-

GM Mustard Muddled up in GM PhobiaGM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia

�

�

GM mustard is about development of a hybrid technology

using the biotech tools but the utter confusion

with Bt amongst the public has been

exploited conveniently by the anti-GMO activists to stop its commercialization.


resistant trait. The classical example is Bt cotton which contains genes from t he na t u ra l l y o c cu r r i ng so i l bacterium, Bacillus thuringensis (Bt). The biotechnological tools are used to introduce the Bt genes into cotton plants which then expresses a protein that effectively tackles insect pests like bollworms. This technology offers the cheapest and most efficient method of protecting the crops against the dreaded pest, bollworms in several crops such as; cotton, brinjal, maize, chickpea and pigeon pea etc. Traditional breeding methods which have been highly successful in bringing the first green revolution in cereal crops have not been successful in developing bollworm resistant cotton, stem borer resistant corn or stem and fruit piercing pest of brinjal and okra.

GM mustard is developed indigenously by scientists of Delhi University with the financial support of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. So those usual arguments in case of Bt cotton that the multinational will control the seed sector falls flat. Also that the GM technologies are the m o n o p o l y o f m u l t i n a t i o n a l companies proves totally erroneous and untenable. It is increasingly becoming clear that like Bt brinjal

during UPA regime, GM mustard has also become a victim of political vacillations of the GEAC. In fact the regulatory body was made toothless

earlier when former Minister of Environment & Forests through Gazette notification replaced the word 'APPROVAL' with 'APPRAISAL' in GEAC. From toothless, it has been now made dysfunctional due to continuing political intervention in its working. In spite of having the experience of growing successfully the only GM crop; Bt cotton over 11.6 million hectare accruing additional farm benefits of Rupee 10,500 crore annually for the last 15 years, we are

creating a GM phobia deliberately in the minds of general public. Just because of a recent epidemic of white fly in North India, which has nothing to do with the Bt technology, the activists are lobbying for a total ban on all GM crops being developed

through this science and closing the door for powerful and emerging genome ed i ted techno log ies . Prolonging the resistance of cotton to

bollworms through Bt is dependent on how we follow the regulatory norms of adopting the 'refugia' techniques, cultivating short duration cultivars in the rain- fed areas and c lose monitoring of the crop cultivation. Not only the Indian private sector but also the public institutions are engaged in research in agri-biotechnology and series of biotech products expressing insect resistance to herbicide tolerance to drought tolerance traits in important crops such as chickpea, pigeon pea, mustard, maize, rice, brinjal, okra, potato, sugarcane, sorghum and groundnut, and also fortifying food crops by developing golden rice.

Ironically, the set of activists and their reasons for opposing GM crops have also changed with a change of regime at the centre. So while the UPA regime pandered to environmental activists who opposed on the plank of environment safety, 'Swadeshi' lover and proponents find favour with the present NDA regime. It is a travesty that a democratic polity only has ears for anti-GM activists and their roundly demolished and flawed unscientific arguments, but do not have a heart for the pleadings of regular scientists involved in the pursuit and progress of Indian science across the public institutions of the country. It is sad that they do not

realise that academicians or scientists involved in the labs and fields do not shout slogans unlike activists who have no labs or fields but all the energy and time to shout and create enough noising to push their agenda. Mr. S w a m i n a t h a n S Ankalesari Aiyar a well known, senior journalist very rightly said that the “activists seek by hook or c r o o k t o d e l a y genet ical ly modif ied crops, using courts and

rented mobs financed partly by dollar inflows”.

When China is acquiring the global giant Swiss biotech company

krishijagran.com 09 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|

�

�

GM mustard can fill the gap at least

partially by increased production

of mustard, and likely to arrest

further increase in imported edible

canola and soybean oil, which is all

derived from GMOs.

GM

Technolo

gy

Syngenta with the cash investment equivalent of Rs 2,80,000 crores, India's decision to keep the GM mustard on back burner is India's tryst with destiny. We have yet to realize that according to the United Nation's Report, India is expected to surpass the population of China and shall be the most populous country in the world by another six years, not very far. We heavily rely on imports of our protein and fat requirements spending US$ 4.5 billion on imported pulses and another US$ 10.5 billion on imported edible oil. It is expected that with urbanization, better employment opportunities coupled with more disposable income, the demand for nutritious food specially pulses, oils, vegetables, milk, meat, poultry food etc. will grow many folds. The situation currently is so grim that our Honourable Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi drew attention of scientists and farmers to the large import bill toward the pulses and vege tab le o i l s . We are a l so celebrating 2016 as the International Year of Pulses. Does this mean that count r ies l i ke Canada, USA, Australia and China which are regular exporter of pulses and edible oil to India should grow more of it for Indian consumers ins tead we deve l op ing t e chno log i e s f o r increasing our own production and productivity? India is the biggest importer of edible oil and pulses, yet we deny new technologies to improve the domestic production.

We are increasingly becoming

pay attention to scientific logic, reasoning and evidences presented in multi years scientific trials and data submitted by Delhi University and then evaluated r igorous ly by regulatory agencies like GEAC and RCGM. Let us not kill the science and its products, at least those developed by public sector institutions. The scientific community is tired of hearing the usual argument around public acceptance which is not only illusive but also misleading. Let us not entangle the GM permissions to the court verdicts. MOEF&CC and MOA&FW should work out an amenable solution of “NOCs” in order to smoothly conduct mandatory field trials of GM crops in States.

Finally, leave the safety, efficacy and performance of GM crops to the scientists, evaluators and regulatory agencies involved in the scrutiny of biotech products and not to rely on slogan mongering activists. It will be too late when the food security will be threatened by food shortages as seen with rising imports of maize, pulses and edible oil in the recent years. If the scientific temper is lost, there will be chilling effect on biotech sciences and the scientis ts shal l begin questioning themselves as to why spend years in developing GM crops in the knowledge that they will most likely be outlawed by Government fiat. The MOEF&CC should prioritize the scientific preparedness over mobocracy and protests. Indian scientists are capable of bringing in second green revolution provided they are permitted to do the science on developing the new technologies for Indian agriculture.

dependent on the imported food for feeding our growing population. Ironically, we are importing maize to feed our animals. On edible oil, the domestic production is tagged at around 7.6 million tonnes while the import is more than 11.8 MT valued at US$ 10.5 billion or around Rs 70,000 crores. The projected demand in the next 10 years will reach 34 MT and the domestic production shall be around 9-10 MT with the available technologies. GM mustard can fill the gap at least partially by increased production of mustard, and likely to arrest further increase in imported edible canola and soybean oil, which is all derived from GMOs. Scientific community is also very excited of the new GM technology of Bt chickpea, an important pulse crop developed indigenously with public-private-pa r t n e r s h i p be tween As sam Agricultural University (AAU) and Sungro a domestic seed company. If corrective policy decision is not taken Bt chickpea will meet the same fate as the GM mustard in spite of the fact that the country imports nearly 4.5 MT of pulses annually at the cast of Rs 30,000 crores. The recent report of the Group o f Secre tar ies on agriculture rightly recommended the development and t ime bound approval of Bt chickpea in India.

The scientific community should make a col lect ive demand to honourable minister MOEF&CC not to budge under irrational and humongous protests by NGOs but

Dr. C.D. Mayee Founder President,

South Asia Biotechnology Centre, New Delhi;Vice President,

National Academy Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi,

Former Chairman, ASRB-ICAR, New Delhi

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy


crops and the traits in which the

research field trials are being

conducted or sought which may lead

to commercialization of these crops in

India in the future. However, this list

should be seen as the representative

of the research and by no means a

complete list.

As discussed above that the

success of GM crops globally has led

to research in India for those crops

with traits that are specifically

beneficial for India. The main crops

for which the research is in advanced

stages are Brinjal, Cotton, Chickpea,

Rice, Maize and Wheat. It also

includes crops like Chickpea that was

developed by a public sector but

taken forward in collaboration with

Industry. The public sector has been

involved in many other crops as well,

the most well-known example is GM

mustard, which is on verge of

commercialization. The traits in which

the above crops are modified include

insect resistance, herbicide tolerance,

T h e c r o p s d e r i v e d f r o m

biotechnology or commonly

known as GM crops are one of the

most successful launches of new

technologies in global agriculture.

This year marks the completion of 20

years of commercialization of GM

crops. The global area under GM

crops increased from just 1.9 million

hectares in 1996 to 179.7 million

hectares in 2015 (ISAAA, 2016).

The main commercial GM crops are

Canola, corn, cotton and soybean,

while recently potato and apple are

the new commercially approved GM

crops. India, with just one commercial

GM crop cotton and one commercial

trait, insect resistance is the fourth

largest country in the world which GM

crops are grown commercially. Insect

resistant cotton or Bt cotton as

more popularly known covers

approximately 95% of all cotton

grown area in India that has enabled

India to become exporter of cotton

from being a net importer few years

ago.

With this introduction, it is

clear that the GM technology has a

tremendous potential in countries like

India. India is also one of very few

developing countries, in fact, few

countries in the world, that has the

capability (both technology as well as

human resource) to develop its own

GM crops with traits that are needed

specifically for our country. Both

public research institutions and

private industry have realized the

potential and made significant

i nve s tmen t s i n to r e search i n

identifying and testing new genes for

different traits in various crops. Both

these sectors also invested heavily in

training the human resource required

to develop this highly technical,

r e sou r ce i n t en s i v e and t ime

consuming technology. However, this

article focuses only on industry efforts

to bring more crops and traits

available to farmers in India.

Table 1 summarizes the

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy Indian Private Industries

in GM Crop Research


cot ton s tacked wi th herbic ide

tolerance trait is pending with

government for approval. Not only

commercialization of biotech crops,

even conducting research field trials to

generate data is proving to be very

difficult during the last five years. The

requ i remen t o f ob ta in ing No

Objection Certificate (NOCs) from

states to conduct research field work

has resulted in only handful of trials

being conducted leading to serious

delays in data generation required for

commercialization. These serious

de lay s has r e su l t ed i n many

organizations shutting down or

significantly reducing their research

programs in biotechnology, which not

only has led to significant number of

job losses but also may deter students

t a ke a ca r ee r i n ag r i c u l t u r e

biotechnology. Thus, Indian farmers

may not see some of the products

available to them that was earlier

planned. However, it is hoped that

some of the new GM crop products

m a y s e e t h e l i g h t o f

commercialization very soon.

To conclude, India has its

own unique needs which can be

supported by GM crops. We all

know that we import significant

amount of pulses and oil seeds that

cause significant drain on our

exchequer. GM chickpea or GM

mustard can help reduce our

dependency on foreign imports.

Similarly drought tolerant crops or

the crops that have increased water

use efficiency can help the farmers

grow more crops in less water. The

private industry has or is developing

several new products that are India

specific either on its own or in

collaboration with the public sector.

Insect resistant chickpea is one such

example. Indian private industry as

well as the public sector has the

expertise and capability to develop

G M c r o p s i n I n d i a . W i t h

appropriate encouragement from

the government, India can see new

GM crops commercial and be a

world leader in this technology.

Shivendra Bajaj, Ph.D.

Executive Director, ABLE AG

Table 1. Research by private sector on GM crops in India and the traits improved.

Crop Traits

Brinjal Insect resistance

Chickpea Insect resistance

Corn Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance

Cotton Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, virus resistance

Rice Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, drought tolerance,

salt tolerance, nitrogen and water use efficiency,

hybrid development, yield increase

Wheat Herbicide tolerance

hybrid vigour, salt tolerance, drought

tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency,

water use efficiency, virus resistance

and yield increase. Some of the traits

such as insect resistance in cotton are

the improvement of already existing

products. These traits are either being

developed as stand-alone or as

s tacked produc t s , w i th insec t

resistance and herbicide tolerance are

the most common examples of stacked

products. It is to be noted that although

dif ferent organizations may be

working on the same crop and trait

such as insect resistant cotton or

drought tolerant rice but the genes

involved and their mode of action are

different, which should offer farmer a

choice even with the similar products.

However, the last five years

have not been ver y good for

the industry from a regulatory and

government support point of view.

India developed insect resistant Bt

b r i n ja l i n 2010 bu t was no t

commercialized because of the

m o r a t o r i u m a g a i n s t t h e

commercialization. It is ironic that the

same Bt br injal was tes ted in

Bangladesh in their local varieties.

Bangladesh went ahead, used the

same safety data that was generated in

India and this year is the third year of

successful commercialization of Bt

Brinjal in Bangladesh. Similarly insect

resistant Bt cotton from a different

organization and insect resistant


GM

Technolo

gy

All plants are

Genetically

Modified

naturally

�

�

The Fate of Indian

GM Mustard:

The Fate of Indian

GM Mustard: country with a large number of population

Adepending on agriculture has to face a lot of

challenges about how to make the farmers aware

about latest technologies to do better farming. There are

many disputes regarding Genetically Modified crops in

the country for many years. There are different views

regarding Genetically Modified crops by different

people. Krishi Jagran team interacted with Dr. Deepak

Pental and he shared some of his experiences regarding

his long term research on GM Mustard.

Dr. Deepak Pental is a Professor of Genetics and the Ex Vice Chancellor at the University of Delhi. He is a noted researcher whose current research interests lie in development of transgenics and marker-assisted breeding of crops. Pental completed his B.Sc and M.Sc from the Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh in 1971 and 1973 respectively. And subsequently he did his Ph.D. from Rutgers University, USA in 1978. He was a Postdoctoral and University Research Fellow at the University of Nottingham from 1978-84. He returned to India to join Tata Energy Research Institute(TERI) in 1985 and in 1993 he joined the University of Delhi, South Campus as Professor of Genetics. He took charge of the post of Vice-chancellor of the University on 1 September 2005.

Dr.Deepak Pental

JOURNEY OF GM MUSTARD:

When our group was in Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), we got a few germ plasm of Eastern – European Mustard from Mr. Chiminski, a renowned breeder, which was different from Indian Mustard. He gave us another two three types of germ plasms while attending a conference in Polland. We started research on CMS technique and we succeeded partially in getting a hybrid 126-1, but that is not frost tolerant. We were sure of the fact that, if we want to grow larger acreage under mustard and double the production, we should adopt the Barnes and Barstar technique of Genetically Modified technology. The specialty of this technique is that we receive 95% purity in seeds.

It's a very common question that people usually asks me, “When we have a hybrid in mustard, why should we go for t ransgen ic mus tard?” My s imp le answer to this question is that- it can double the production. Canada is the biggest example. As we all know, it is worlds one of the b igges t p roduce r s o f Canola oi l and 100% mustard in Canada is Genetically Modified. We have already spent 70-80 crores of public money on GM Mustard research. If the government did not want to allow the commercial cultivation of GM crops, then why they have not stopped the research earlier? They know that the stopping of research is illegal and so now they are creating so many hurdles so that the farmers cannot take the advantage of this technology. We are importing Canola oil which worth crores of rupees. Government should also allow the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. To feed the rising population of our country, this technology should be adopted.

In my opinion all plants are Genetically Modified naturally. We developed the GM Mustard technology in

2002, but even after fourteen years now, government is not allowing the commercial cultivation of GM Mustard. This means our country is not going to adopt a new technology which is highly beneficial for our farmers. We have also given Bt cotton to Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur and Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, which is better than the prevailing Bt cotton in the country, but ICAR is not approving it.

Farmers require new technologies, which should be of low cost and high yielding. Government is not thinking about such kind of technologies, thus the Multi National Companies are only choice for the farmers for the latest technological advancement. Either the government should allow the implementation of private technologies or should have a tie up in Public-Private Partnership model for the benefit of our farmers. The current policies adopted by the government are not at all farmer friendly. The farmers of India are capable to produce 85,000 crore worth of GM oil, which we are importing now-a-days, provided the government should permit to grow GM mustard in India.

The most important question is Why the Government is not allowing the commercial cultivation of GM Mustard and who is behind this conspiracy? The farmers must know these facts. Interview by:

Sameer Tiwari & Aslam Rasool Khan.

Inte

rvie

w


ots of discussions are taking Lplace all over the world on GM

foods or Genetically Modified

crops. Those who are in favor of

this technology believe that

Genetically Modified crops can be

a great boon for the second green

revolution in India, whereas those

who are opposing them claim that

this technology will hamper the

growth of agriculture and is

disastrous to human beings. Now

the question arise that why

Government of India is investing a

lot of funds in Agricul ture-

Biotechnology research? We are

importing Rs 85000 crore worth

GM oil, but we are not allowing

cultivation GM Mustard in the

country. What are the reasons? Is it

being done deliberately to favor

some specific corporate houses?

The Price control on Bt Cotton

seeds through state and central

government orders are the latest

example of India's schizophrenic

approach to innovation in the Agri-

biotechnology field. On the one

hand, India is asking foreign

companies to innovate in India and

on the o ther hand we are

preventing to bring GM Mustard

technology to the farmers. The

p r i c e c on t r o l o n Bo l l ga rd

technology seeds is affecting

credibility in protecting IPR and

most of the global seed companies

are feeling hesitant in bringing

their latest technologies in India.

For the last ten years no Biotechnology

or Genetically Modified technology

was approved by the Government for

example, Bt Brinjal and GM Mustard.

Because of this reason many of the

Agr icu l tu re B io techno logy- led

enterprises have stopped their

research programs in India. The

budget for ICAR was around 0.8

billion in 2014-15 but Monsanto alone

spent 1.7 billion on R&D in 2014. This

shows that the

q u a l i t a t i v e

s e e d s w i l l

come from the

global private

p l a y e r s . I f

Monsanto will

q u i t I n d i a ,

B o l l g a r d - I I I

may not come

in India and

Bollgard–II will

f i n i s h i t s

potency within

the next 3-5 years. If so, the cotton

revolution will be dumped forever and

who will be the loser?.....The farmers of

India.

If the present government is

under the pressure of some vested

interests, not to allow the Multinational

National Companies for technology

transfer then why the clearance for GM

Mustard is not given, which is a public

sector product developed by Delhi

University with the support from

National Dairy Development Board

(NDDB). The delay in clearance for

GM technologies is also creating

u n e m p l o y m e n t f o r t h e A g r i -

biotechnologist and the students those

who are doing MSc or PhD in

biotechnology and are in dilemma.

The Government of India has to

decide that whether the cultivation of

GM foods is required or we will be

bound to import GM foods from Brazil,

Argentina, Canada, Austral ia,

Malaysia or Indonesia to ensure our

food security.

Government has imposed

the trails of 15 GM crops due to

t he oppos i t i on made by

'Swadeshi Jagran Manch'.

Ministry of environment has told

in this regard that the decision to

conduct the field trails is of the

Genetic Engineering Approval

Committee (GEAC) and not of

the government. The GEAC

c o m p r i s e s o f s e v e r a l

departments of Government of

India. GEAC however has

approved Bt Brinjal, then why

Government of India is not allowing

the commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal

and same is in the case of GM

Mustard. We should learn about the

success of this technology in the form of

Bt Cotton. Because of the allotment of Bt

Cotton cultivation in our country, we

are one of the largest producers of

cotton and today we are exporting

cotton rather than importing which we

were doing before the introduction of

Bt Cotton.

�

�

The Government of India has to

decide that whether the

cultivation of GM foods is required

or we will be bound to import

GM foods

GM or No GM, India has to Decide

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy



If the Government of India is satisfied with the fact that GM crops should be cultivated, then it should ask the ICAR and

the State Agriculture Universities to develop and produce the GM seeds and deliver it to the farmers.

Recently, eminent agriculture scientist Dr. M. S. Swaminathan made a strong case against the moratorium and in favor

of a smooth approval process towards field trails of GM crops, saying “they are absolutely essential to assess risks and

benefits” and he also suggested that the ICAR should organize an All India coordinated project for field testing of GM crops

at university farms.

According to Prakash Javdekar, Union Minister of Environment,

“The GM crops are important to increase the productivity. I think

that we should not stop the science to work. That is why

Government of India is permitting the trails in a controlled

environment. But it also depends on the state government whether

they permit to grow or not.”

According to Professor Deepak

Pental, Professor of Genetics and

Ex Vice Chancellor of Delhi

University, “Every plant is

genetically modified and the

increase in production is due to

the high yielding varieties

developed through hybridization

or by genetically modification. It

is a fact that government is feared

of NGO's and social activists for

not allowing commercial

cultivation of GM crops. Why the

Government of India is tempering

such a wonderful technology?”

“Traditional agriculture

technologies have limitations and

these technologies are unable to

solve the complex problems. Only

the GM technology is able to do

that. It is a matter of shame for

Government of India that so

called scientist and activists are

opposing the tremendous, regular

and continues efforts made by

eminent scientist to develop the GM technology. If there is

a permission to sell canola oils of multinational companies

in the Indian market, then why there is an objection to

grow GM crops by Indian farmers? This is a dishonest

behavior of the Government of India towards the

farmers,” said P. Chengal Reddy, Secretary General,

Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (CIFA).

Bhupinder Singh Mann,

President, Kisan Coordination

Committee (KCC), said that “If

Government of India will allow

the commercial cultivation of GM

Mustard, then it will repeat the

story of success of Bt Cotton.

Now Government of India has to think about the

positivity of GM technology. There is no record of human

or animal poisoning by GM food since their introduction

anywhere in the world. Bt Brinjal is successfully grown in

Bangladesh and the American and Australian continent

countries are growing a large number of crops which has

been developed through GM technology. Biotechnology

in agriculture is the need of hour as we are facing

problems such as shortage of irrigation and saline soil. A

large number of improved varieties has been developed

in many crops through GM technology and are cultivated

worldwide despite biotic and abiotic stresses. Now if

India has to enter second green revolution, then we have

to adopt the GM technology for better productivity and

lesser quantity of pesticides usage. To be self-sufficient in

oil seeds, corn, and soybean the GM technology based

seeds are needed. Either the government should take the

responsibility for development of these seeds or the

private companies should be allowed for the development

of GM technology based seeds under safety norms.“GM

or No GM, India Has to Decide.”

Aslam R. Khan Sameer TiwariKrishi Jagran

GM

Technolo

gy

Twenty Successful Years Of Gm Crops


developing nations. Annually, up to 18

million farmers, 90 percent of whom

were small, resource-poor growers in

developing countries, benefited from

planting biotech crops from 1996 to

2015.

“China is just one example of

biotechnology's benefits for farmers in

developing countries. Between 1997

and 2014, biotech cotton varieties

brought an estimated $17.5 billion

worth of benefits to Chinese cotton

farmers, and they realized $1.3 billion

in 2014 alone,” were the words Randy

Hautea, Coordinator of ISAAA

Global,.

In 2015, India became the

leading cotton producer in the world

with much of its growth attributed to

biotech Bt cotton. India is the largest

biotech cotton country in the world

with 11.6 million hectares planted in

2015 by 7.7 million small farmers. In

2014 and 2015, an impressive 95

percent of India's cotton crop was

planted with biotech seed; China's

adoption in 2015 was 96 percent.

n t e rna t iona l Se r v i ce fo r t he IA c q u i s i t i o n o f A g r i - B i o t e c h

Appl icat ions ( ISAAA) re leased

its annual report detailing the adoption

rate of biotech crops, on its th“20

A n n i v e r s a r y o f t h e G l o b a l

Commercialization of Biotech Crops

(1996-2015) and Biotech Crop

Highlights in 2015,” showcasing the

global increase in biotech hectarage

from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to

179.7 million hectares in 2015. This

100-fold increase in just 20 years

makes biotechnology the fastest

adopted crop technology in recent

times, reflecting farmer-satisfaction

with biotech crops.

Since 1996, 2 billon hectares

of arable land – a massive area more

than twice the landmass of China or the

United States – have been planted with

biotech crops. Additionally, it is

estimated that farmers in up to 28

countries have reaped more than

US$150 billion in benefits from biotech

crops since 1996. This has helped to

alleviate poverty of about 16.5 million

small farmers and their families

annually totaling about 65 million

people who are the poorest in the

world.

“More farmers are planting

biotech crops in developing countries

precisely because biotech crops are a

rigorously-tested option for improving

their crop yields,” said Clive James,

founder and emeritus chair of ISAAA,

who has authored the ISAAA report for

the past two decades. He concludes,

“Despite claims from opponents that

biotechnology only benefits farmers in

industrialized countries, the continued

adop t ion o f t he GM crops in

developing countries disproves that”.

For the fourth consecutive

year, developing countries planted

more biotech crops (14.5 million

he c t a r e s ) t han i ndu s t r i a l i z ed

countries. In 2015, Latin American,

Asian and African farmers grew

biotech crops on 54 percent of global

biotech hectarage (97.1 million

hectares of 179.7 million biotech

hectares) and of the 28 countries that

planted biotech crops, 20 were

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy

“ F a r m e r s , w h o a r e

traditionally risk-averse, recognize the

value of biotech crops, which offer

benefits to farmers and consumers

alike, including drought tolerance,

insect and disease resistance, herbicide

tolerance, and increased nutrition and

food qua l i t y, ” Hau tea added .

“Moreover, biotech crops contribute to

more sustainable crop production

sys tems tha t address concerns

regarding climate change and global

food security.”

Following a remarkable run of

19 years of consecutive growth from

1996 to 2014, including 12 years of

double-digit growth, the global

hectarage of biotech crops peaked at

181.5 million hectares in 2014, it was

only 179.7 million hectares in 2015,

equivalent to one per cent decrease.

This change is principally due to an

overa l l decrease in to ta l c rop

hectarage, associated with low prices

for commodity crops in 2015. ISAAA

anticipates that total crop hectarage will

increase when crop prices improve. For

example, Canada has projected that

canola hectarage in 2016 will revert to

the higher level of 2014. Other factors

affecting biotech hectarage in 2015

include the devastating drought in South

Africa, which led to a massive 23

percent decrease of 7,00,000 hectares

in intended plantings in 2015. The

drought in eastern and southern Africa

in 2015-2016 puts up to 15 to 20

million poor people at risk for food

insecurity and compels South Africa,

usually a maize exporter, to rely on

maize imports.

Additional highlights from ISAAA's

2015 report include:

· New biotech crops were approved

and/or commercialized in several

countries including the United States,

Brazi l , Argentina, Canada and

Myanmar.

· The United States saw a number of

firsts including the commercialization of

new products such as:

Innate™ Generation 1 potatoes,

with lower levels of acrylamide, a

potential carcinogen, and resistance to TM

bruising. Innate Generation 2,

approved in 2015, also has late blight

resistance. It is noteworthy that the

potato is the fourth most important food

crop in the world.

Arctic® Apples that do not brown

when sliced.

The first non-transgenic genome-

edited crop to be commercialized

globally, SU Canola™, was planted in

the United States.

The first-time approval of a GM

animal food product, GM salmon, for

human consumption.

· Biotech crops with multiple traits,

often called “stacked traits,” were

planted on 58.5 million hectares,

representing 33 percent of all biotech

hectares planted and a 14 percent

year-over-year increase.

· Vietnam planted a stacked-trait

biotech Bt and herbicide-tolerant

maize as its first biotech crop.

· Biotech Drought Gard™ maize,

first planted in the United States in

2013, increased 15-fold from

50,000 hectares in 2013 to 8,10,000

hectares reflecting high farmer

acceptance.

· Sudan increased Bt cotton

hectarage by 30 percent to 1,20,000

hectares, while various factors

precluded a higher hectarage in

Burkina Faso.

· Eight African countries field-

tested, pro-poor, priority African

crops, the penultimate step prior to

approval.

Looking ahead to the future of

biotechnology in agriculture, ISAAA

has identified three key opportunities

to realize continued growth in

adoption of biotech crops, which are

as follows:

· High rates of adoption (90

percent to 100 percent) in current

major biotech markets leave little

room for expansion. However, there is

a significant potential in other “new”

countries for selected products, such

as biotech maize, which has a

potential of approximately 100

million more hectares globally, 60

million hectares in Asia, of which 35

million is in China alone, plus 35

million hectares in Africa.

· More than 85 potential new

products in the pipeline are now


GM

Technolo

gy

being field-tested; including a biotech

drought tolerant maize from the WEMA

project (Water Efficient Maize for

Africa) expected to be released in

Africa in 2017, Golden Rice in Asia,

and fortified bananas and pest-resistant

cowpea in Africa.

· CRISPR (Clustered Regularly

Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats)

a new power ful genome-edi ted

technology has significant comparative

advantages over conventional and GM

crops in four domains: precision, speed,

cost and regulation. When combined

with other advances in crop sciences,

CRISPR could increase crop productivity

in a “sustainable intensification” mode

on the 1.5 billion hectares of global

arable land, and make a vi tal

contribution to global food security.

Top ten facts

FACT # 1. 2015 marked the

2 0 t h y e a r o f t h e s u c c e s s f u l

commercialization of biotech crops.

An unp receden t ed cumu la t i v e

hectarage of 2 billion hectares of

biotech crops, equivalent to twice the

total land mass of the US (937 million

hectares), were successfully cultivated

globally in up to 28 countries annually,

in the 20-year period 1996 to 2015;

farmer benefits for 1996 to 2015 were

conservatively estimated at over

US$150 billion. Up to 18 million risk-

averse farmers benefitted annually, of

whom, remarkably, 90% were small,

resource-poor farmers in developing

countries.

FACT # 2. Progressive adoption

in the first 20 years. Following a

remarkable run of 19 years of

consecutive yearly growth from 1996 to

2014, the annual global hectarage of

biotech crops peaked at

181.5 million in 2014,

compared with 179.7 million

hectares in 2015, equivalent

to a net marginal year-to-

year decrease of 1.0%

between 2014 and 2015.

Some countries increased

their total plantings, whilst

o t h e r s r e d u c e d t h e i r

hectarage principally due to

the current low prices of

commodity crops; these

hectarage decreases are

likely to revert to higher

hectarage levels when crop

prices improve. The global

hectarage of biotech crops increased

100-fold from 1.7 million hectares in

1996 to 179.7 million hectares in

2015, making biotech crops the fastest

adopted crop technology in recent

times.

FACT # 3., Developing countries

planted more biotech crops for the 4th

consecutive year. In 2015, Latin

American, Asian and African farmers

collectively grew 97.1 million hectares

or 54% of the global are of 179.7

million hectares (versus 53% in 2014)

compared with industrial countries at

82.6 million hectares or 46% (versus

47% in 2014); this trend is likely to

continue. Of the 28 countries planting

biotech crops in 2015 are the 20 were

developing while 8 are industrial.

FACT # 4. Stacked traits occupied

33% of the global amounting 179.7

million hectares. Stacked traits are

favored by farmers for all 3 major

biotech crops. Stacked traits increased

from 51.4 million hectares in 2014 to

58.5 million hectares in 2015, an

increase of 7.1 million hectares

equivalent to a 14% increase. 14

countries planted stacked biotech crops

with two or more traits in 2015, of

which 11 were developing countries.

Vietnam planted stacked type biotech

Bt/HT maize as its first biotech crop in

2015.

FACT # 5. Selected highlights in

developing countries in 2015. Latin

America had the largest hectarage, led

by Brazil, followed by Argentina. In

Asia, Vietnam planted for the first time,

and Bangladesh's pol i t i ca l wi l l

advanced planting of Bt egg plant and

identified Golden Rice, biotech potato

and cotton as future biotech targets. The

Philippines has grown biotech maize

successfully for 13 years, and is

appealing a recent Supreme Court

decision on biotech crops, whilst

Indonesia is close to approving a home-

grown drought-tolerant sugarcane.

China continues to benefit significantly

from Bt cotton (US$18 billion for 1997

to 2014), and notably ChemChina

recent ly bid US$43 bi l l ion for

Syngenta. In 2015, India became the

number one cotton producer in the

world, to which Bt cotton made a

significant contribution during the

period 2002 to 2014 are estimated at

US$18 billion. Africa progressed

despite a devastating drought in South

Africa resulting in a decrease in

intended plantings of 7,00,000

hectares in 2015, a massive 23%

decrease. This underscores yet again

the life-threatening importance of

drought in Africa, where fortunately, the

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy


WEMA biotech drought-tolerant maize

is on track for release in 2017. Sudan

increased Bt cotton hectarage by 30%

to 1,20,000 hectares in 2015, whilst

various factors precluded a higher

hectarage in Burkina Faso. In 2015

eight African countries field-tested,

pro-poor, priority African crops, the

penultimate step prior to approval.

FACT # 6. Major developments in

the US in 2015. Progress

on many fronts including:

s e v e r a l “ f i r s t s ” i n

a p p r o v a l s a n d

commercialization's of

“new” GM crops, such as

Innate™ potatoes and

A r c t i c ® A p p l e s ;

commercialization of the

f i r s t non - t r an sgen i c

genome-edited crop, SU

Cano la™; f i r s t t ime

approval of a GM animal

f o o d p r o d u c t , G M

s a l m o n , f o r h u m a n

consumption; and increasing R&D use

of the powerful genome editing

technology, named CRISPR -adoption

of first biotech drought tolerant maize

(see below). Dow and DuPont merged

to form DowDuPont.

FACT # 7. High adoption of

the first biotech drought-tolerant

maize planted in the US. Biotech

DroughtGard™ maize, first planted in

the US in 2013, increased 15-fold from

50,000 hectares in 2013 to 810,000

hectares in 2015 reflecting high farmer

acceptance. The same event has been

dona ted to the pub l i c -pr i va te

partnership WEMA (Water Efficient

Maize for Africa), aimed at the timely

delivery of a biotech drought tolerant

maize to selected countries in Africa by

2017.

FACT # 8. Status of biotech crops

in the EU. The same five EU countries

continued to plant 1,16,870 hectares

of Bt maize, down by 18% from 2014.

Hectares decreased in all countries due

to several factors including, less maize

planted, disincentives for farmers with

onerous reporting.

FACT # 9. Benefits offered by

biotech crops. A global meta-analysis

of 147 studies for the last 20 years

reported that “on average, GM

technology adoption has reduced

chemical pesticide use by 37%,

increased crop yields by 22%, and

increased farmer profits by 68%”

(Qaim et al, 2014). These findings

corroborate results from other annual

global studies (Brookes et al, 2015).

From 1996 to 2014, biotech crops

con t r ibu t ed to Food Secu r i t y,

S u s t a i n a b i l i t y a n d t h e

Environment/Climate Change by:

increasing crop production valued at

US$150 billion; providing a better

environment, by saving 584 million kg

a.i. of pesticides; in 2014 alone,

reducing CO emissions by 27 billion 2

kg, equivalent to taking 12 million cars

off the road for one year; conserving

biodiversity by saving 152 million

hectares of land from 1996-2014; and

helped alleviate poverty of 16.5 million

small farmers and their families totaling

up to 65 million people who are the

poorest in the world . Biotech crops are

essential but are not a panacea –

adherence to good farming practices

such as rotations and resistance

management, are a must for biotech

crops as they are for conventional

crops.

FACT # 10. Future Prospects.

Three domains merit consideration.

First, high rates of adoption (90% to

100%) in current major biotech markets

leave little room for expansion;

however, there is a significant potential

in other “new” countries for selected

products, such as biotech maize, which

has a potential of at least 100 million

hectares globally, 60 million ha in Asia

(35 million ha in China alone), and 35

million ha in Africa. Secondly, there are

more than 85 potential new products

in the pipeline now being field-tested,

the penultimate step to approval.

They include the WEMA-derived

biotech drought tolerant maize

expected to be released in Africa in

2017, Golden Rice in Asia, and

fortified bananas and pest resistant

cowpea look promising in Africa.

Ins t i tu t iona l ly, publ ic -pr iva te

partnerships (PPP) have been

successful in developing and

delivering approved products

to farmers. Thirdly, the advent

of genome-edited crops may

b e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t

development identified by

today's scientific community. A

r e c e n t a n d p r o m i s i n g

application is the powerful

technology, named CRISPR.

Many well-informed observers

are of the view that genome

editing offers a timely and

powe r f u l un i que s e t o f

significant comparative advantages

over conventional and GM crops in

four domains: precision, speed, cost

and regulation. Unlike the onerous

regulation that currently applies to

t rans -gen ic s , genome-ed i t ed

products logically lend themselves for

science-based, fit-for-purpose,

proportionate, and non-onerous

regulation. A forward-looking

strategy has been proposed (Flavell,

2015) featuring the troika of trans-

genes, genome editing and microbes

(the use of plant micro-biomes as a

new source of additional genes to

modify plant traits) to increase crop

productivity, in a “sustainable

intensification” mode, which in turn

can viably contribute to the noble

and paramount goals of food

security and the alleviation of hunger

and poverty.


Clive James Emeritus Chairman and Founder, ISAAA

GM

Technolo

gy

AAYESHA KHAN9891889588

[email protected]

8

ßÔÁ¿ø¸ æ±á. í

18

Status of Bt Brinjal

in India

The Bt brinjal is a transgenic brinjal created by inserting

a crystal protein gene (Cry1Ac) from the soil bacterium

Bacillus thuringiensis into the genome of various brinjal

cultivars. These Brinjal plants are found to

b e r e s i s t a n c e a g a i n s t

lepidopteran insects like

the Brinjal Fruit and

S h o o t B o r e r

L e u c i n o d e s

orbonalisand Fruit

Borer Helicoverpa

armigera.

I m p o r t a n c e o f

Brinjal in INDIA :

Brinjal is a low

calories and fats

containing vegetable

and contains mostly

water, some protein, fibre

and carbohydrates. It is also an e x c

ellent source of minerals and vitamins and is rich in water

soluble sugars and amide proteins among other nutrients.

The brinjal is a popular component of the Indian diet across

the country. It is an important ingredient in Ayurvedic

medicine and is of special value in the treatment of diabetes

and liver problems.

Need to produce Bt brinjal:

Brinjal is an important food crop for India, and the

potential commercialization of a genetically modified

variety provides support and criticism. Brinjal is a major

food crop in India but its yield is found to be low as

compared to its need because the fruit and shoot borer

infestation the fruit and shoot borer infestation found to be a

major constraint to yield. Field trials conducted on

research-managed farms carried out by Mahyco and the

Indian Council of Agricultural Research suggested a 42%

pesticide reduction and a doubling of the yield was

possible by producing Bt Brinjal.

Production of Bt Brinjal by Genetic modification:

Bt brinjal is produced by the technique of genetic

engineering in which transfer of a selected fragment of

DNA capable of performing new functions from one

organism to another takes place. Genetic Modification

(GM), Genetic Manipulation and Genetic Engineering

(GE) all refer to the same thing. It is also known as

recombinant DNA technology.

Bt Brinjal is the first Genetically Modified food crop in

India that has reached the approval stage for

commercialization. Bt Brinjal has been developed by

inserting a gene cry1Ac from a soil bacterium called

Bacillus thuringiensis through an Agrobacterium-mediated

gene transfer. It is a genetically modified brinjal developed

by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company Ltd. (Mahyco),

a leading Indian seed company. Bt brinjal contains three

foreign genes which have been inserted namely:

1. The cry1Ac gene which encodes an insecticidal

protein Cry1Ac, is derived from common soil

bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subsp. kurstaki

to produce the insecticidal protein. The cry1Ac

gene is driven by a viral promoter, the cauliflower

mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter.

2. The nptII gene for an antibiotic resistance marker,

Field trials

conducted on research-

managed farms carried out

by Mahyco and the Indian

Council of Agricultural

Research suggested a 42%

pesticide reduction and a

doubling of the yield was

possible by producing Bt

Brinjal.

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy


neomycin phosphotransferase-II

3. The aad gene for another marker 3” (9) O-

aminoglycoside adenyl transferase.

Work of cry protein to give resistance:

When fruit and shoot borer larvae feed on Bt brinjal

plants, they ingest the Bt protein Cry1Ac along with plant

tissue. In the insect gut, which is alkaline with a pH >9.5,

the protein is soluble and activated by gut proteases. The

Bt protein binds to specific receptor proteins present in the

insect membrane, resulting in pore formation in the

membranes. This leads to disruption of digestive

processes, paralysis, and subsequent death of the fruit

and shoot borer larvae. The cry1Ac gene along with two

other supporting genes namely nptII and aad genes are

put together in such a way that they work in tandem to

produce insecticidal protein that is toxic to the targeted

insect, in this case the fruit and shoot borer.

Bt Brinjal production History in India

In year 2000-2002 Transformation and greenhouse

breeding to study growth, development and efficacy of Bt

brinjal had started in India.and many field trials has been

started to know germination, aggressiveness and

weediness, biochemical, toxicity and allergenicity in

2002-2004. Then to start large scale field trials for the

production of Bt brinjal Mahyco submits bio-safety data

to Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in

2006 and it is approved by GEAC in 2007.As per GEAC

direction, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research [IIVR]

takes up the responsibility of large scale trails of Mahyco's

Bt Brinjal trials at 10 research institutions across the

country in 2007 and 11 in 2008 . In 2009 Oct.15th

Responding to strong views expressed both for and

against the release of the Bt Brinjal, the Minister of State

for Environment and Forests (I/C) (to whom the GEAC

reports) announces a nationwide consultation in January

and February of 2010 pending a final decision on this

issue.

Controversy of Bt brinjal in India:

Bt Brinjal has generated much debate in India. It has

many advantages as the promoters say that Bt Brinjal will

be beneficial to small farmers because it is insect resistant,

increases yields, is more cost-effective and will have

minimal environmental impact. But their are many

disadvantages related to the production and use of Bt

brinjal Bt Brinjal relate to its possible adverse impact on

human health and bio-safety, livelihoods and biodiversity.

Importantly, the spread of the GE Bt gene could result in

the brinjal becoming an aggressive and problematic

weed, the Greenpeace report suggests, while impressing

upon the governments the need to employ the

precautionary principle and not permit any authorization

of the outdoor cultivation of GE Bt brinjal, including field

trials. The cultivation of GE Bt brinjal is proposed in some

countries across Asia, including India, where there is

currently a moratorium on commercialization, and the

Philippines, where field trials are going on.

When Bt Brinjal was sought to be introduced in the

market a few years ago, it led to a controversy. However,

on February 9, 2010, the ministry of environment and

forests imposed a moratorium on Bt Brinjal. In the absence

of scientific consensus and opposition from state

governments and others, the ministry decided to impose a

moratorium on the commercialization of Bt Brinjal until all

concerns expressed by the public, NGOs, scientists and

the state government were addressed adequately.

Clearance of Bt Brinjal as a commercial crop by genetic

engineering approval committee(GEAC) in October

2009 and then its ban by government of India in

February 2010, and it become a point of debate whether

Bt Brinjal should be commercialize or not. However the

Minister of State (I/C) for Environment and Forests,

responding to strong views raised both for and against the

introduction of the Bt Brinjal, has called for public

consultations across the country before taking a final

decision on this issue.

Miss Rashmi Verma,

PhD research Scholar,

Graphic Era University Dehradun.

GM

Technolo

gy


GENETIC TRANSFORMATION IN INSECTS

ene t i c s and mo lecu la r

Gb i o l o g y h a v e b e c o m e

dominating forces within

biology. This trend has been clear over 1the last 2 / decades, but the near 2

completion of the human genome

project and the recent growth of

biotechnology-based industries

illustrate just how far these disciplines

have come. The advances we have

witnessed, to a large extent, have

been t e chno logy based . The

polymerase chain reaction and

advances in DNA-sequencing

technology and in comput ing

capabilities, to name just a few, have

fueled growth in molecular biology

and given rise to the new fields of

genomics and bioinformat ics .

Genomics is the wholesale descriptive

analysis of an organism's genome,

including DNA sequence and gene

e x p r e s s i o n i n f o r m a t i o n .

Bioinformatics involves the study of

biological information (primarily

DNA and protein sequence) using

computational tools to manipulate,

analyze, and store genomic data with

the aim of solving problems in biology.

Efforts in insect genomics have been

most intense and successful with the

vinegar fly Drosophila melanogaster;

however, genomics has gone beyond

this model system to include other

insects of medical and agricultural

significance. These data will provide

the raw materials for the exploration

of important questions in insect

biology and for the harnessing of

genes to solve insect-based problems

in agriculture and human health.

Critical to these efforts will be

technologies that permit hypotheses

a r i s i n g f r o m g e n o m i c s a n d

bioinformatics programs to be tested

in v ivo. Gene

introduction or

“ g e n e t i c -

transformation”

technologies that

permit genes of

any origin to be

introduced into

insec ts , e i ther

temporari ly or

permanently, will

play a crit ical

r o l e i n g e n e

f u n c t i o n

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

a n d t e s t i n g .

G e n e

transformation will also enable us to

manipulate insect genotypes and

potentially to devise chemical-free

methods for controlling pest insect

populations and/or the pest status of

an insect.

Efforts to develop genetic-

transformation technology for insects

span 3 decades, and the history of

these efforts has been reviewed

adequately by others. Hopes of

systematically producing transgenic

insects did not appear credible until

the P-transposable element-based

s y s t e m w a s d e v i s e d f o r D .

melanogaster almost 20 years ago.

Unfortunately the P-transposable

element, while highly successful in

Drosophila, ultimately proved to be

useless for those wishing to genetically

transform non-drosophilid insects.

The search for alternative strategies

has been extremely fruitful and, in the

past 5 years, we have witnessed the

realization of the long-sought goal of

genetically transforming insects of

medical and agricultural importance.

During this same time, the application

of this technology to the improvement

of existing genetic control efforts, such

as the sterile-insect technique and the

genetic manipulation of insect

vectorial capacity, has proven to be

valid in principle. It might appear that

we are now moving beyond the

technology development phase of the

insect transformation problem and

i n t o a t e c h n o l o g y

application phase. This

article briefly reviews the

p r o g r e s s t h a t h a s

o c c u r r e d i n n o n -

drosophilid transgenic

technology and critically

assesses whether these

developments, in their

c u r r e n t s t a t e , a r e

sufficient to meet the

demands of the research

p r o g r a m s t h a t t h i s

t e c h n o l o g y w a s

developed to serve. Some

of these programs, for

example the spreading of

benef ic ia l t ransgenes through

m o s q u i t o p o p u l a t i o n s , w e r e

conceived >10 years ago and still

serve as a driving force for the

c o n t i n u e d d e v e l o p m e n t a n d

refinement of this technology. We

acknowledge the significant level of

progress that has been made recently

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy

Gene introduction or “genetic-

transformation” technologies

that permit genes of any origin

to be introduced into insects,

either temporarily or

permanently, will play a critical

role in gene function

identification and testing.

Gene transformation will also

enable us to manipulate insect

genotypes and potentially to

devise chemical-free methods

for controlling pest insect

populations and/or the pest

status of an insect.

�

�

krishijagran.com26 AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

but conclude that current technologies

are still unwieldy to apply and require

further development. In addition,

successful application of these

technologies will require not only

continued scientific development but

also the development of a coherent,

functional regulatory framework that

specifically addresses the unique

aspects of producing beneficial

genetically engineered insects and

ultimately releasing them into the

environment.Four transposable

elements representing four different

families of eukaryotic transposable

elements can be used to genetically

transform non-drosophilid insects.

These are the Minos element from

Drosophila hydei, the Hermes element

from the house fly Musca domestica,

the Mos1 element from Drosophila

mauritiana, and the piggyBac element

from the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia

ni. A list of insect species that have

been transformed using these four

elements is presented in.

The Hermes Element

The Hermes element from M.

domestica is a member of the hAT

family of transposable elements.

Hermes was i so la ted a f t e r a

demonstration that the related hobo

element could excise from plasmids

injected into house fly embryos in the

absence of hobo transposase,

indicating the presence of an

endogenous hobo-like transposase.

Hermes is 2749 base pairs (bp) in

length, contains 17-bp inverted

terminal repeats, and encodes a

transposase protein that is 70 kDa in

s i z e . T h e hobo a nd He r me s

transposases are 55% identical and

70% similar at the amino acid level,

and their inverted terminal repeats are

identical over 10 and 11 out of 12

nucleotides, respectively. The hobo

and Hermes are capable of cross-

mobilization as measured by plasmid-

based and chromosome-based

excision assays performed in D.

melanogaster.

Hermes elements have been

found in house fly populations

throughout the world. Cathcart et al (L

Cathcart, ES Frafsur, PW Atkinson, &

DA O'Broch ta , submi t t ed for

publication) examined 14 populations

of house flies from four continents and

found full-length Hermes elements in

all of them. Deleted forms of Hermes

were also present in all populations.

This distribution was unlike the

distribution of P and hobo elements in

n a t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n s o f D .

melanogaster, in which there are

typically large numbers of internally

deleted elements and very few, if any,

full-length autonomous elements. To

date no house fly populations devoid

of Hermes elements have been found.

Hermes has been used to

generate stable transgenic lines from

six insect species. Hermes-mediated

transformation of D. melanogaster

can be as high as 60% but is routinely

around 30% - 40%. Hermes is thus as

efficient as the P element in producing

D . m e l a n o g a s t e r

transformants.Hermes has also been

used to generate transgenic lines of

Ae. aegypti, Ceratitis capitata (K

Michel, AC Pinkerton, AS Stamenova,

G Franz, AS Robinson et al, submitted

f o r p u b l i c a t i o n ) , S t o m o x y s

calcitrans(MJ Lehane, PW Atkinson, &

DA O'Broch ta , submi t t ed for

publication),Tribolium castaneum,

and Culex quinquefasciatus (ML

Allen, CS LeVesque, DA O'Brochta, &

P W A t k i n s o n , s u b m i t t e d f o r

publication).

Two types of chromosomal

in tegra t ion even ts have been

observed after the microinjection of

Hermes-containing plasmid DNA into

developing insect embryos: (a) events

arising from the transposition of only

t he Hermes e l emen t and t he

sequences it contains into the genome

and (b) events arising from the

insertion of the Hermes element and

plasmid DNA into the genome.

Hermes-mediated transformation of

D. melanogaster, C. capitata, and S.

calcitrans results in the integration of

only the Hermes element and any

additional sequences located within it;

MJ Lehane, PW Atkinson, & DA

O'Brochta, submitted for publication;

K M iche l , AC P inke r t on , AS

Stamenova, G Franz, AS Robinson et

al, submitted for publication). The

integrated sequences are delimited by

the terminal nucleotides of the Hermes

element, and 8-bp duplications are

created at the target site. Their

sequences conform to the consensus

sequence of target site duplications

created by the transposition of insect

hATelements. The integration of

Hermes elements into these three

TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS AS GENE VECTORS IN NON-DROSOPHILID INSECTS

GM

Technolo

gy


species is therefore what is predicted

for class II insect transposable

elements and is expected from

Hermes interplasmid transposition

assays performed in these species.

Hermes-mediated transformation of

the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and

Cx.quinquefasciatus results in

integration of both the Hermes

element and flanking and plasmid

sequences; ML Allen, CS LeVesque,

DA O'Brochta, & PW Atkinson,

submitted for publication). In A.

aegypti these events are Hermes

transposase mediated because

transformation does not occur in

the absence of coinjected helper

plasmid containing theHermes

transposase gene. Equivalent

experiments have not been

p e r f o r m e d i n C x .

quinquefasciatus; however, the

similarity in both the structure of

the integrations and the frequency

of transformation suggests that

these too are dependent on the

presence of Hermes transposase.

The structures of cinnabar-

containing Hermes elements in A.

aegypt i were examined by

Jasinskiene et al. Breakpoints were

found in plasmid DNA flanking M.

domestica DNA and in the Hermes

element itself. However, given that

these transgenic lines would not be

maintained as homozygous lines, the

ro le tha t recombina t ion has

s u b s e q u e n t l y p l a y e d i n t h e

rearrangement of these transgenes

remains unknown. A. aegypti

transgenics generated with Hermes

elements containing the Enhanced

Green Fluorescent Protein (EGFP)

gene perhaps provide a more

accurate picture of the original

integration event because this

m a r k e r, c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e

robustness of the wild-type strain in

which it has been maintained,

enabled homozygous lines to be

established within a few generations.

Although the precise breakpoints are

yet to be determined, it is clear from

EGFP-containing transgenic lines of

b o t h A . a e g y p t i a n d C x .

quinquefasciatus that at least two

copies of the Hermes, element are

present and these flank a complete

and intact copy of the pUC plasmid

DNA that, with Hermes, composed

the original plasmid vector. This

arrangement of integrated plasmid

plus transposable elements thus

appears similar to that reported for

the tandem arrays of P element and

pUC plasmid DNA reported by Rubin

& Spradling

Hermes is proving to be an

effective gene transfer vector in a

range of insect species. Even in

mosquitoes, where the mechanism of

the integration event remains to be

determined, Hermes-mediated

transformation has enabled the

introduction and in vivo testing of

promoters that could subsequently be

used to control the tissue-specific

expression of genes that may confer

disease resistance.

The Mos1 and Himar1 Elements

The wide distribution of

mariner elements in insects has

ju s t i f iab ly fue led in t e re s t i n

developing these elements as robust

gene transfer vectors. The abundance

of mariner elements in insect

genomes has, however, made it

extremely difficult to isolate the few

forms of this element that may encode

a functional transposase. To date only

one naturally occurring mariner

element, the Mos1 element from D.

mauritiana, has been isolated from

insects. A second element, Himar, is a

reconstructed element based on the

sequence of various copies ofmariner

elements isolated from the horn fly,

Haematobia irritans. Himar is mobile

in D. melanogaster but to date has

proven unsuccessful as a gene vector

in this species.

The Mos1 element can

transform D. melanogaster and Ae.

aegypti. It is also the mariner element

that has transformed Leishmania,

zebrafish, and chickens. Coates et al

developed interplasmid transposition

assays to demonstrate that Mos1

could accurately transpose in at least

three species of non-drosophilid

insects: Ae. aegypti, Lucilia cuprina,

a n d B a c t r o c e r a t r y o n i a n d

s u b s e q u e n t l y u s e d M o s 1 t o

genetically transform Ae. aegypti.

