Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T06:04:57.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isolating the ‘farmer’ effect as a component of the advantage of growing genetically modified varieties in developing countries: a Bt cotton case study from Jalgaon, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2007

S. MORSE ,
R. BENNETT  and
Y. ISMAEL
S. MORSE*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AB, UK
R. BENNETT
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
Y. ISMAEL
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AB, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: s.morse@reading.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The present paper explores the ‘farmer’ effect in economic advantages often claimed for Bt cotton varieties (those with the endotoxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis conferring resistance to some insect pests) compared to non-Bt varieties. Critics claim that much of the yield advantage of Bt cotton could be due to the fact that farmers adopting the technology are in a better position to provide inputs and management and so much of any claimed Bt advantage is an artefact rather than reflecting a real advantage of the variety per se. The present paper provides an in-depth analysis of 63 non-adopting and 94 adopting households of Bt cotton in Jalgaon, Maharashtra State, India, spanning the seasons 2002 and 2003. Results suggest that Bt adopters are indeed different from non-adopters in a number of ways. Adopters appear to specialize more on cotton (at least in terms of the land area they devote to the crop), spend more money on irrigation and grow well-performing non-Bt varieties of cotton (Bunny). Taking gross margin as the basis for comparison, Bt plots had 2·5 times the gross margin of non-Bt plots in both seasons. If only adopters are considered then the gross margin advantage of Bt plots reduces to 1·6 times that of non-Bt plots. This is still a significant advantage and could well explain the popularity of Bt in Maharashtra. However, it is clear that great care needs to be taken with such comparative studies.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 145 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 491 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arends-Kuenning, M. & Makundi, F. (2000). Agricultural biotechnology for developing countries – prospects and policies. American Behavioral Scientist 44, 318–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwale, R. B., Gadwal, V. R., Zehr, U. & Zehr, B. (2004). Prospects for Bt cotton technology in India. AgBioForum 7, 23–26.Google Scholar
Bennett, R. M., Ismael, Y., Kambhampati, U. & Morse, S. (2004). Economic impact of genetically-modified cotton in India. AgBioForum 7, 96–100.Google Scholar
Bennett, R., Kambhampati, U., Morse, S. & Ismael, Y. (2006). Farm-level economic performance of genetically modified cotton in Maharashtra, India. Review of Agricultural Economics 28, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crost, B., Shankar, B., Bennett, R. & Morse, S. (2007). Bias from farmer self-selection in GM crop productivity estimates: evidence from Indian data. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deGrassi, A. (2003). Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence. Accra, Ghana, Africa: Third World Network.Google Scholar
Delmer, D. P. (2005). Agriculture in the developing world: connecting innovations in plant research to downstream applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102, 15739–15746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gala, R. (2005). India's Bt Cotton Fraud. London: Institute of Science in Society. Press Release dated 03/05/05 available online at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/IBTCF.php (verified 14/3/07).Google Scholar
GMWatch (2005). More on Study Confirming Failure of Bt Cotton. Norwich, UK: Norfolk Genetic Information Network.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Cabrera, J., Escriche, B., Tabashnik, B. E. & Ferre, J. (2003). Binding of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in resistant and susceptible strains of pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella). Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 33, 929–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillocks, R. J. (2005). Is there a role for Bt cotton in IPM for smallholders in Africa? International Journal of Pest Management 51, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hossain, F., Pray, C. E., Lu, Y. M., Huang, J. K. & Fan, C. H. (2004). Genetically modified cotton and farmers' health in China. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 10, 296–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, C. (2002). Global Review of Commercialised Transgenic Crops Featuring Bt Cotton. ISAA Brief No. 26. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.Google Scholar
Jayaraman, K. S. (2005). Indian Bt gene monoculture, potential timebomb. Nature Biotechnology 23, 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kambhampati, U., Morse, S., Bennett, R. & Ismael, Y. (2006). Farm-level performance of genetically-modified cotton: a frontier analysis of cotton production in Maharashtra. Outlook on Agriculture 35, 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranthi, K. R. & Kranthi, N. R. (2004). Modelling adaptability of cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) to Bt cotton in India. Current Science 87, 1096–1107.Google Scholar
Morse, S., Bennett, R. M. & Ismael, Y. (2005). Genetically modified insect resistance in cotton: some farm level economic impacts in India. Crop Protection 24, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2003). The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Available online at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/browseablepublications/gmcropsdevcountries/report_212.html (verified 14/3/07).Google Scholar
Orton, L. (2003). GM Crops – Going Against the Grain. London: ActionAid. Available online at http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/against_the_grain.pdf (verified 14/3/07).Google Scholar
Pemsl, D., Waibel, H. & Orphal, J. (2004). A methodology to assess the profitability of Bt cotton: case study results from the state of Karnataka, India. Crop Protection 23, 1249–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qaim, M. (2003). Bt cotton in India: field trial results and economic projections. World Development 31, 2115–2127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qaim, M. & Zilberman, D. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299, 900–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G. & Zilberman, D. (2006). Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: insights from India. Review of Agricultural Economics 28, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, D. & Deguine, J. P. (2006). Sustainability of Bt cotton in China and India. Cahiers Agricultures 15, 54–59.Google Scholar
Tabashnik, B. E., Patin, A. L., Dennehy, T. J., Liu, Y. B., Carriere, Y., Sims, M. A. & Antilla, L. (2000). Frequency of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in field populations of pink bollworm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97, 12980–12984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed