chapter 6: impact of bt cotton: a case study of...

CHAPTER 6

IMPACT OF BT COTTON A CASE STUDY OF

YAVATMAL DISTRICT OF MAHARASHTRA STATE

61 Introduction

A farm household survey was conducted in Yavatmal district of Maharashtra during the period of May - June 2010 with the help of a structured questionnaire to determine impacts of transgenic cotton on health of farmers and livestock who are directly or indirectly in contact with it Cost profile analysis also done for transgenic cotton farmers and compare it with non transgenic cotton farmers Maharashtra state has been selected for survey because it covers largest cotton growing area in comparison to other states of India The sample comprised of 137 respondents contained 69 transgenic cotton farmers and 68 non transgenic cotton farmers Information was collected on each and every aspect of transgenic cotton based on intervieweesrsquo personal experience and remembrance of previous years This information is summarized for both the groups and results are compared to know the exact impact of Bt cotton on health economic conditions and soil quality between the groups

Table 61 Profile of Yavatmal District Particulars Value Particulars Value

Total area

(square Km) 13582 Temperature Min =1686 Max = 4449

Area under cultivation

(in hectares)

1005265 Average rainfall 91134 mms

Non Agriculture ( in hectare)

77309 Crops Jwar Cotton Ground Nut amp Rice

Forest land (in hectare)

199234 Major cotton growing talukas

Ghatanji Wani Pusad Digras Umarkhed amp Mahagaon

Total villages 2145 River Wardha and Penganga

Population 2458271 Minerals Limestone is abundant in the district Black masonry stone is found in the plateau

regions of the district Population

density 181Sqkm Transport National Highway (Nagpur to Hyderabad)

Languages Marathi Gondi HindiBanjari Kolami

Railway Narrow gauge rail

Source Census 2001

160

62 Profile of Yavatmal

621 Geography of Yavatmal

Yavatmal is located at 204Acircdeg N 7813Acircdeg E It has an average elevation of 445

meters (1459 feet) This district is bounded on the north by Amravati District to the north

east by Warangal District to the east by Chandrapur District to the south by Andhra

Pradesh state and Nanded District to the southwest by Hingoli District and to the west by

Washim District Yavatmal district comprises of sixteen tehsils namely Arni Umarkhed

Kalamb Pandharkaoda Ghatanji Zari Jamani Darwha Digras Ner Pusad Babhulgaon

Mahagaon Maregaon Yavatmal Ralegaon and Wani Among them major cotton

growing talukas are Ghatanji Wani Pusad Digras Umarkhed amp Mahagaon Cotton is

the main produce and the chief export of the district The Bembla and the Nirguda are the

main perennial tributaries of the Wardha which flow through the district2

622 Agriculture

Yavatmal has around 1005265 hectares land area under cultivation Cotton is the

main cash crop and due to cotton production this district is known as the district of white

gold and also known as Cotton City of Maharashtra Rice groundnut sugarcane are also

cultivated in the district In terms of area under cotton cultivation the district ranks first

in the State2

623 Demographics

According to the 2001 census population of Yavatmal district was 2458271 in

which rural population was 2001060 and urban population was 457211 Among the

populations 1265681 were male and 1192590 were females Sex ratio of the district

was 1000947 The district had total literacy rate of 807 among which 8409 males

were literate and 6252 women were literate Marathi is the main language Other

languages spoken are Banjari Kolami and Hindi2

624 Soil Type

Black soil is dominant in Yavatmal Soils are poor in fertility due to erosion and

nutrient losses Due to poor soil quality and uncertainty in rain there are more pests and

disease problems widespread in the district Farmers in this area are generally resource

poor and therefore not in a position to invest more on inputs5

161

625 Forest

Nearly one-fifth of the total district area is forested and the forests are

concentrated in the Pusad Digras Ghatanji Maregaon and Yavatmal talukas2 626 Climate

The climate of Yavatmal district is hot and dry with moderately cold winters The

year can be divided into four seasons The hot season begins in March and extends up to

the first week of June This is followed by the south west monsoon season which last up

till the end of September October and November constitute the post monsoon season and

is followed by the cold season which last up till February The rainfall in the district is

not uniform in all parts Wani in the eastern part of the district receives 1125 mm of rain

and Darwha in the western part of the district receives 889 mm of rain annually In

general the amount of rainfall increase as one proceeds from west to east May is

generally the hottest month of the year with the mean daily maximum temperature at

about 42˚C From about the end of November both day and night temperature fall rapidly

and December is usually the coldest month of the year with the mean daily minimum

temperature at about 13˚C The cold waves over northern India sometimes affect the

district and the minimum temperature may drop to about 5˚C During the South-west

monsoon season the air is humid and the skies are heavily clouded to overcast During the

rest of the year the air is generally dry and the skies are clear or lightly clouded

Yavatmal is higher and cooler than Amravati and Akola but is not as cool as Buldhana

Extreme winters and summers can be experienced here3

63 Background Information of Transgenic Cotton

Genetically modified transgenic cotton varieties are obtained by combining a gene

of a naturally occurring soil-borne bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into the

tissue of a cotton variety4 The Bt gene produces various types of proteins Among these

proteins the crystalline proteins those prefixed with lsquoCryrsquo such as Cry1Ab Cry1Ac and

Cry9c are harmful to the larvae of moths beetles and flies and thus act as a natural

pesticide Most of these proteins are target specific For example Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab

control cotton bollworms Cry1Ab controls corn borer and Cry3Bb controls corn

rootworm5 The transformation event MON531 incorporates Cry1Ac protein into the

cotton variety known as Bollgard This variety is patented by the leading agricultural

162

biotechnology company Monsanto which has played a central role in the introduction of

genetically modified cotton worldwide starting in the US in 1996 The experience of

developing countries presented in review of literature indicates that the use of transgenic

cotton reduces the number of pesticide applications and increases yield and profit Three

generations of GM cotton have been introduced since 1996 The first generation contains

a single gene Cry1Ac The second generation of GM cotton was introduced in 2003 and it

contains a double gene Cry2Ab in addition to Cry1Ac in the same seed In 2006 a

hybrid cotton seed the third generation was introduced that contains the weed resistant

gene Roundup Readyreg Flex (RR flex) in addition to genes Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab6

64 Detail of Interviews

Survey covers 137 households 20 villages of four talukas in Yavatmal District in

which 69 were transgenic cotton farmers and 68 were non transgenic cotton farmers

Transgenic cotton farmers spent comparatively less average time (543 years) than non

transgenic cotton farmers (1726 years) (Table 62) Majority of the cotton growers were

small and marginal farmers in the district

163

Table 62 Descriptive Statistics of Transgenic and Non Transgenic Cotton

Sample Household

Particulars Transgenic cotton farmers

Non Transgenic cotton farmers

Number of farmers interviewed 69 68 Male 67 64 Female 2 4 Average size of the family 459 591 Average age of respondent 4150 4432 Total number of family members covered

317 402

Number of educated person in the family

133(419) 50(1243)

(i) Below matriculation 103(325) 29(721) (ii) Matriculation 10(315) 2(0049) (iii) Graduation to PG 3(0094) 6(149) (iv)Technicalprofessional Diploma or ITI

17(536) 13(323)

Average duration of cotton adoption (years)

543 1726

Average land size under cotton cultivation (acre)

287 264

Seed varietiesBrand sown Bollgard II 25(362) Loose seeds

43(632)

G k seed 8(1159) Paras seed 16(2352) Rasi seed 7(1014) Brahma

seed 9(132)

Ajeet seed 5(72) Bunny seed 4(58)

JK seed 4(58) Naath seed 3(43)

Mallika seed

4(58)

Bollgard I 2(29) Nuziveedu 2(29)

Soil types Black alluvial soil Black alluvial soil Source Field survey data

164

Table 63 Determination of lsquoprsquo Value between Different Variables of

Bt and Non Bt Cotton Farmers Variables t-test

(P value) Remarks

Average age of farmers

009

Since value of P comes under acceptance region (p gt 005) at 5 level of significance So the average age of respondents of both the group are not differing significantly

Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 4150 4432

Average size of land

031990

Since value of P comes under acceptance region (p gt 005) at 5 level of significance So the average land size of respondents of both the group are not differ significantly

Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 287 264

Average size of family

000012 5186

Since value of P comes under rejection region (p lt 005) at 5 level of significance So the average family sizes of Bt cotton farmers are differ significantly

Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 459 591 Educated person

3103e-13

On applying test of proportionality value of p comers under rejection region (p lt 005) so education level among Bt cotton farmers are differ significantly

Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 113 50

Source Survey data Since average age of farmers are not differ significantly so there is very less

chance of biasness in determining health due to age difference (Table 63) Average size of land between Bt and non Bt cotton groups does not differ significantly so there is very less chance of biasness in determining economic condition of Bt and non Bt cotton farmers due to difference in land size Average family size of non Bt cotton farmers are higher than Bt cotton farmers and education level of Bt cotton family members are higher than non Bt cotton group 641 Varieties Grown

Out of 137 transgenic cotton growers majority of farmers sow cotton in April and May Only few farmers sow cotton in June and July also There is a huge diversity in types and varieties of cotton grown within the sample Bt cotton varieties are Bollgard II Ganga kaveri seed Ankur seed Rasi seed Ajeet seed Bunny seed JK seed Naath seed Mallika seed Bollgard I Nuziveedu Non Bt cotton varieties are loose seeds Paras seed and Brahma seeds

165

Figure 61 Share of Different Varieties of Seed in Bt Cotton Production

Source Survey data

Bollgard II(3652)Ganga Kavesi seed(1159)Ankur seed(1014)rasi seed (1014)Ajeet seed(72)Bunny Seed(58) JK seed(58)Naath Seed(43) Mallika seed(29)

Figure 62 Share of Different Varieties of Seed in Non Bt Cotton Production

Source Survey data

Loose seeds (485)

Paras Seed(2352)

Brahma Seed(132)

642 Uses of Transgenic Cotton

Cotton is used in Yavatmal as a multiple crop in three ways First in the form of fibers

second in the form of edible oil and third for animal feed Cotton is a commercialized

crop due to its lint value in the textile industry Cotton lint and cotton seeds are two main

product of cotton plant cotton lint is fiber part of the plant which is collected after

ginning and some short fibers which remain stuck on the seed known as linter which are

also used in industry Outer tough covering of cotton seed known as hull is used as feed

for animal and inner soft part (kernel) of the seed is used to extract oil for human

consumption and residue after extracting the oil further use as meal for animals (Figure

63) shows flow chart of the use of cotton A significant fact is that roughly major parts

of the cotton produced is consumed directly as food and the remaining used as fiber in the

textile sector

166

Figure 63 Use of Cotton in Selected District

Source Personal interview ISAAA (2010) Mayee and Chakarbarty (2010)8 OTA (2009)9

Cotton seeds

Linter (industrial use) Hull (Feed)

Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources

According to the survey of twenty villages in four talukas of Yavatmal district

majority of transgenic cotton farmers use fresh seeds every year from seed dealer while

majority of non transgenic cotton farmers use their own saving of seeds Detail of sources

of seed is giving in the table 64

Table 64 Source of Seed for Transgenic Cotton Farmers and

Non Transgenic Cotton Farmers

Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)

Non Transgenic cotton

farmers(68)

P value Remark (at 5 level of significance)

Fellow farmer 4 (57) 8 (1176) 003507 Difference is significant

Own saving 3 (43) 44 (6470) 3855E-13 Difference is significant

Seed dealer 55 (797) 5 (73 ) 22E-16 Difference is significant

Land lord 7 (101) 11 (1617) 04248 Difference not significant

Source Field survey data

167

Figure 64 Source of Seed for Transgenic Cotton Farmers

0102030405060708090

fellow farmers Own Saving seed dealer land lord

transgenic cotton farmers

non transgenic cotton farmers

Source Survey data

797 of the transgenic cotton farmers get seeds by dealers ie buy fresh seeds

for every sowing season Transgenic cotton farmers also take seeds from land owners

(101) Some farmers borrow seed from fellow farmers (57) and 43 farmer kept

seeds for the next season

On the other hand conditions of non transgenic cotton farmers are totally

different Majority of the farmers ie 6470 reuse cotton seed 1617 farmers take

seed from land lord and 1176 from the fellow farmers Only 73 farmers use fresh

seed for sowing every time Results of the table show that majority of transgenic cotton

farmers depend on Seed Company to buy fresh seed for every season while non

transgenic cotton farmers are self dependents in case of seed On applying test of

proportionality it is found that proportion of farmers using their own seed is significantly

higher in non Bt cotton farmers On the other hand significantly higher proportion of Bt

cotton farmers use fresh seed from seed dealer every year

644 Farmerrsquos Preference

This portion describe that why farmers prefer transgenic or non transgenic cotton

Questions were asked regarding to input costs yield quality of product health issues etc

Details are summarized in the table 65

168

Table 65 Coomparison oof Preferencce of Farmeers

Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel

Good qufinal prodGood propertieGood for

Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct

resistant es r health

use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090

Bt cotton farmers(69

9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield

Bt cotton ers(68) 176)

0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health

good qualityfinal produ

P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks

nificant fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc

rtiesgood for health eeasily reuse

f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack

From sowing to harvest various pests attack on the roots leaves stems and fruit

of cotton These pests can be divided into two categorized First ldquosucking pestsrsquo (eg

aphids jassids (Amrasca devastans) thrips (Thrips tabaci) white fly (Bemisia tabaci)

and mealy bug They suck the sap from the plant and reduce its physiological activities

that severely affects yield Dry weather encourages sucking pests White fly develops

sooty-mold on the leaves of cotton plant which affects the photosynthesis process and

results in shedding of leaves and premature opening of bolls According to farmers this

pest remains active from June to October Jassid appears in the first week of June peaks

during first week of July and remains active until last week of August It causes leaf

shedding and loss of flower buds and bolls The quality of fiber is also reduced when

attack is severe during boll formation High humidity is favorable for cotton jassid

Thrips attack during the first week of June to second week of October The peak period is

from third week of July to last week of August These pests damage the leaves of cotton

plant and reduce the photosynthetic capacity of plant Aphids damage the plant by

infesting seedlings suck sap from leaves and produce substance (honeydew) on the

underside of leaves that develops black mold that reduce its quality and value Second is

ldquoChewing pestsrsquorsquo examples Spotted bollworms (Earias insulana Earias vittella) Pink

bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) and

Armyworms (Spodoptera litura amp Spodoptera exigua) etc These pests withdraw

nutrients from cotton seed and may cause serious yield losses However the intensity of

infestation depends on the levels of humidity in that area In addition cotton crops are

affected by weeds and some diseases such as nematodes boll rot wilt cotton leave curl

virus leaf curl root rot leaf spot seeding rot and unformed ball But these diseases do

not cause any major economic damage to crops According to the study bollworm and

sucking pests cause major economic damage to the cotton crop The most significant

reason for the acceptance of transgenic cotton is its resistant property particularly to boll

worms To check it following hypothesis and sub hypotheses are formed

170

Hypothesis

bull H10 There is no significant difference between the pest attack on transgenic

cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H1a There is a significant difference between the pest attack on transgenic cotton

and non transgenic cotton

6451 Bollworm Attack

Sub hypotheses are formed to compare the bollworm attack between Bt and non Bt

cotton farms

bull H1110 There is no significant difference between spotted bollworm attack on

transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H111a There is a significant difference between the spotted bollworm attack on


bull H1120 There is no significant difference between pink bollworm attack on


bull H112a There is a significant difference between the pink bollworm attack on


bull H1130 There is no significant difference between the American bollworm attack on


bull H113a There is a significant difference between the American bollworm attack


bull H1140 There is no significant difference between the armyworm attack on


bull H114a There is a significant difference between the armyworm attack on transgenic


To test these sub hypotheses information was collected regarding to the

bollworm infestation of both Bt and non Bt farms on the basis of previous yearrsquos pest

infestation experiences of cotton farmers Collected information summarized in the table

66 and test of proportionality apply to check the difference at 5 level of significance

171

Table 66 Comparison of Bollworm Attack

Bollworm Transgenic cotton

(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)

P value Sub-Hypo thesis

Accept reject

Remarks

Spotted 3(43) 33(485) 1344E-08 H1110 Reject S H111a Accept

Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept

American 8(116) 41(602) 8032E-09H1130 Reject

S H113a Accept

Armyworm 7(101) 11(168) 04284 H1140 Accept NS H114a Reject Total

percentage 333 1971

S=Difference is Significant NS=Difference is not Significant Source Survey data

Figure 66 Comparison of Bollworm Attack

000

2000

4000

6000

8000

Spotted bollworm Pink Bollworm American Bollworm Armyworm

Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data

On comparing the bollworm attack it is found that transgenic cotton is highly

effective against all the varieties of bollworm On the other hand non transgenic cotton is

highly infected by bollworm in which Pink bollworm (75) is most harmful followed by

American bollworm (602) and Spotted bollworm (485) On the other hand

Bollworm infestation rate was very low in transgenic cotton Bollworm infestation in non

transgenic cotton was 1638 higher in comparison to non transgenic cotton

Statistical test reject sub hypotheses H1110 H1120 H1130 and accept

H1140 It is found that pest infestations for Spotted Pink and American bollworm were

significantly different between non transgenic cotton and transgenic cotton but

armyworm infestation was not different significantly This shows that Bt cotton is highly