More recently, Mos1 has been shown

to excise and transpose precisely in

cell lines of Bombyx mori. Mos1 can

therefore clearly function in this

s p e c i e s ; h o w e v e r, i n t h e i r

experiments aimed at transforming B.

mori, Tamura et al found that neither

Mos1 no r Hermes p roduced

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy


two transposases is that Himar1 has

t h e g r e a t e s t a c t i v i t y a t a

concentration of ∼10 nm, whereas

the corresponding value for Mos1 is

100 nm. Whether this difference

reflects a true difference in these

proteins or is a consequence of how

they were purified remains unknown.

I n D . m e l a n o g a s t e r

transformants, in transpositions

a r i s i n g f r o m i n t e r p l a s m i d

transposition assays performed in B.

tryoni, L. cuprina, andAe. aegypti,

and in transpositions performed in

vitro, the Mos1 sequences that are

integrated are delimited by the

t e r m i n a l n u c l e o t i d e s o f t h e

Mos1element. In Ae. aegypti

transgenics, most (three of four) of the

transformed lines contain Mos1

elements that have been integrated in

the same manner; however, one of

the lines contain Mos1 elements

together with flanking plasmid DNA

sequences. When Mos1transposase

protein was used instead of helper

p lasmid, only these types of

integration events were recovered

[seven of seven transgenic lines

generated]. These integrations

appear similar to those seen for the

Hermes element in Ae. aegypti and

Cx. quinquefasciatus and, as for

Hermes, may indicate that in this

species suboptimal expression or

processing of the transposase may

force transpositional recombination

into a mode other than cut-and-paste

transposition.

The piggyBac Element

The piggyBac element was

isolated on the basis of its mobility,

and so, perhaps not surprisingly, it

has subsequently been developed

into an efficient gene vector in insects.

piggyBac was identified as an

insertion sequence that caused a

plaque morphology mutation in

G a l l e r i m e l o n e l l e a

nucleopolyhedrosis virus that was

being passaged through cells of the

trangenic individuals.

H i m a r 1 h a s b e e n

genetically modified both to improve

our understanding of the molecular

basis of its movement and to isolate

hyperactive forms of this element.

Lampe et al used a bacterial-based

assay that enabled hyperactive forms

of Himar1 to be identified on the

basis of phenotypic changes that

occurred to Escherichia coli colonies

containing these modified forms of

the transposase. This assay was

based on the successful assays

established for E. coli element Tn5,

and Lampe et al isolated two Himar1

mutants that displayed increased

levels of transposition in E. coli.

Neither of these, however, showed an

increase in transpositional activity in

Drosophila. Nevertheless this type of

strategy will no doubt lead to new

forms of Himar1, and some of these

forms will most likely also have hyper

mobility properties in insects.

The Himar1 and Mos1

t ransposases have both been

successfully purified from E. coli

strains expressing these respective

genes, and this has permitted an

analysis of the physical requirements

that each has for transposition.

Neither the Himar1 nor Mos1

transposases have requirements for

host-encoded factors. As for other

members o f the mariner/Tc1

superfamily of elements, Mos1 and

Himar1 are inserted only at TA

dinucleotide sequences where they

create 2-bp target site duplications.

Studies performed in vitro for both

elements have revealed that this

insertional specificity is dependent on

the presence of magnesium and is

reduced when manganese i s

substituted for magnesium. The

phy s i ca l p rope r t i e s o f bo t h

transposases are similar, and both

d i s p l a y i n c r e a s e d r a t e s o f

t ransposi t ion wi th increasing

transposase concentration. The most

significant difference between the

cabbage looper T. ni. piggyBac is 2.5

kb in size and possesses 13-bp

inverted terminal repeats. It contains

a 2.1-kb long open reading frame

that encodes a transposase with little

or no structural similarity to other

eukar yot ic t ransposases. The

piggyBac element inserts at TTAA

sequences in the genome and, upon

insertion, generates a duplication of

this sequence. Unlike any other

insect-transposable element so far

characterized, piggyBac is excised

absolutely precisely from the donor

site, resulting in no evidence of it

remaining at the empty donor site

after excision. No specific host

factors required for piggyBac

mobility have yet been identified;

however, the piggyBac inverted

terminal repeats do interact with

proteins present in cell nuclear

extracts prepared from Trichoplusia

and Spodoptera cell lines. The

identity of the proteins together with

whe ther they are abso lu te l y

necessary for piggyBac transposition

is unknown.

piggyBac can genetically

transform a range of insect species,

and, as this transposable element

enjoys wider use, this list can be

expected to grow. D. melanogaster,

C. capitata, Bactrocera dorsalis (AM

Handler, unpublished observations),

Anastrepha suspensa (AM Handler,

unpublished observations), M.

domestica (M Hediger, M Niessen,

EA Wimmer, A Dubendorfer & D

Bopp, submitted for publication), Ae.

aegypti(MJ Fraser, unpublished

observations), Anopheles albimanus

( A M H a n d l e r, u n p u b l i s h e d

observations), T. castaneum, B. mori,

and P. gossypiella have all been

transformed with the piggyBac

element. In all cases, integration has

b e e n b y t r a n s p o s i t i o n a l

GM

Technolo

gy

krishijagran.com 29 AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

Prashant K. Natikar, D. N. Kambrekar and R. A. Balikai Department of Agricultural Entomology University of Agricultural Sciences,

Dharwad -580 005 Karnataka Email: [email protected]

recombination of the piggyBac element. Transformation frequencies are ∼10%, although an extremely high value of 60% was

observed for Tribolium transformation. The many transformed lines so far generated are stable in the absence of piggyBac

transposase.

The Minos Element

The Minos element from D. hydei is a member of the Tc1 family of transposable elements. It is approximately 1.8 kb in

size, possesses 255-bp inverted terminal repeats, and contains two long open reading frames separated by a 60-bp intron.

As for other elements in this family, Minos inserts at TA residues and creates 2-bp target site duplications. Minos can transform

C. capitata and D. melanogaster at frequencies similar to those observed for the piggyBac and Hermeselements in these

species. Most recently, Minos has been shown to be capable of transposition in several different An. gambiae cell lines as well

as in developing Anopheles stephensi embryos. Successful transformation of An. stephensi, using a Minos element containing

the EGFP genetic marker, has been reported. Interestingly, two types of integration events were observed for Minos when it

was transfected into anopheline cell lines. One type of integration event involved the Minoselement and flanking sequences

and so is similar to what has been observed for some Mos1 and Hermes integrations in mosquito genomes. The second type of

integration event occurred through the cut-and-paste transposition of the Minos element into the anopheline genome and

created TA target site duplications associated with this type of transposition. The reason for this difference in integration mode

is unknown, although Catteruccia et al speculated that the cut-and-paste mode of transposition was perhaps more likely to

occur with increasing transposase concentration.

Bayer Offers

$62 billion to

acquire Monsanto

erman pesticide and crop seed company Bayer said that it had offered G$62 billion in cash to acquire Monsanto in a deal that would combine

two of the world's biggest companies in the businesses of crop seeds and

pesticides. Bayer informed that it would make the proposal details public

after investor inquiries and market speculations about the deal.

The transaction, if confirmed, would create an industry giant whose

products include antibiotics, genetically modified crops and pesticides and

would have a combined annual revenue of more than $67 billion. Both the

companies conformed that Bayer had approached Monsanto about a

potential tie-up and Monsanto then said that the proposal was being

reviewed by its board of directors. The combined company's pesticides and

crop science would be based in Monheim, Germany and seeds business and

North American headquarters would be in St. Louis, United States.

Central Government rolls back :Bt Cotton Royalty decision

he Government of India took back the notification issued on Troyalty limit on GM trades. This shows that the Government is

under the pressure of biotech companies. Now the decision will be

taken only after discussion with the stake holders. Government

also has invited suggestion from farmers, scientists and industries.

State Agriculture Minister, Mr. Baliyan said that “The

notification has been taken back, but we are not rolling back. All

the stake holders should submit their suggestions within 90 days.”

The biotech industry and Agriculture-scientist criticized

the royalty decision taken by the government and said that this will

affect the foreign investments in the field of Agri researches.

GM

Tec

hnolo

gy


s we all know the quality of land

Avaries from holdings to holdings and even in the same holding between

plots. This is due to the variations in the various parameters of the soil such as soil depth, soil texture, permeability, moisture content, drainage, soil fertility, organic matter, topography etc. Hence the capability of the land to produce crops too varies vary much. No doubt the ordinary farmers do make out the difference between different types of lands in terms of its quality and capability. However a scientific approach will strengthen the native knowledge or the common man's understanding of the land capability classification. With this intention only this article is written providing all the most commonly accepted details of the eight classes of land and their colour coding. In the soil map each class of soil is depicted by a different colour. At the beginning of the description of each class the colour specific to that class will also be mentioned. The classification is based on certain parameters such as (1) effective depth of the soil, (2) texture of the surface soil, (3) permeability of sub-soil, (4) permeability of the substratum, (5) thickness of the surface soil, (6) available moisture capacity, (7) chemical reaction, (8) natural soil drainage, (9) inherent fertility, (10) organic matter content, (11) slope, (12) wetness, (13) salinity and (14) frequency of overflow.

Broadly, there are three stages within which the actual position of each parameter exists with reference to a particular soil. They are highly negative, optimum or middle and highly optimum. For example the depth of the soil can be expressed as very shallow (negative), Medium or optimum depth and very deep (positive). In most of the classes under description there are some remedial measures are also mentioned. However, the reader is cautioned that the remedial measures mentioned are by no means exhaustive. In each of these parameters there are a number of variations. For example the depth of the soil may be very shallow, shallow, moderately deep and very deep.

Colour Coding of Land Classes

Land Capability Classification

Three fundamental questions are asked when one begin to

classify the land. (1) Is the land fit for producing crops? (2)

Can the land be cultivated without causing permanent

damage to the soil? (3) Is permanent vegetation the only

available land use? As an answer to these questions all lands

classified into two categories: land suitable for cultivation

and land not suitable for cultivation. Each of these broader

group is further classified into four groups making the total

number of classification into eight classes. They are

explained in detail here.

1. Class I Land (Green colour)

Class I land is the best type of land available for

agricultural purposes. It is ideally suited for all types of tillage

operations performed with normal farming techniques. The

main characteristics of this class of land are listed as follows.

It is a well leveled or nearly leveled land; usually the

slope is less than 5 degree or less than 8.5% slope.

The soil in this class is deep, medium textured, moderately

permeable with a fairly excellent water holding capacity.

The soil is easily workable, fertile and productive.

The soil in this class is not subjected to abnormal levels of

wind and/or water erosion.

The drainage is fairly good with no conditions that

encourage damaging overflows.

The soil in the class 1 land is well supplied with all the plant

nutrients or highly responsive to the fertilizer application.

It is suited to a wide range of plants cultivated as well as

non-cultivated.

The land in this class is suitable for intensive cropping with

no permanent damage to the land such as the production

of maize inter-tilled crops.

Even in lands which are irrigated unnecessarily this

class of land may also be recognized. It means that the

production of crops would not go down under unirrigated

conditions. However, same class I irrigated land may require

the following initial conditioning.

It may have to be leveled.

Leaching may have to be done to remove the harmful salts

from the soil.

The seasonal water table may have to be lowered from

time to time.

Colo

ur

Codin

g o

f La

nd


the cultivator in the following ways.

The choice of crops may be limited.

Some of the management practices may not be

possible.

It may not be possible to take all crop rotations and

apply all the tillage practices in this class of land.

The limitations of class II land can be corrected in the

following ways.

following soil conserving and soil binding rotations.

installation at' water flow control devices and structures

at the required places.

adopting some special

tillage methods such as

deep ploughing, ridging

etc.

b y t e r r a c i n g , s t r i p

c r opp i ng and c r op

rotations which alternates

legume with cerals.

adopting the technique

of stubble mulching,

fertilizing, mcmuring,

liming etc.

In very dry and less

r a i n f a l l a r e a s s o m e

measures to prevent wind

erosion on class II land are to

e s tab l i shed . They a re

contour farming, s t r ip

cropping, stubble mulching,

rough tillage on the contour

lines.

It is better to adopt a

set of cultural operations

which will provide mutual

support to remove a few limitations that may restrict the use

of the class II land. However, the exact combination of

practices to be adopted will depend upon the limitations

arising from the special characters of the soil, prevailing

climatic conditions and systems of farming which will for

obvious reasons tend to differ from locality to locality. In

some cases the class II land can be made to perform equal

to the class I land.

Class III Land (Red colour)

The land under this class is considered moderately

good land that could be cultivated on a regular basis

under a good crop rotation with regular intensive remedial

measures. The main characters of class III land are

enumerated here.

The land under this category has a slope varying from

moderate to steep, usually from 15- 30 degree or 26.8

to 57.7 per cent.

It is highly susceptible to abnormal levels of wind and or

water erosion.

The soil depth is shallow.

If any of these limitations is likely to occur again and

again and need periodic attention, then that land is subject to

continuous restrictions and hence it is not classified under

class I.

Class I land may also be depicted in areas that can be

artificially drained. In this case, the soil permeability varies

from moderate to rapid, however, there may be cases where

a particular type of land meets all the other requirements of

class I land even though the natural drainage needs to be

augmented. In this case, the limitations imposed by lack of

drainage do not have a major bearing on crop production

and these Iands continue to be

regarded as class I land with the

lack of drainage being mentioned

as a toot note.

To maintain a Class I land in its

own class the following treatments

may be required.

regular application of manures

and fertilizers.

-growing of green manure

c r o p s a n d c o v e r c r o p s

periodically and incorporate

into the soil.

recycling of crop residues back

into the soil directly or indirectly.

f o l l ow i ng s u i t ab l e c r op

r o t a t i o n s i n w h i c h s o i l

exhausting crops are followed

by soil enriching crops.

protecting from the wind and

water erosion.

deep ploughing once in two

years to break the hard pan and

also to over turn the soil.

maintaining the soil pH at the neutral level.

2. Class II Land (Yellow colour)

The class lI land is a reasonably good land that can be

readily cultivated after adopting certain improved practices.

The major properties of class lI land are the following.

The slope of the land in this class varies from gentle to

moderate; usually varying from 5 to 10 degree or 8.5 to

18 per cent.

The depth of the soil ranges from moderate to deep.

The soil is moderately permeable but occasionally wet

with a normal water holding capacity. Over flow may

occur occasionally.

It may be subject to unexpected wind and or water

erosion.

Cultivation of 2 to 3 crops in a year is possible after the

adoption of certain soil and water conservation measures

like bunding, broad bench terracing, plotting etc.

Each of these limitations requires the attention from the

cultivator of the land and some remedial measures ought

to he applied. At times, these limitations create problem to

Colo

ur C

odin

g o

f Land


The soil texture may be sandy, very sandy or gravelly.

Obviously it has a low water holding capacity and a

low inherent fertility status.

The land usually has a hard pan clay/ pan kankar pan

below the upper layers.

This reduces the permeability of the subsoil slow or

very slow.

Under this class of land moderate to high overflow and

moderate to extreme wetness may occur occasionally.

This category of land is more limited in use than the

class II land. This difference is primarily due to its natural

condition. The above listed limitations restrict the use of

this land for cultivation. These include the choice of crops

that can be raised, timing of tilling and planting

operations and the number of crops that may be raised in

one year.

The following are some of the remedial measures that

may be adopted on this type of land.

Adopt adequate agronomic soil conservation

measures based on well selected crop rotation that to

reduces soil loss by means of erosion and soil moisture

loss by evaporation.

Minimize the loss of plant nutrients by controlling the

leaching which occurs during the flooded irrigation or

during heavy rainy season.

Maintain a good soil structure so as to increase its

water holding capacity. This is achieved by

maintaining a high level of organic matter in the soil.

Maintain a good supply of the nitrogen to the soil by

incorporating nitrogenous organic and inorganic

manures and fertilizers. Leguminous green manures

and oilcakes are the common source of nitrogenous

organic manures.

Create conditions for a higher yield of crops grown on

this class of land by adopting most suited agronomic

practices.

Crop rotations used in the land may be longer than

those used on class II type and must include longer

periods under forage and sod crops so as to prevent

an excessive soil loss.

A good drainage system together with a rotation

including deep rooted legumes is to be maintained on

nearly level ! land of this class having a heavy, slowly

permeable soil.

Organic matter may have to be added to the soil in

order to maintain the soil structure and to prevent the

formation of puddles thereby resulting in lower levels

of permeability. In such cases, the tiller should take

care not to work the soil when it is either too dry or too

wet. In some cases, the use of class ill land is restricted

by a high water table, low permeability and risk of salt

accumulations.

Terracing, bunding, gully plugging and other soil

conservation measures will have to be implemented.

Other remedial measures to deal with the limitations of

class ill land are: annual grade ditches, buffer strips,

application of organic manures etc. Besides these in all

the water outlets protective measures are to be taken

(small water checks which will catch the silt) in order to

save the soil that may be flowing with the run off.

Class IV Land (Blue colour)

Soil under this land class is fit for cultivation but is

restricted by a Plumber of factors. Hence it requires careful

management. The conservation practices are more rigorous

for this class compared to the class III land soil. The main

features of this class of land are the following.

The slope is steep and varies from moderate to very steep;

usually from 30 to 45 degree or 57.7 to 100 per cent.

The soil conditions are not very conducive for raising

more than an occasional crop after 2-3 years.

The soil is subjected to severe erosion by water or wind as

the structure and texture of the soil is more prone to

erosion or may be suffering the effect of past severe

erosion.

The depth of the soil may shallow to very shallow and the

organic matter content may be low.

The land may be subject to overflows and occasional

conditions of wetness and water logging.

A hard clay or hard (kankar) pan may occur beneath the

upper layers of the soil.

Severe salinity problems may be present in the soil under

this class.

Some of the class IV lands occurring in the humid regions

are suitable for occasional cultivation. However considerable

care and expertise is needed for bringing class IV land under

cultivation. The farmers can raise a long rotation trop on class

IV land which must be followed by a 2 to 3 year period in

which only forage grasses are raised. Poorly drained class IV

land which is almost level is not fit for raising inter-tilled crops

as the time required for the soil to dry up during spring is

fairly long. Even though such lands are not prone to severe

erosion, they cannot be cultivated because of their low

productivity. The choice of crops that may be raised on this

land is also limited. Most of the lands that belongs to the class

IV are fit for raising only few limited crops.

Under humid conditions, some of the class IV lands are

.shallow to moderate in depth, having a moderate top steep

slope low fertility and highly sandy, moderately saline in

nature. Long rotations, including raising grasses and soil

legumes are difficult to adopt under semiarid and arid

conditions.

Grasses and legumes take considerable time to establish

themselves in class IV lands. These are generally at highly

irregular intervals whenever these stands are raised, it must

be ensured that the land remains under their protection long

enough for restoring the structure and fertility to its original

level.

On the other hand, class IV land may be the best

available land in arid conditions. Under these conditions, all

forms of cultivation is subject to very severe limitations caused

Colo

ur

Codin

g o

f La

nd


by wind erosion. In such cases, there is no need to adopt

special and intensive cropping patterns and practices at

the time of cultivation for conserving the soil moisture and

minimizing soil erosion.

Very often, under semiarid conditions, class IV land

may be able to produce high yields of adaptable crops in

years of above average rainfall. However, low yields are

produced in years receiving average or less than average

rainfall. The land has to be protected against soil erosion

in lean and dry years.

Some of the special measures that have to be adopted

to tackle with the extreme conditions found on class IV

land are: special cropping practice, protective measures

against wind and water erosion, measures to conserve

moisture etc.

Besides these few additional measures are also

advised. They are: raising protective plants in tracts

highly prone to erosion to bind the soil together, a

perennial cover of vegetation has to be maintained on

class IV land under conditions of prolonged drought so as

to rebuild and restock the soil and improve its structure

and fertility.

In humid and semi-humid regions, where high

intensity storms are common, it is advisable to maintain

class IV lands under a forest cover. Unless land are

required for serving as a pasture and / or grazing

ground, it is not advisable to clear such areas which are

at present having a permanent tree cover.

Class V Land (Dark green)

This is the best land in the second group which

includes all lands that are not suitable for cultivation. Even

though this land cannot be cultivated it is ideally suited for

keeping under a perennial cover of vegetation i.e. as a

rangeland and for maintaining under a forest cover.

There are few or no limitations for its use as a forest or

rangeland.

The following factors are responsible for limiting the

use of class V land cultivation.

Slope varies from moderate to very steep usually

above 300 or 57.7 per cent.

The soil depth ranges from moderate to shallow. Bare

rock may occur in certain patches.

The land may be subjected to severe wind and / or

water erosion.

The soil is poor in nutrients; has a low permeability,

water holding capacity and may be affected by

extreme dryness, wetness and stoniness.

This class of land cannot be used for seasonally

cultivated crops. They are ideal for pastures or for

forestry purposes as it can support a good cover of grass

and for trees without severe limitations. However, the

following treatments may be required.

Regular controlled burning is required to bring about

a good growth of grass and saplings of tree species. !

Readjustment of the number of animals depending on

this land so that it supports only the optimum number

(optimum carrying capacity).

Grazing needs to be regulated in areas where the land

has been temporarily depleted due to over grazing in the

past several years. This will help to replenish the growth of

grass and prevent the occurrence of irreparable damage.

