In areas receiving normal rainfall BT cotton did very well. Where moisture
was a limiting factor BT cotton did not do much better than any other
cotton. Under drought conditions lower yielding land races might out perform
higher yielding varieties because they handle the stress better because they
have less fruit on them.

I raised cotton in a moisture limited environment for over 30 years and the
most important thing affecting yields is the condition the cotton is when it
finally rains or how much cotton it has made before the drought sets in. We
never planted high yielding varieties unless we had irrigation available or
it would make less yields and lower quality cotton than the upland storm
proof varieties bred for the drier conditions. So I would expect high
yielding varieties to suffer more in a drought than lower yielding ones but
there is little difference in 40 and 50 pounds to the acre when it comes
time to pay the bills The fact that one is 20% better than the other its
still not enough money to make enough difference to do any good.

See who buys BT seed next year to judge how successful it was. A farmer
won't pay that price for seed if he doesn't believe it will pay him back
very well for his investment.

All I hear from farmers in India is they want more cotton that kills worms.

There is no reason that the experience of the rest of the world should be
different in India no matter how badly those of you that think that there is
something wrong with methods that reduce insecticides, increase yields
making the farmer more money and doing less damage to the environment.

In west Texas it was making 5 or 10% more than non Bt cotton and 5% ads up
to a lot when we are talking about 2,500 pound per acre.

Gordon
wrote in message
...

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may15/top.asp
The Bt cotton flop show
Experiment at farmers' cost

Nexus between official agencies and Bt industry came to the fore when
India's experiment with a GM crop eventually failed

By Devinder Sharma

Parliament's Standing Committee on Agriculture sees no merit in Bt
cotton. Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat - the four
States where Bt cotton was approved for commercial cultivation - have
already expressed dissatisfaction at its performance.

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which allowed
sowing in the southern States, has rejected a proposal for use of the
seed in the northern States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.

There is gloom in the agri-biotechnology industry. Promotion of
transgenic crops have suffered a major setback, and the industry has
enough reasons to sulk. For the industry, Bt cotton was the 'magic
bullet' that was expected to sway the public opinion in favour of the
unwanted transgenics. A year later, the failure of Bt cotton has
pushed the much-hyped genetically engineered crops on to the
backburner. But refusing to learn from the fiasco, the GEAC still
maintains: "more time should be given to assess the performance of Bt
cotton in the regions where it has been approved. One season's
performance is not enough."

The casual way in which the GEAC, as well as the Department of
Biotechnology (DBT) and the Indian Council of Agriculture Research
(ICAR), have treated the entire process of monitoring, evaluation and
approval of Bt cotton, has once again opened up a can of worms. Only a
year back, these agencies were upbeat saying that Bt cotton would
bring in an additional income of Rs 10,000 per acre for the cotton
growers.

Brushing aside all criticism of the faulty technology, the DBT had
gone to the extent of claiming that the crop yields would increase by
80 per cent. ICAR had given a quiet burial to all norms of scientific
experimentation to turn a blind eye to the murky projections of
'scientific data'.

The nexus between these official agencies and the biotechnology
industry is all too apparent. Expecting a sizeable percentage of the
advertisement revenue, print media too had joined the chorus. Despite
the hype and manipulations, India's first experiment with a
genetically modified crop eventually flopped. And once again, the cost
of the faulty experimentation has been entirely borne by the farming
community. Farmers have become modern India's new breed of guinea
pigs.

Apathetic approach

Reports pouring in from the southern States point to an estimated Rs
15-20 billion loss incurred by cotton farmers. Ministry of
Agriculture, however, is not willing to force Mahyco-Monsanto provide
adequate compensation to farmers by revoking the relevant clause of
the newly enacted Plant Variety Protection and Farmers' Rights Act
2001 that empowers the Government to direct companies that provide
inferior quality seed. Nor is the Government keen to blacklist the
company for taking the gullible farming community for a ride.

Such an apathetic approach will continue to cause irrefutable damage
to farmers. Adequate measures should be taken now to ensures that the
Bt cotton fiasco is not repeated. Instead of waiting for another year
of crop failure, as the GEAC plans, the effort should be to take
deterring steps that bring scientists as well as the regulatory
authorities under strict control. Since the livelihood of millions of
farmers is at stake, accountability has to be made the hallmark of the
approval process. It is therefore important to understand the reasons
for Bt cotton crop failure, and to take remedial steps.

First and foremost, the Department of Biotechnology is poorly equipped
to understand the complexities and needs of agriculture. The
department had deliberately ignored the ground realities and the
specific needs of the farmers and overlooked the threats to humans,
animals and environment in its undue haste to push transgenic crops.
No long-term research trials have been conducted to ascertain the
risks to humans and environment.

Two expert committees constituted by the Department of Biotechnology -
the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) and the Review Committee
for Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) - are headed by scientists who are
recipients of major funding from the department. The recommendations
of these two committees were therefore not expected to be fair and
objective. While there is an immediate need to dismantle the two
committees, the chairmen of the committees should be deprived of any
more research funding.

Scientific fraud

MEC and RCGM had examined the crop data that was provided by
Mahyco-Monsanto. Both of these committees should be penalised for
approving faulty data which led to crop failure. The 'scientific
fraud' had actually occurred at the level of the MEC and the RCGM. The
committees were time and again warned of the 'unscientific claims',
but they chose to ignore the warnings.

The committees, in any case, should be headed by eminent scientists,
but not biotechnologists, and should have equal representation from
the farmers, consumer groups and civil society. In addition, an
independent team of experts should be constituted to thoroughly
examine the economic and environmental viability of the transgenic
crops. This committee should look into alternatives to the existing
methods.

Any company which supplies experimental data that turns out to be
false should be blacklisted. There is no justification for approving a
transgenic crop variety whose claims fall flat in the very first year
of commercialisation. The GEAC should have the powers to order
adequate compensation to farmers who suffered losses from growing
sub-standard varieties. The GEAC should also withdraw the crop variety
immediately rather than adopt a 'wait-and-watch' approach. The onus of
proof should be with the erring company and not the farmers.

The National Environment Appellate Authority should be strengthened
and expanded to have legal powers to examine the failure of regulatory
authorities and the right to accord penalty and reprimand to the
erring officials and companies.

wrote in message
...

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may15/top.asp
The Bt cotton flop show
Experiment at farmers' cost

Nexus between official agencies and Bt industry came to the fore when
India's experiment with a GM crop eventually failed

let us see what is sown next year. That will answer all the questions. No
one in their right mind takes to much notice of government agencies.
If the amount of GM cotton in India sown by the ordinary peasants falls next
year, then it shows that it isn't everything it is cracked up to be. If the
amount increases then it shows that the people on the ground who know what
is going on have taken the decision that it works

Jim Webster