172

effective against Spotted Pink and American bollworm But its resistance property for

armyworm is similar to non Bt cotton

6452 Sucking pest Attack


cotton farms are given below

bull H1210 There is no significant difference between the mealy bug attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H121a There is a significant difference between the mealy bug attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H1220 There is no significant difference between the aphids attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H122a There is a significant difference between the aphids attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H1230 There is no significant difference between the jassids attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H123a There is a significant difference between the jassids attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H240 There is no significant difference between the white fly attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H124a There is a significant difference between the white fly attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H1250 There is no significant difference between the leaf hopper attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H125a There is a significant difference between the leaf hopper attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H1260 There is no significant difference between the thrips attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H126a There is a significant difference between the thrips attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H1270 There is no significant difference between the leaf roller attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H127a There is a significant difference between the leaf roller attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

173

To test these sub hypotheses information was collected about the Sucking pest Infestation on both Bt and non Bt cotton farms Collected information summarized in the table 67 and test of proportionality apply to check the difference at 5 level of significance

Table 67 Comparison of Sucking Pest

Sucking pest Transgenic cotton

(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)

P value Sub Hypo thesis

Accept Reject

Remark

Mealy bug (Pindinalli)

17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject

White fly 40 (579) 51 (75) 005569 H1240 Accept

NS H124a Reject

Leaf hopper 23 (3333) 26 (3823) 06743 H1250 Accept

NS H125a Reject

Thrips (Keet) 23 (3333) 20 (2941) 07562 H1260 Accept

NS H126a Reject

Leaf roller 19 (2753) 21 (3088) 08082 H1270 Accept

NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382

Mealy bug-Scale like plant eating insects coated with a powdery wax secretion Aphids ndashBlack and grey dots like insects live below the leaf Jassids-(sureda) White Fly ndash very small white dots like insects live below the leaf Thrips-Keet Total percentage is coming more than 100 because one crop can be suffer by more than one disease S= Difference is Significant NS= Difference is not Significant

Source Survey data

174

Figure 67 Comparison of Sucking Pest

000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Mealy bug Aphids Jassids White fly Leaf hopper Thrips Leaf roller

Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data

harmful sucking pest in case of both transgenic cotton and

20 H1230 H1240

H1250

bove observations clearly show that transgenic cotton provides an effective

solution

Whitefly is the most

non- transgenic cotton and percentage of infestation was high in both of the groups but

overall infestation of sucking pest was 1788 lower in transgenic cotton on comparison

to non transgenic cotton Average percentage of sucking pest infestation in transgenic

cotton was 21594 but in non transgenic cotton it was 23382

Statistical test accept null hypotheses H1210 H12

H1260 H1270 There is no significant difference between infestation of

sucking in transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton This shows that Bt cotton is not

very effective against sucking pests just like non Bt cotton and farmers use pesticide for

these pests

The a

against bollworm Although it is not very effective against sucking pest but

overall sucking pest infestation was low in transgenic cotton in comparison to non

transgenic cotton With these chewing and sucking pests some bacterial viral and fungal

diseases are also widespread in cotton production But these diseases are not as harmful

as sucking and chewing pests

175

6453 Other Diseases

ed to compare the other viral and bacterial diseases between

dden and wilt disease in

tween the redden and wilt diseases in

tween the nematode attack on transgenic

rence between the nematode attack on transgenic

ifference between the boll rot disease on transgenic

erence between the boll rot disease on transgenic

ifference between the wilt due to virus attack on

ce between the wilt due to virus

leaf curl due to virus attack on

between the leaf curl due to virus

cted about the diseases other

than bo

Sub hypotheses are form

transgenic and non transgenic cotton farms are given below

bull H1310 There is no significant difference between re


bull H131a There is a significant difference be


bull H1320 There is no significant difference be


bull H132a There is a significant diffe


bull H1330 There is no significant d


bull H133a There is a significant diff




bull H134a There is a significant differen

attack on transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H1350 There is no significant difference between the


bull H135a There is a significant difference


To test these sub hypotheses information was colle

llworm and Sucking pest Information of both Bt and non Bt farms was collected

and summarized in the table 68Test of proportionality applied to check the difference at

5 level of significance

176

Table 68 Comparison of Other Diseases

Diseases Trtransgenic

o Accept Remaansgenic Non P value Sub HypBt cotton farmers

(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks

Redden and wilt 7(101) 4(59) 05461 H1 310 Accept NS H 1 31a Reject

Nematode 10(144) 6(87) 04431 H1 320 Accept NS H1 32a Reject

Boll Rot 8(116) 11(161) 0597 H1 33 0 Accept NS H 1 33a Reject

Wil rus t due to viand bacteria 6(83) 5(74) 1 H1 340 Accept NS

H1 34a Reject

leaf curl 3(43) 1(15) 06 223 H1 350 Accept NS H 1 35 a Reject

root rot 1(14) 7(102) 006532 H1 36 0 Accept NS H 1 36a Reject

leaf spot 1 ) 6(2313 12(176) 05536 H1 370 Accept NS H1 37a Reject

Unformed Ball 6(87) 4(59) 07608 H 1 380 Accept NS H1 38a Reject

Total 82 73

S= Difference is Significant NS = Difference is not Significant

S

Figure 68 Comparison of Other Diseases

Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt

Nematode Boll Rot wilt due to virus andd

bacteria

leaf curl root rot leaf spot unformed Ball

Btcotton

non Btcotton

177

Statistical test accept null hypotheses H1310 H1320 H1330 H1340 H1350

5 Economics of Transgenic Cotton Vs Non- Transgenic Cotton

mine whether the

e is no significant difference between input cost in transgenic cotton and

nt difference between input cost in transgenic cotton and non

ed

transgenic cotton

difference between the seed cost in transgenic cotton and

ignificant difference between the cost of fertilizer used in

H1360 H1370 H1380 at 5 level of significance There is no significant difference

between infestation of other diseases between transgenic cotton and non transgenic

cotton This show that Bt cotton is not effective against other diseases just like non Bt

cotton and farmers use pesticide for these pests

6

The main objective of this portion of the thesis is to deter

cultivation of transgenic crops (Bt cotton) is economically viable or not The performance

of any crop depends on various factors like agro-climatic conditions genotype of the

variety its cropping practices and pest infestation A well-performing Bt or non Bt cotton

variety in one area or farm may not produce the same result in another area or farm so an

average performance of transgenic cotton has been compared with non transgenic cotton

in the same area and climatic condition in the same time period to avoid any possibility of

biasness In this study farms of transgenic cotton and its nearby non transgenic cotton

farms had been selected to reduce the difference between agro economic factors like

quality of soil irrigation facilities pest infestation etc to avoid any type of biased due to

these factors To check the input pattern following hypothesis are formed

Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther

non transgenic cotton

bull H2a There is a significa

transgenic cotton

To check this hypothesis the following sub hypotheses are form

bull H210 There is no significant difference between the seed cost in


bull H21a There is a significant


bull H220 There is no s


178

bull H22a There is a significant difference between the cost of fertilizer used in


bull H230 There is no significant difference between the cost of Farm Yard Manure used

in transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton

bull H23a There is a significant difference between the cost of Farm Yard Manure used


bull H240 There is no significant difference between the cost of pesticide used in


bull H24a There is a significant difference between the cost of pesticide used in


bull H250 There is no significant difference between the irrigation cost in transgenic


bull H25a There is a significant difference between the irrigation cost in transgenic


bull H260 There is no significant difference between the cost of labor use in transgenic


bull H26a There is a significant difference between the cost of labor used in transgenic


bull H270 There is no significant difference between the total cost of production in


bull H27a There is a significant difference between the total cost of production in


bull H280 There is no significant difference between the yield of transgenic cotton and


bull H28a There is a significant difference between the yield of transgenic cotton and non

transgenic cotton

bull H290 There is no significant difference between the revenue of transgenic cotton and


bull H29a There is a significant difference between the revenue of transgenic cotton and


179

bull H2100 There is no significant difference between the profit of transgenic cotton and


bull H210a There is a significant difference between the profit of transgenic cotton and


To test these sub hypotheses information was collected and gathered in the form of

following tables Table 69 shows the comparison between the average quantities of

inputs used in transgenic and non transgenic cotton production and table 610 compare

average cost of production yield and profit by the previous yearrsquos experiences of farmers

Table 69 Comparison of Average Quantity of Inputs Used in

Cotton Production (Per acre)

Inputs Bt cotton (69 Farmers) Non-Bt cotton (68 Farmers)

Seed(gram) 610 67426

Fertilizer(Kg) (NPK) 1016 5235

Farm yard manure (cart load) 4028 268

Pesticide (liters) 171 333

Labor (day) 4185 3627

Yield 480 kgacre 34830 kgacre

NPK- Ratio is (100Kg50Kg50Kg) for irrigated land (80Kg50Kg50Kg)for Rain fed land 1 cartload contains 65 Kg urea and 63 kg superphosphate farmer use a cocktail of pesticide and the combination reached sometime upto seven chemicals labor used in ploughing and preparation of land sowing spraying weeding harvesting and picking of cotton balls

Source Survey data Quantity of inputs varies from time to time and depends on external factors like

pest infestation condition of rainfall price of inputs and wages of labor etc At the same

time results of fertilizer and pesticide also depends on quality of these inputs because

products of different companies have variations in the results So an average has been

taken to avoid such types of uncertainties

180

Table 610 Comparison of Average Cost and Profit (per acre) (in Rs)

Particulars Transgenic Cotton

(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54

lt001 H 210 Reject S

H 21a Accept Fertilizer (NPK) 2032 1047 261496E53


H 22a Accept Farm Yard

Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S

H 23a Accept Total cost

of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S

H 24a Accept Irrigation

1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001

H 260 Reject S H 26a Accept

Transport 700 700 -- -

Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S

H 27a Accept Total yield (kgacre) 480 34830

573324E-34 H 280 Reject S H 28a Accept

Price per Kg 40 40 -- -

Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34

lt001 H 290 Reject S H 29a Accept

Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19

lt001 H2100 Reject S H 210a Accept

Difference in profit ( Rs 6554 - 281826 = Rs 373574 )

purchase of bamboo bucket bags etc S= Difference is Significant NS= Difference is not Significant Source Field Survey data

181

651 Seed

Non transgenic cotton farmers use 67426 gm seed per acre that is 1049 more

than the average quantity of seed used by transgenic cotton farmers of 610 gm per acre

but cost of transgenic cotton seed is much higher Rs 1421 per are in comparison to Rs

54634 of non transgenic cotton seed per acre This cost of Bt seed was 16009 higher

than non transgenic cotton seed per acre

652 Fertilizer

Transgenic cotton needs high quantity of fertilizer Farmers use on an average

1016 Kg fertilizer per acre which is approximately double in comparison to non

transgenic cotton farmers of 5235 Kg Transgenic cotton farmers spent an average of Rs

2032 per acre on fertilizer that is 9407 higher than average expenditure of Rs 1047

per acre on non transgenic cotton farm

653 Farm Yard Manure

Along with fertilizer transgenic cotton farmers use more amount of farm yard

manure than non transgenic cotton farmers An average of 4028 cartload farm yard

manure was used by transgenic cotton farmers in comparing to 268 cartload per acre by

non transgenic cotton farmers Expenditure on farm yard manure was Rs 1329 for Bt

cotton That was 5027 higher than expenditure of average cartload of Rs 8844 per

acre

654 Pesticide

Farmers are using pesticide because of many reasons Previous bad experiences of

bollworm attack compelled farmers to use pesticide Beside bollworm attack sucking

pest also infect the cotton crop to large extent Farmers use pesticide as a precautionary

measure also because transgenic cotton farmers already spent a high amount on cotton

seed and they donrsquot want to take any risk of crop failure So due to the above reasons

farmers are using pesticide in transgenic cotton production Table 610 shows a

significant difference in the expenditure on pesticide The bollworm pesticide

expenditure for Bt varieties was significantly lower as compared to non- Bt cotton The

most important reason of adoption of transgenic cotton in the area is its pest resistant

properties Comparison of quantity of pesticide used in transgenic cotton farm was 171

liter per acre that was 4864 lower than 333 liter of pesticide per acre Average

182

expenditure on pesticide for transgenic cotton farmers was Rs 1777 per acre that was

5124 less than average expenditure of pesticide on non transgenic cotton farmers

group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation

Transgenic cotton needs irrigation more frequently during peak boll season

around September It may otherwise lead to wilting Transgenic cotton farmers spent Rs

1004 on irrigation which was more than double of average amount of Rs 4640 on

irrigation of non transgenic cotton

656 Labor

Cotton production is highly labor intensive labor is used in land preparation

sowing of seed spraying of pesticides and picking of cotton balls Labor cost for

transgenic cotton was Rs 4185 higher Rs 558 by non transgenic cotton farmers of Rs

3627 This high cost is due to high yield resultant high cost of picking The proportion of

labor cost to total cost of production was the highest in comparing to other inputs The

human labor use is 3627 man-daysacres in non transgenic cotton and 4185 man-

daysacre in the transgenic cotton production

657 Transport

Transport charges to move the cotton lint from the field to market depends on the

types and fare of vehicle and distance from the market or the place where the farmers

store cotton lint Lots of variation was found between the expenditure on transport in both

the groups so an average calculated expenditure of Rs 700 has been taken for both the

groups Other expenses like purchase of bucket of Bamboo to collect cotton lint or other

small expenses were taken Rs 200 per acre for both the groups

658 Total cost

Total cost of cultivation for transgenic cotton producer was Rs 12646 per acre

This cost of cultivation was 1378 higher than non transgenic cotton cost of cultivation

of Rs 1111374 per acre The reason behind this high input cost was use of expensive

seeds higher amount of fertilizer high irrigation cost and more need of labor

183

659 Yield

Average yield of Bt cotton was found 480 kg per acre that was 378 higher than

34830 Kg per acre of average of non transgenic cotton yield

6510 Profit

Since selling price of both transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton products

was same in the market (approximately Rs 40 per Kg) so the total revenue earned by

transgenic cotton was Rs 19200 per acre that was 378 higher than total revenue of Rs

13932 per acre of non transgenic cotton farmers Profit earn by transgenic cotton farmers

was Rs 6554 per acre that was 13255 higher than non transgenic cotton farmers profit

of Rs281826

Statistical test reject null hypotheses H210 H220 H230 H240 H250 H260 H

270 H280 H290 H2100 This shows that there is significant difference in input pattern

of different variables at 5 level of significance Results show that Bt cotton gives higher

yield and more profitable in comparison to non Bt cotton

A general opinion of farmers also taken about the change in yield from previous

year is summarized in the table 611

Table 611 Farmerrsquos Opinion about Change in Yield

Farmers Increase Decrease No change

Transgenic cotton(69) 59 (855) 7 (101) 3(43)

Non transgenic cotton(68) 31(455) 9 (132) 28(411)

Source Survey data

Majority of transgenic cotton farmers 855 observed that their yield improved

from previous years Only 101 transgenic cotton farmers felt that their crop decreased

and 43 farmers did not observe any change in the yield from previous years On the

other hand non transgenic cotton farmers also felt improvement in yield (455) but

132 farmers feel decrease in yield of cotton and 411 farmers did not observe any

difference in yield from previous years After comparison of improvement in yield

between transgenic and non transgenic cotton farmers it is found that transgenic cotton

farmers feel improvement in yield and more satisfied by the performance of transgenic

cotton

184

66 Summary

Table 612 summarizes the results on the subjective assessment of transgenic versus non-

transgenic cotton

Table 612 Summary of Production

Particulars Transgenic cotton

Non transgenic cotton

Seed cost High Low Pest incident Low High

Pesticide used Low High Bollworm Low High

Sucking pest Same Same Other disease Same Same Fertilizer need High Low

Irrigation High Low Cotton quality Same Same

Yield High Low Price of product Same Same

Profit High Low Source Survey data

The most important advantage observed by Bt cotton farmers is its pest resistant

property Farmers observed less pest incident in Bt cotton Uses of pesticide are

significantly low in transgenic cotton Use of fertilizer in transgenic cotton increased but

it can be directly linked with high yield because high yield need high use of fertilizer

and high use of fertilizer need high supply of water That leads to high irrigation in

transgenic cotton production Price and demand of cotton depends on so many marketing

factors that fluctuate with the passage of time But this fluctuation is on an average same

for both transgenic and non transgenic cotton A strong disadvantage reported by the

farmers is high seed cost of transgenic cotton which is two to three time higher than non

transgenic cotton But the overall profit for transgenic cotton was higher than non

transgenic cotton farmers This may sum up the pros and cons of this study of transgenic

cotton

185

Satisfaction level of Bt cotton farmers and non Bt cotton farmers in terms of

input costs are summarized in the table 613

Table 613 Satisfaction in Terms of Input Costs

Yes No Bt cotton farmers(69) 42(6086) 27(3913) Non Bt cotton farmers(68) 63(9264) 5(73)

Source Survey data

6084 Bt cotton farmers are satisfied by its production 3913 Bt cotton

farmers are not satisfied because of high seed price and high input cost of water and

fertilizer Price of Bt cotton seeds are much higher than non Bt cotton seed along with it

farmers use high amount of fertilizer and farm yard manure also On the other hand

9264 non Bt cotton farmers are satisfied because of low cost of seeds 73 non Bt

cotton farmers are not satisfied due to use of expensive pesticide towards bollworm

67 Safety Issues Associated With Health

As 69 transgenic cotton farmers and 68 non transgenic cotton farmers were

interviewed in the survey but to know about complete health impacts of transgenic crops

directly or indirectly on its consumer it was necessary to know about health of each

member of the farmers family because they also work in cotton farm and consume cotton

directly or indirectly in the form of edible oil and indirectly in the form of milk of

livestock To solve this purpose information regarding to health of 317 family

members of transgenic cotton farmers and 402 family members of non transgenic cotton

farmers have been collected by the head of family because it is believed that he has

complete information about health of his family members To fulfill these objectives the

following hypothesis and sub hypotheses are formed for seasonal and chronic diseases

separately

Hypothesis

bull H30 There is no significant difference between the health of transgenic cotton

dependents and non transgenic cotton dependents

bull H3a There is a significant difference between the health of transgenic cotton


186

Sub hypotheses

(i) Chronic Diseases

bull H3110 There is no significant difference between the skin allergy facing by

transgenic cotton dependents and non transgenic cotton dependents

bull H311a There is a significant difference between the skin allergy facing by


bull H3120 There is no significant difference between the cough disease in transgenic

cotton dependents and non transgenic cotton dependents

bull H312a There is a significant difference between the cough disease in transgenic


bull H3130 There is no significant difference between the bulging eye problem facing by


bull H 313a There is a significant difference between the bulging eye problem facing by


bull H3140 There is no significant difference between the headache in transgenic cotton


bull H314a There is a significant difference between the headache in transgenic cotton


bull H3150 There is no significant difference between the respiratory problems facing by

transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton dependents

bull H315a There is a significant difference between the respiratory problems facing by


bull H3160 There is no significant difference between the fever disease in transgenic

cotton and non transgenic cotton dependents

bull H316a There is a significant difference between the fever disease in transgenic


187

(ii) Seasonal diseases











bull H323a There is a significant difference between the bulging eye problem facing by


bull H3240 There is no significant difference between the nausea in transgenic cotton


bull H324a There is a significant difference between the nausea in transgenic cotton








bull H326a There is a significant difference between the respiratory problems

facing by transgenic cotton and non transgenic cotton dependents

bull H3270 There is no significant difference between the fever in transgenic cotton

and non transgenic cotton dependents

bull H327a There is a significant difference between the fever in transgenic cotton and

non transgenic cotton dependents

188

To test these sub hypotheses information was collected about the health of Bt and

non Bt cotton dependents and collected information gathered in the form of table

614 Table describes the chronic and seasonal health problems facing by transgenic

and non transgenic cotton farmers Chronic problems are those by which farmers are

suffered by a long period of time and seasonal diseases are those by which farmers

are suffered for a short period or mainly during work on cotton farm

Table 614 Health Problem Facing by Bt and Non Bt Cotton Dependants

Diseases Bt Cotton Dependents (317) Non Bt cotton Dependents (402)

Chronic Seasonal Chronic Seasonal Skin allergy 18(56) 73(230) 38(945) 116(2885) Cough 26(82) 57(1798) 48(1194) 83(2064) Bulging eyes 4 (12) 39(123) 11(273) 88(2189) Nausea 0(0) 0 69(217) 0(0) 99(2462) Headache 0(0) 0 65(2050) 5(124) 88(2189) Respiratory problems

82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)

Total percentage 4826 15520 6044

19253

Note Total percentage is more than 100 because one person can be suffered by more than one disease

Source Survey data

On analyzing the chronic health disease of the transgenic cotton dependants

majorities are suffering from respiratory problems (258) followed by cough (82)

skin allergy (56) amp fever (35) No member was suffered from permanent headache

and nausea On analyzing the seasonal diseases facing by transgenic cotton dependent it

was found that majority of the members suffered by respiratory problems (3596) fever

(236) is the second most dominant seasonal disease followed by skin allergyirritation

(230) Members suffered by Nausea (217) amp headache (205) 1798 transgenic

cotton dependents were suffered by cough Members also suffered by seasonal bulging

eye problem (123) Total 4826 members suffered from permanent disease while

15520 members suffered from seasonal diseases mainly during work on cotton form

Same types of problems have been observed in case of non transgenic cotton

dependants Respiratory problem (3159) is dominant chronic disease followed by

189

cough (1194) and skin allergy (945) 27 members were suffered from fever and

273 suffered by bulging eyes On observing seasonal diseases faced by non transgenic

cotton dependence majority of the members suffered from respiratory problems

(4502) followed by fever (2960) skin allergy (2882) nausea (2462) bulging

eyes (2189) and headache (2189) during work in cotton farm During the interview

majority of the respondents were found to be smokers This may be the main reason of

permanent respiratory problem On observing seasonal respiratory problem more number

of farmers was suffering from respiratory problem The reason is transgenic cotton

farmers are still using pesticide for sucking pest in cotton farming which leads to

respiratory problems skin irritation and cough problem

671 Comparison of Chronic diseases

On comparing the chronic diseases between transgenic cotton members and non

transgenic cotton members it was observed that transgenic cotton members were found

1218 less ill than non transgenic cotton members (Table 615)

Table 615 Comparison of Chronic Diseases Facing by Transgenic and Non Transgenic Cotton Grower

Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)

Non Bt cotton family

members (402)

Difference p value Sub Hypo

theses Accept Reject Remark

Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject

Cough 26(82) 48(1194) -375 01299 H3120 Accept NS H312a Reject

Bulging eyes 4 (12) 11(273) -153 0008208 H3130 Reject S H313a Accept

Headache 0(0) 0 5(124) -124 01234 H3140 Accept NS H314a Reject

Respiratory problems 82(258) 127(3159) -579 01106

H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject

Fever 11(35) 11(27) +08 0727 H3160 Accept NS H316a Reject Total

percentage 4826 6044 -1218

S= Difference is Significant NS= Difference is not Significant Source Survey data

190

Figure69 Comparison of Chronic Diseases

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

transgenic cotton family members

non Trangenic cotton family members

Source Survey data

Statistical test accept null hypotheses H3110 H3120 H3140 H3150

H3160 This proves that there is no significant difference between major chronic

diseases like Skin allergyirritation Cough Headache Respiratory problems Fever Test

accept alternate hypothesis H313a It proves that there is a significant difference

between bulging eye problem between the groups Percentages of bulging eye patients

are higher in non Bt cotton farmers

672 Comparison of Seasonal Diseases

On comparing the seasonal diseases facing by both transgenic and non transgenic

cotton farmers it was found that transgenic cotton members were 3733 less ill than

non transgenic cotton farmers (Table 616)

191

Table 616 Comparison of Seasonal Diseases

Diseases Bt cotton members

(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage

p value Sub Hypo theses

AcceptReject

Remarks

Skin allergy irritation

73(230) 116(2885) -585 009352 H3210 Accept NS H321a Reject


Bulging eyes 39(123) 88(2189) -959 000116 H3230 Reject S H323a Accept

Nausea 69(217) 99(2462) -292 04173 H3240 Accept NS H324a Reject

Headache 65(2050) 88(2189) -139 07196 H3250 Accept NS H325a Reject

Respiratory problems

114(3596) 181(4502) -906 001748 H3260 Reject S H326a Accept

Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048

H3270 Reject S H327a Accept

Total 15520 19253 -3733 Note A member can be suffered by more than one disease so the total percentage exceed more than hundred percent S=Difference is Significant NS= Difference is not Significant

Source Survey data

Fig610 Comparison of Seasonal Diseases

Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

transgenic cotton family members non Trangenic cotton family members

Test of proportionality at 5 level of significance accept null hypotheses

H3210 H3220 H3240 H3250 This shows that there is no significant difference in

the diseases like Skin allergyirritation Cough Nausea and Headache Test accept

192

alternate hypothesis H323a H326a H327a shows that Bulging eyes Fever and

Respiratory problems are differ significantly in both the groups

On comparing the chronic and seasonal diseases faced by transgenic cotton

members and non transgenic cotton members it found that respiratory problem is

dominant in both the group There are two main reasons behind it First use of harmful

pesticide in agriculture and second is smoking habit of the people of that area Farmers

face more respiratory problem during working season because of pesticide spray Non

transgenic and transgenic cotton farmers suffer from bulging eyes because of the use of

pesticide in farming Non transgenic cotton farmers face very dangerous health effect

because they use harmful insecticide for bollworm but transgenic cotton farmers use

insecticides mainly for sucking pests which are not as harmful as insecticide for

bollworm Hence it is concluded that transgenic cotton can be a solution to avoid the use

of harmful pesticides in India where farmers donrsquot use more safety measures during

spraying their fields

Views were taken from the farmers about any new health problems facing by

them after introduction of Bt cotton in that area and detail are summarized in the table

617

Table 617 New Health Problems after Introduction Bt Cotton in Area

Yes No

Bt cotton growers 4(579) 65(942)