Swampy areas have to be drained by providing artificial

channels or improving natural waterways or providing

diversions to the flowing water.

Surplus water from the nearby irrigated cultivable lands

may be used for the irrigation of class V land.

Class VI Land (Orange)

This another class of land that is not suitable for

cultivation but only for pastures, wild life and forest cover. It is

subject to the following moderate limitations as far as its use

for grazing and or forestry is concerned.

The land is steeply sloped with an average slope of over

45° or 100 per cent.

The soil is poor in organic matter, shallow and either too

wet or dry.

The land is subject to severe wind and/ or water erosion.

The soil has very low moisture holding capacity.

It may be affected by severe climatic conditions.

The soil may affected by severe salinity or alkalinity

conditions.

Some categories of class VI land may be tilled just

enough to establish good pastures whereas others may safely

be used for raising forest crops.

A number of corrective measures are adopted for

making class VI land suitable for grazing and for forestry.

Control grazing in a way that it matches with the carrying

capacity of the land. In other words only optimum number

of animals are maintained.

Deferred and rotational grazing should be practiced in

order to help in the establishment of grass regeneration.

Fencing or other protective measures should be adopted

to prevent the entry of man and animals particularly into

the severely degraded areas.

The movement of grazing and browsing animals should

be controlled in such a way that a particular area is not

affected by erosion due to constant movement of the

cattle.

Other soil conservation measures that may be adopted for

the treatment, of class VI land are: gully plugging,

construction of check dams, diversion of water along safe

channels, planting up degraded areas, contour furrows,

water spreading and bunding structures etc.

Class VI land is also capable of producing

fodder/forage under moderate limitations. Strict restrictions

on the land use are required in case the vegetative cover has

been severely depleted due 10 biotic interference in the past.

These measures will enable the vegetation to regain its

original vigour and growth.

Class VII Land (Brown colour)

This type of land is not fit for cultivation. It is subject to

Colo

ur

Codin

g o

f La

nd


severe restrictions or severe hazards for its use as a grazing

and/ or forest land. The important characteristics of this type

of land are as follows.

The land is very steeply sloping with an average slope of

over 60 degrees.

It is subject 10 severe wind and / or water erosion.

The soil is poor in humus, stony, shallow and rough

infiltration capacity is low.

The land is subject to extreme dryness or wetness.

However, class VII land may be used for grazing and/ or

forestry if certain corrective measures are adopted. Severe

erosion causes much more damage to this type of land as

compared to class VI land.

The following are of the measures which may be adopted

for using this land as a pasture and or forest without any

permanent damage to it.

construct contour furrows, ridges and terraces where

slope conditions are favourable.

completely close the area to grazing and grass and other

fodder collecting.

avoid even the silvicultural (forestry) fellings in such areas.

plant soil binding tree species and tufts of grass in this type

of land

Class VIII Land (Purple colour)

This is the most unfavourable type of land. It is not

suitable either for cultivation, grazing or forestry. This

class of land is fit for being maintained as a wildlife

conservation area and for watershed protection and

recreation. Some types of land are included in this class.

They are:

marshes and swamps which are extremely wet for most

parts of the year.

extremely dry land found under typical desert

conditions.

bed lands comprising of deep gullies and severely

eroded ravines.

very steep slopes found in the high mountains; rough

extremely stony with poorly drained slopes

shallow soils or land with almost no soil cover.

Class VIII land is often found in small patches along

river beds, roadsides and ditch banks. This class of land

accounts for the largest proportion of soil that is wasted

annually into the rivers and streams all round the world. It

needs a combination of soil conservation, land

management and forestry measures. These steps aim to

prevent the further degradation of class VIII land and to

gradually improve their conditions so as to bring them to

conditions resembling those found in class VIII.

Some of the measures adopted for treating class VIII

land include:

Colo

ur C

odin

g o

f Land


complete fencing so as to prevent the entry of man and

animals.

plugging all major gullies of the tract

planting tuft of grasses and hardy tree and / or shrub

species.

Effect of climate

The land use classification described so far only takes

in to consideration the parameters mentioned in the

introduction. However the land use classification will vary

between two identical lands but with different climatic

conditions prevailing in each area. Thus an area which is

normally classified under class I based on the soil

characteristics and topography may be classified under

class IV if it lies in the semi-arid and arid areas. The effect

of the climate may summarised as follows.

If the climate is humid with well distributed rainfall

land may be classified under class I. Humid climate with

occasional rainfall or dry spells the land may classified

under class II. In subhumid areas where the crops are

affected by droughts may come under the classes II or III.

Lands in semi-arid areas are classified under classes III

and IV.

Land use plan

At the field level for every land holding a land use

plan is highly recommended. It is done through the survey

of land on the basis of the above land use classification.

After the survey land use mapping is made on basis of the

local conditions. In the map land area coming under different

land use classes will be depicted by their respective colours

and corresponding classes are noted in all the plots. The local

population may be associated with the final demarcation of

the land capability classes so that there may greater

participation from them during the implementation. The land

capability plan shows the land use capability of different

parts of a particular area.

Along with positive points the land use plan brings out

the problems concerning the ideal use of the land on a

sustained basis. These may include soil erosion, gully

formation, grazing and natural regeneration of the desired

species. A particular land is affected by a large number of

variables and it is difficult to pin point which degrading

factor, if checked, will restore the land to its original

condition.

The land use plan helps us to decide as to which part of

the land is to be put to what use? Before launching any land

use programme a detailed land use plan is drawn up by

teams working in the field. The complete plan also shows

what types of crops can be grown in what types land '? In

short the land use plan will answer the questions: where to

grow'?, what to grow'? and how to grow'? Table 1 gives a

recommended land use pattern for the users.

Table 1: A modified land use as per slope of the land is recommended*

No.Vertical/ Horizontal

(ft/mt)Percentage of slope %

(V/Hx100)Degree of slope Type of land use

4 1:1 to 3 33.30 15.00 Always under perennial natural forests

6 1:4 to 5 20.00 09.00 Planted forests for commercial purpose

10 1:6 to 9 11.10 05.00 Fruit trees, plantation crops, fuel wood trees

11 1:10 to19 10.00 04.50 Terraced cultivation of rain fed seasonal crops,

13 1:20 to 100 05.00 02.25 Terraced Irrigated, seasonal and biannuals

21 1:>100 <01 <0.45 Wet land crops Ponds, aqua-culture, etc.

22 Low lying land Rain water storage, ponds, lakes

Conclusion

The land use classification provided in this booklet

will help the people first of all to have a deeper

understanding of the difference between various types of

lands and various plots within the same land. Secondly it

also will show them clearly that preparation of a land use

map is essential for the proper utilization of the land for a

long term and sustainable production.

In our country practically no one really cares to

prepare a long term plan for the agricultural farm. Hence

most of the land holdings are cultivated in a half-hazard

way without taking into consideration the soil and water

conservation requirements on that farm holding, In the

long run such lands which may have been class I land get

deteriorated and become totally useless for agricultural

purposes.

It is high time that we educate the people in the

technique of land use classification and build up a habit

among them of preparing a land use plan. That is one of the

requirements for the improvement and maintenance of our

land re- sources especially the agricultural land.

Dr. K.T. Chandy Senior Execu�ve Editor

Krishi Jagran

Colo

ur

Codin

g o

f La

nd



5000 FARMERS IN

BANGLADESH WILL BE

PROVIDED WITH Bt

BRINJAL SEEDS

New

s

As a part of the Government's plan to scale up

cultiva-tion of biotech crops in the country, more than

5,000 farmers in Bangladesh would be provided with

genetically modified Bt brinjal seeds in the coming winter

season. Government and Agro- research institutions in the

country are busy in fast-tracking the field trails of three

more biotech crops - late blight resistant potato, Bt cotton

and vitamin-A rich Golden Rice.

Dilafroza Khanam, CSO and Head of the

Biotechnology Division, said that apart from four Bt brinjal

varieties released in 2013, they are planning for three

more GM brinjal varieties and are now in the pipeline for

regulatory approval. She also added that the field trials on

biotech potato, cotton and rice are also at the advanced

Matia Chowdhury

stages.

The country also doubled the acreage of Bt brinjal

acreage from 12 hectares in 2014 to 25 hectares in 2015.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-

biotech Applications (ISAAA), credited the success to

Bangladesh's political will, particularly from Agriculture

Minister Matia Chowdhury.

In a recent speech, Matia Chowdhury,

Agriculture minister said that the biotechnological

interventions in agriculture happened for development of

many stress-tolerant and disease and pest-resistant crop

varieties. She also criticized the propagandas that

misinforms and misguides public about the benefits of

frontier sciences in agriculture.

No Evidence of Adverse Human Health

Effects by Consuming GM Foods

One of the United States' premier scientific bodies says it has found no evidence

of adverse human health effects after 20 years of genetically modified crop adoption.In a

400-page report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine says its

review of nearly 900 studies and years of disease data showed no increase in health risks

due to the consumption of genetically modified food. Also in the report, the group noted

disagreements among expert scientific bodies over whether Glyphosate, a herbicide

paired with crops engineered to be resistant to it, has the potential to cause cancer. It also

pointed out that the use of GMOs has led to increase in weed and pest resistance and

called for incentives and regulations to push farmers toward practices that delayed the

evolution of resistance in weeds and pests.

Genetically modified crops were widely adopted in U.S. agriculture in the 1990s, mainly by incorporating genes resistant to

pests and herbicides. Creve Coeur-based Monsanto was one of the early developers of genetically modified crops, engineering

soybeans and then corn to be resistant to Glyphosate. But as their use has grown, concerns over their safety have persisted, leading

some food manufacturers and restaurants to disclose their use or tout products free of GMOs.

Vermont will begin requiring labeling of genetically modified food this summer, and other states have tried to enact similar laws.

Monsanto and other big agriculture and food companies have fought the efforts, arguing labeling food would confuse consumers and

lead to a patchwork of state regulations.

The National Academies reviewed disease registries in the U.S. and Canada, where GMOs have been a regular part of the

diet since the 1990s, and the United Kingdom and Western Europe, where GMOs are not widely consumed. It found no difference in the

increase or decrease of specific health problems after the introduction of GMO foods and the associated increase in Glyphosate.

The report did say there is “ongoing debate about potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans.” While a report in March 2015

from the International Agency for Research on Cancer listed the herbicide as “probably” carcinogenic to humans, other regulatory

agencies have not found a link to cancer.

“We hear quite a few claims that we need genetically engineered crops to feed the world, and by using genetic engineering

we can increase the rate by which we improve crop yield,” said the study committee's chair, North Carolina State University entomology

professor Fred Gould. “With the advent of (GMO) crops, we're not seeing that all of a sudden we're increasing the rate of increase.”

Published on 25th & Posted on 27th - 28th of Every Month RNI No.-DELENG/2015/65174 Postal Reg. No. DL-SW-1/4191/16-18

agriculture world may 2016

Documents