Non Bt cotton growers

5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data

Majority of Bt and non Bt cotton farmers says that they did not face any new

health problem after the introduction of Bt cotton in the village Only 579 Bt cotton

farmers and 73 non Bt cotton farmers observed new health problems To know the

impact of transgenic cotton on health (in views of local doctors) information was

collected from the respondents regarding to opinions of doctors towards diseases and

summarized in the table 618

193

Table 618 Doctors Confirmation about Health Problems

Yes No

Bt cotton growers(69) 0(0) 69(100)

Non Bt cotton growers (68) 1(14) 67(9852)

Source Survey data

Only one respondent replied that their doctor confirms the disease is due to Bt

cotton production in the village None of the other Bt or non Bt cotton farmer suffered by

health problem due to Bt cotton production in the village in the opinion of local doctors

Table 619 Opinions of Farmers towards the Safety of Health

Harmful Good No idea

Bt cotton farmers 3(43) 25(3623) 40(6349)

Non Bt cotton farmers

2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

Table 619 shows that farmers are not very much aware about the safety issues of

transgenic crop 6349 Bt cotton farmers are having no idea whether that this crop is

beneficial or harmful to them but 3623 farmers realized that Bt cotton is good for

health due to low use of harmful pesticides 43 farmers feel that this crop is harmful

for health but due to high yield they are continuously growing it On the other hand lack

of awareness is dominant among non Bt cotton farmers 9705 farmers donrsquot have any

idea that their crop is harmful or good for health Only 294 farmers realize that this

crop is harmful to health due to high use of pesticide Observations reveal that higher

percentage of cotton farmers are not aware towards health issues related to crops

68 Health of Livestock

This survey covered 125 animals that graze on post harvest Bt cotton farms or

consume cotton by products like Bt cotton oilcake (khull) and 91 animals that graze on

non Bt cotton farms or consume products other than Bt cotton Majority of the livestock

in the sample were sheep and goat followed by buffalo cow bullock mule and donkey

(Table 620) This study mainly concentrates on comparison of the health of transgenic

cotton grazer with non transgenic cotton grazers

194

To determine the impact of transgenic cotton on the health of the animals

hypothesis and sub hypotheses are formed

Hypothesis

bull H40 There is no significant difference between the health of livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H4a There is significant difference between the health of livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers Sub hypotheses are formed to cover diseases

bull H410 There is no significant difference between the pneumonia facing by livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H41a There is significant difference between the pneumonia facing by livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H420 There is no significant difference between the cough disease facing by livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H42a There is significant difference between the cough disease facing by livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H430 There is no significant difference between the occasional Bloody urine in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H43a There is significant difference between the occasional Bloody urine in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H440 There is no significant difference between the miscarriages occurred in transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H44a There is a significant difference between the miscarriage occurred in transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H450 There is no significant difference between the reddish and erosive lesion in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H45a There is no significant difference between the reddish and erosive lesion of livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H460 There is no significant difference between the Blackish diarrhea in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H46a There is significant difference between Blackish diarrhea in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

195

bull H470 There is no significant difference between the sheep pox in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H47a There is significant difference between sheep pox in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H480 There is no significant difference between the bloat facing by livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H48a There is significant difference between the bloat facing by of livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H490 There is no significant difference between the nausea in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H49a There is a significant difference between the nausea in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H4100 There is no significant difference between the fever in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H410a There is a significant difference between the fever in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H4110 There is no significant difference between total diseases in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

bull H411a There is a significant difference between total diseases in livestock graze on transgenic cotton and other grazers

Table 620 Numbers and Types of Livestock Livestock Transgenic cotton

consumer Other non-

transgenic cotton consumers

Sheep 35 21 Goat 41 23 Mule 2 3

Donkey 3 0 Buffalo 18 20

Cow 19 13 Bullock 7 11 Total 125 91

Source Survey data

196

To compare the health of livestock consuming Bt cotton with other grazers

question were asked from livestock owners about the health of their livestock Details of

their health are summarized in the table 621

Table 621 Comparison of Health Problems

Diseases Bt cotton product grazers (125)

Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark

Pneumonia 17(136) 15(1648) 006928 H410 Accept NS H41a Reject Cough 13(1046) 18(1978) 008098 H420 Accept NS H42a Reject

Occasional Bloody urine

15(1200) 13(1428) 07728 H430 Accept NS H43a Reject

Miscarriage 3(24) 0(0) 03684 H440 Accept NS H44a Reject Reddish and

erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea

11(88) 7(76) 0996 H460 Accept NS H46a Reject Sheep pox 2(16) 0(0) 06221 H470 Accept NS H47a Reject

Bloat 3(24) 5(54) 04098 H480 Accept NS H48a Reject Nausea 0(0) 2(21) 03442 H490 Accept NS H49a Reject Fever 9(72) 5(54) 0837 H4100 Accept NS H410a Reject Total 82(656) 67(736) 02669 H4110 Accept NS H411a Reject

Note One animal may be suffering by more than one disease S= Difference is Significant NS=Difference is not Significant

Source Survey data

197

Figure611 Comparison of Health Problems

Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Bt cotton grazers Non Bt cotton grazers

On observing the diseases faced by the transgenic cotton grazers and other

grazers it was found that pneumonia is the most common disease faced by transgenic

cotton grazers which accounted for 136 followed by occasional bloody urine

(1200) cough (1046) and blackish Diarrhea (88) 72 livestock suffered from

fever and reddish and erosive lesions Miscarriage sheep pox bloat and nausea are not

very serious diseases among Bt cotton grazers

On the other hand cough was most serious disease among non Bt cotton grazers

which accounted for 1978 Pneumonia was the second most dominant disease which

scored 1648 followed by occasional bloody urine 1426 blackish diarrhea 76

bloat and fever 54 each Miscarriage nausea sheep pox and reddish and erosive

lesions are not very serious diseases among non Bt cotton grazers On comparing total

percentage of illness between both the groups it was found that 656 transgenic cotton

grazers were suffering from various diseases that was 8 less than the diseases facing by

group of non Bt cotton grazer of 7347 Test of proportionality accept null hypotheses

H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110

H411a at 5 level of significance This proves that there is no significant difference

between various diseases of both groups of livestock consuming Bt cotton and other

grazers

198

According to the owners livestock are ill due to pesticide residue in the fodder

bad weather seasonal diseases and poor eating habits in both the cases of Bt and non Bt

cotton grazers Not any animal in that area died due to unknown reason and no

postmortem report of any dead animal was available with the respondent

69 Environmental Safety

691 Soil Quality

This proportion mainly covers information regarding soil quality of the fields of Bt

cotton on the basis of farmers experiences and comparing it with non Bt cotton field and

details are given in the table 622

Table 622 Soil Quality of the Field

Question Bt cotton farmers (69) Non Bt cotton farmers(68) Yes No No idea Yes No No idea

Do you observe any soil degradation

12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)

Can you easily grow another crop after harvest cotton

59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data

Majority of Bt cotton farmers (797) do not observe any soil degradation or any

major change in quality of soil But 173 of Bt cotton farmers feel that quality of the

soil decrease after crop production 855 of farmers replied that they can easily grow

another crop after harvesting transgenic cotton It mean that soil remain fertile and does

not become barren due to transgenic cotton toxin On the other hand 308 non

transgenic cotton farmers feel soil degradation that is 135 more than transgenic cotton

farmers however majority of both the groups can easily grow other crops after harvesting

cotton

692 Refuge Technique

During the survey some farmers stated that they are planting border rows of non- Bt

hybrids in 3 to 5 lines as refuge All other methods like quantity of fertilizer spacing

between the rows of cotton plant and use of fertilizer and other inputs were same for

transgenic and non- transgenic cotton But farmers have no clear information about the

199

purpose of the refuge Some farmers says that it act as a barrier for insects or barrier for

pollination while the reality is that refuge delay the resistance development in pests

Table 623 indicates that 868 of transgenic cotton farmers do not use refuge technique

inspite of it being recommended by the government and 232 farmers know and use

refuge technique Only 1116 farmers got training from government and non

government sources But approximately 884 farmers did not get any training of it

Table 623 Use of Refuge Technique

Question asked to 69 transgenic cotton farmers Yes No

Do you use refuge technique in cropping 16 (232 ) 53 (868)

Have you got any training of refuge technique 8 (116) 61 (884)

Source Survey data

Lack of knowledge about refuge technique is producing resistance in insects

Transgenic cotton farmers observing increase in pest infestation in previous years thatrsquos

why farmers are now moving from Bollgard I to Bollgard II due to its improved pest

resistant properties

610 Fertility of Seeds

826 of transgenic cotton farmers donrsquot reuse the seeds of transgenic cotton and

11(173) farmers reuse the seed of transgenic cotton but most of them use it due to

unavailability of seed or due to lack of money to buy the fresh seed It is a disadvantage

of transgenic cotton because farmers have to buy fresh seeds every time that depend

farmers on seed companies while non transgenic cotton farmers easily reuse seeds of

their products

611 Hurdles in Adopting Transgenic Cotton

Table 624 describes the reason why non transgenic cotton farmers are not using

transgenic cotton for production on the basis of non transgenic cotton farmerrsquos interview

200

Table 624 Hurdle in Adopting Transgenic Cotton

Particulars Non transgenic cotton farmers(68)

High price of seed and inputs 51 (750)

No trust on transgenic cotton 16 (235)

Unavailability of desired quantity of seed

11 (176)

Not adopted by neighbor farmers 9 (142)

A farmer can also influenced by more than one factor

Source Survey data

Figure612 Hurdles in Adopting Transgenic Cotton

00010002000300040005000600070008000

high price no trust unavailability low adoption by neighbour

non Bt cotton farmers

Source Survey data

Non transgenic cotton farmersrsquo interview demonstrated that 75 non transgenic cotton

farmers are not using Bt cotton due to high price of seed 235 farmers donrsquot have trust

on transgenic cotton and they think that it is harmful for field and will give low yield

176 percent farmers donrsquot have access to good transgenic cotton seeds142 farmers are

influenced by his fellow farmers because neighbors are not growing transgenic crops so

they also do not like to grow it Results of the table 624 Shows that majority of non

transgenic cotton farmers are unable to use transgenic cotton because of its high seed

price

201

612 Highlights of the Survey

Survey was conducted in 20 villages of four talukas in Yavatmal district of

Maharashtra The sample comprised of 137 respondents in which 69 transgenic cotton

farmers and 68 non transgenic cotton farmers had been interviewed

6121 Pest Infestation

bull Transgenic cotton is highly effective against bollworms like Spotted Pink and

American bollworm but not very effective against sucking pest and other viral and

bacterial daisies so farmers use pesticide for it

6122 Economic Viability

bull Results of the study proved that Bt cotton is more profitable than non Bt cotton due to

high yield and low use of expensive pesticides

6123 Health of Farmerrsquos Family Members

bull Survey covered 317 family members who are directly or indirectly in contact with

transgenic cotton and 402 family members who are directly or indirectly in contact

with non transgenic cotton

bull On comparing the chronic disease transgenic cotton cultivating family members were

found 1218 less ill than non transgenic cotton members There was no significant

difference found between skin allergy cough headache and respiratory problem

between both the groups Bulging eye problem found higher in non transgenic cotton

members group

bull On comparing the seasonal diseases transgenic cotton members were found 3733

less ill than non transgenic cotton members There was no significant difference

found between skin allergyirritation cough nausea and headache Respiratory

problems fever bulging eyes problems are significantly higher in non transgenic

cotton members

202


bull This survey covered 125 animals that graze on post harvest Bt cotton farms or consume Bt cotton by products and 91 animals that graze on non Bt cotton farms or consume products other than transgenic cotton

bull There was no significant difference found in various diseases between of both the groups But transgenic cotton grazers found 8 less ill that non Bt cotton grazers Possible reason is low use of pesticide in Bt cotton


bull Majority of transgenic cotton farmers do not have proper knowledge of refuge technique and they do not use it

6126 Impacts on the Soil

bull 797 transgenic cotton farmers do not observe any soil degradation It mean that soil remain fertile and does not become barren due to transgenic cotton

6127 Bottleneck in Production

bull Farmers do not have proper knowledge about the use of GM seeds

bull In spite of regulatory framework for GM crop some unapproved varieties or fake seeds are also present in the market Farmers buy it because they are cheap in comparison to original transgenic cotton seed As a result the failure of crops and uncertainty of yield could happen

bull Majority of farmers do not have proper knowledge of ldquorefuge techniquerdquo as a result bollworm developed resistance again Bollgard I Now a day farmers prefer to use Bollgard II to avoid pest attack

bull Transgenic cotton needs high supply of water but most of the farmers are cultivating it in rain fed area which is unable to give high yield Transgenic cotton is not very effective against sucking pests like aphids whiteflies and jassids etc Therefore separate control measures have to be taken against such pests

bull Cost of cultivation for transgenic cotton is higher than non transgenic cotton Due to higher seed cost higher use of fertilizer and water which imposed extra financial burden on farmers

bull Survey found that the high price of seed may decrease the benefits of Bt technology because poor farmers either use cheap transgenic cotton seed or either low quality fake Bt seeds This imposes adverse impacts on small farmers in comparison to large farmers

203

613 Conclusion

This survey founds high adoption of Bt varieties in all covered villages of the Yavatmal

districts and establish a positive impact of transgenic cotton on health of farmers It offers

good resistance to bollworms that was reported lower in transgenic cotton in comparison

to non transgenic cotton But the infestation of sucking pests and other diseases was

approximately similar in both transgenic and non transgenic cotton farms An average

yield of transgenic cotton was found higher in comparison to non transgenic cotton that

leads to higher profit for transgenic cotton farmers Transgenic cotton improves health of

farmers because they are now handling less harmful pesticide which they were using

against bollworm There was no significant difference found between healthrsquos of

transgenic cotton grazing livestock in comparison to other livestock The major benefits

from transgenic cotton include yield increase reduction in chemical sprays and increase

in net profit to farmers Transgenic cotton is a positive step towards environmental

protection because it makes possible the reduction of the pesticide load in the

environment So transgenic cotton is a powerful tool and should remain available to food

producers and consumers

204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin

2-Yavatmal district (Online) Available http http en Wikipedia org wiki Yavatmal _

district (accessed 2 January 2011)

3-Brief Industrial Profile of Yavatmal District (Online) Available http dcmsmegov in

dips Yavatmal20dips2012-13pdf (accessed 2 January 2011)

4-Danny J L et al (1992) The Science Behind Transgenic Cotton Plants (Online)

Available httpwww cottoncrcorgaucommunitiesCotton_InfoThe_Science_behind_

Transgenic_cotton(accessed 2 January 2011)

5- Kameswara R C (2005) Transgenic Bt Technology Foundation for Biotechnology

Awareness and Education Bangalore India (Online)Availablewwwfbaeorg (available

2 September 2013)

6-Agricultural Biotechnology (A Lot More than Just GM Crops) (Online) Accessed http

wwwisaaaorgresourcespublicationsagricultural_biotechnologydownloadagricultural

_biotechnologypdf (accessed 2 January 2011)

7-Oil Technologist Association of India (OTA) (2009) OTA news letter Western Zone

vol XI no4Oct-Dec Mumbai

8- Mayee CD and Chakraborty M(2010) The Significance of cotton seed oil in edible

oil seed An overview Article for souvenir 2009-10 of IOPEPEC Ministry of commerce

and Industry Government of India

62 Profile of Yavatmal

621 Geography of Yavatmal

Yavatmal is located at 204Acircdeg N 7813Acircdeg E It has an average elevation of 445

meters (1459 feet) This district is bounded on the north by Amravati District to the north

east by Warangal District to the east by Chandrapur District to the south by Andhra

Pradesh state and Nanded District to the southwest by Hingoli District and to the west by

Washim District Yavatmal district comprises of sixteen tehsils namely Arni Umarkhed

Kalamb Pandharkaoda Ghatanji Zari Jamani Darwha Digras Ner Pusad Babhulgaon

Mahagaon Maregaon Yavatmal Ralegaon and Wani Among them major cotton

growing talukas are Ghatanji Wani Pusad Digras Umarkhed amp Mahagaon Cotton is

the main produce and the chief export of the district The Bembla and the Nirguda are the

main perennial tributaries of the Wardha which flow through the district2

622 Agriculture

Yavatmal has around 1005265 hectares land area under cultivation Cotton is the

main cash crop and due to cotton production this district is known as the district of white

gold and also known as Cotton City of Maharashtra Rice groundnut sugarcane are also

cultivated in the district In terms of area under cotton cultivation the district ranks first

in the State2

623 Demographics

According to the 2001 census population of Yavatmal district was 2458271 in

which rural population was 2001060 and urban population was 457211 Among the

populations 1265681 were male and 1192590 were females Sex ratio of the district

was 1000947 The district had total literacy rate of 807 among which 8409 males

were literate and 6252 women were literate Marathi is the main language Other

languages spoken are Banjari Kolami and Hindi2

624 Soil Type

Black soil is dominant in Yavatmal Soils are poor in fertility due to erosion and

nutrient losses Due to poor soil quality and uncertainty in rain there are more pests and

disease problems widespread in the district Farmers in this area are generally resource

poor and therefore not in a position to invest more on inputs5

161

625 Forest






























162
















163


Sample Household




317 402


133(419) 50(1243)


17(536) 13(323)


543 1726


287 264


43(632)


seed 9(132)



Mallika seed

4(58)



164



(P value) Remarks


009


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 4150 4432


031990


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 287 264


000012 5186


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton


3103e-13


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 113 50




165


Source Survey data



Source Survey data

Loose seeds (485)

Paras Seed(2352)

Brahma Seed(132)












textile sector

166



Cotton seeds


Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources







Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)


farmers(68)







167


0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









625 Forest






























162
















163


Sample Household




317 402


133(419) 50(1243)


17(536) 13(323)


543 1726


287 264


43(632)


seed 9(132)



Mallika seed

4(58)



164



(P value) Remarks


009


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 4150 4432


031990


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 287 264


000012 5186


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton


3103e-13


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 113 50




165


Source Survey data



Source Survey data

Loose seeds (485)

Paras Seed(2352)

Brahma Seed(132)












textile sector

166



Cotton seeds


Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources







Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)


farmers(68)







167


0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)
























163


Sample Household




317 402


133(419) 50(1243)


17(536) 13(323)


543 1726


287 264


43(632)


seed 9(132)



Mallika seed

4(58)



164



(P value) Remarks


009


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 4150 4432


031990


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 287 264


000012 5186


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton


3103e-13


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 113 50




165


Source Survey data



Source Survey data

Loose seeds (485)

Paras Seed(2352)

Brahma Seed(132)












textile sector

166



Cotton seeds


Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources







Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)


farmers(68)







167


0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










Sample Household




317 402


133(419) 50(1243)


17(536) 13(323)


543 1726


287 264


43(632)


seed 9(132)



Mallika seed

4(58)



164



(P value) Remarks


009


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 4150 4432


031990


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 287 264


000012 5186


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton


3103e-13


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 113 50




165


Source Survey data



Source Survey data

Loose seeds (485)

Paras Seed(2352)

Brahma Seed(132)












textile sector

166



Cotton seeds


Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources







Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)


farmers(68)







167


0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











(P value) Remarks


009


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 4150 4432


031990


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 287 264


000012 5186


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton


3103e-13


Bt cotton farmers

Non Bt cotton

farmers 113 50




165


Source Survey data



Source Survey data

Loose seeds (485)

Paras Seed(2352)

Brahma Seed(132)












textile sector

166



Cotton seeds


Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources







Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)


farmers(68)







167


0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










Source Survey data



Source Survey data

Loose seeds (485)

Paras Seed(2352)

Brahma Seed(132)












textile sector

166



Cotton seeds


Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources







Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)


farmers(68)







167


0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











Cotton seeds


Kernel

Oil (food)

Meal (feed)

Lint (fiber)

Cotton Flowers

643 Seed Sources







Source of seed

Transgenic cotton

farmers(69)


farmers(68)







167


0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










0102030405060708090




Source Survey data


















168


Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










Partic

Low Inpu

High yiel


Easily re

culars

ut cost

ld

uality of duct


use

Source S

So

8

propertie

good qua

O

easily an

farmers p

and good

been don

propertie

0102030405060708090


9(130)

59(8550)

45(6521)

60(8995)

11(1594)

8(1159)

Survey data

Fi

ource Survey

995 Bt c

es and 8550

ality final pro

On the other

nd farmers ca

prefer it bec

d resistant p

ne to compa

es input cost

low input cost

9) Non Bfarm42(61

) 0(

) 5(7

) 0(

) 17(

59(86

igure 65 C

y data

cotton farm

0 prefer it

oducts

hand 8676

an sow it in

cause of low

properties T

are the impa

t yield prof

high yield


0)

35)

0)

25)

676)

omparison

mers prefer t

t due to high

farmers p

the next sea

w input cost

To further c

acts of transg

fit and health


P value

1056E-

22E-16

705E-12

22E-16

02702

22E-16

of Preferen

to grow it

h yield 652

prefer non Bt

ason from th

No farmer

confirm the

genic and n

h of farmers

y of uct

good resproper

e Re

8 SigDif

6 SigDif

2 SigDif

6 SigDifSigDif

6 SigDif

emarks


fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference nificant

fference

nce of Farmers

Bt Cotton

non Btcotton

sistant

because of

21 farmers

t cotton beca

heir own sav

observed th

above table

on transgen

and live stoc


f its good r

s prefer it b

resistance

ecause of

ause in can

vings of seed

hat it gives h

es detailed

ic cotton on

ck

be reused

d 6176

high yield

study has

n resistant

169

645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









645 Pest Attack




























170

Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









Hypothesis







cotton farms





















171



(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











(69 farmers)

Non Transgenic

cotton (68

farmers)


Accept reject

Remarks


Pink 5 (72) 51(750) 297E-15 H1120 Reject

S H112a Accept


S H113a Accept


percentage 333 1971



000

2000

4000

6000

8000


Bt cotton

non Bt cotton

Source Survey data











172




















173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)




























173




(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)












(69 Farmers)

Non transgenic

cotton (68 Farmers)


Accept Reject

Remark


17(246) 12 (1764) 04282 H1210 Accept

NS H121a Reject

Aphids (Penu Banka)

22(3188) 20 (2941) 08978 H1220 Accept

NS H122a Reject

Jassids 5(72) 9 (1323) 03816 H1230 Accept

NS H123a Reject


NS H124a Reject


NS H125a Reject


NS H126a Reject


NS H127a Reject

Total percentage

21594 23382


Source Survey data

174


000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


Bt cotton

Non bt cottton

Source Survey data


20 H1230 H1240

H1250


solution










these pests

The a






175

6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









6453 Other Diseases













than bo



























176




(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)












(69) cotton

farmers (68)

thesis Reject rks





H1 34a Reject





Total 82 73


S


Source Survey data

ource Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Redden and Wilt


bacteria


Btcotton

non Btcotton

177



mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











mine whether the



ed

transgenic cotton







6












Hypothesis

bull H20 Ther



transgenic cotton








178


























transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)


































transgenic cotton





179
















Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)
























Labor (day) 4185 3627








180



(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











(69farmers)

Non transgenic

Cotton (68

farmers)


Accept

Reject

Remarks

Seed cost 1421 54634 122623E-54





Manure 1329 8844 147608E10 lt001

H 230 Reject S


of Pesticide 1777 3645 147485E21 lt001

H 240 Reject S


1004 464 218059E35 lt001

H 250 Reject S

H 25a Accept Labor

4185 3627 556042E12 lt001



Other 200 200 -- -

Total cost 12646 1111374 248776E12 lt001

H 270 Reject S




Total revenue 19200 13932 573324E34


Profit (Rsacre) 6554 281826 666626E19




181

651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









651 Seed






652 Fertilizer












acre

654 Pesticide












182



group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











group of Rs 36450

655 Irrigation





656 Labor








657 Transport







658 Total cost





183

659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









659 Yield



6510 Profit






of Rs281826











Source Survey data









cotton

184

66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









66 Summary


transgenic cotton





















cotton

185





Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)













Source Survey data


















separately

Hypothesis





186

Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









Sub hypotheses


























187






























188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)






































188










82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)


















82(258) 114(3596) 127(3159) 181(4502)

Fever 11(35) 75(236) 11(27) 119(2960)


19253


Source Survey data













189
















Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)
























Diseases

Bt cotton family

members (317)


members (402)



Skin allergyirrit

ation 18(56) 38(945) -385 008275

H3110 Accept NS

H311a Reject





H3150 Accept NS

H315a Reject


percentage 4826 6044 -1218


190


000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500



Source Survey data











191



(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











(317)

Non-Bt cotton

members (402)

Difference in

percentage


AcceptReject

Remarks









Fever 75(236) 119(2960) -600 0008048



Source Survey data


Source Survey data

000500

100015002000250030003500400045005000





192

















617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)

























617


Yes No



5(73) 63(913)

Source Survey data







193


Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










Yes No



Source Survey data








2(294) 0(0) 66(9705)

Source Survey data

















194



Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)











Hypothesis















195












consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)




















consumer Other non-





Source Survey data

196






Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)














Other grazers (91)


Accept

Reject

Remark





erosive lesions


Blackish Diarrhea




Source Survey data

197


Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)










Source Survey data

000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
















H410 H420 H430 H440 H450 H460 H470 H480 H490 H4100 H4110



grazers

198






691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)














691 Soil Quality







12(173) 55(797) 2 (28) 21(308) 38(558) 9(132)


59(855) 10(145) 0 (0) 54(782) 10(147) 2(29)

Source Survey data








cotton






199











Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)



















Source Survey data











their products




200






11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)














11 (176)



Source Survey data


00010002000300040005000600070008000



Source Survey data








price

201




















members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)




























members group





cotton members

202















203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)























203

613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









613 Conclusion
















204

205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









205

References

1-censusindiagovin










2 September 2013)









chapter 6: impact of bt cotton: a case study of...

Documents