socioeconomic impact of bt cotton · 2019. 10. 16. · categorywise 4.10 costs and returns in...
TRANSCRIPT
CESS MONOGRAPHS 3
Socioeconomic Impact ofBt Cotton
S.Mahendra DevN.Chandrasekhara Rao
CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIESHYDERABADNovember, 2007
CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES MONOGRAPH SERIES
Number - 3 November, 2007
ISBN 81-88793-03-5
Series Editor : V. Ratna Reddy
© 2007, Copyright Reserved
Centre for Economic and Social Studies
Hyderabad
Rs. 200/-
Published by :Centre for Economic and Social StudiesBegumpet, Hyderabad-500 016Ph : 040-23402789, 23416780, Fax : 040-23406808Email : [email protected], www.cess.ac.in
Printed by :Vidya Graphics1-8-724/33, Padma Colony,Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 44
Foreword
In the last 27 years of its existence, the Centre for Economic and Social Studies(CESS) has always been aware of its role and commitment to society through itsresearch and publication activities. The main objective of the Centre is to undertakeresearch, documentation and training activities in the field of economic andsocial development in general and with reference to the state of Andhra Pradeshin particular. The Centre recognizes that a comprehensive approach to developmentrequires an interdisciplinary approach and tries to involve researchers from variousdisciplines. In keeping with the interests of the faculty, CESS has developedexpertise on several themes such as agriculture and livestock development, foodsecurity, poverty measurement and poverty alleviation programmes, unemployment,district planning, resettlement and rehabilitation, state finances, economics ofhealth and demography. The Centre has made important contributions to researchin these areas.
Social science research has to respond to the challenges posed by the changes inthe development paradigms such as economic reforms and globalization. Sinceresearch is the primary activity at the Centre, it is important to recognize the needto redefine/refocus the priority areas of research taking into account thecontemporary challenges. While the main focus of research on poverty relatedissues remained the same, since the mid 1990s, the area of research of the Centrebecame more diversified. New research areas related to broader national andfrontier research issues such as evaluation of the economic reform process andits impact on different sectors of the economy, environmental and natural resourceeconomics, livelihoods, health and education, biotechnology etc are added.
The Centre has always tried to ensure that its research is theoretically sound andmethodologically rigorous, so that it can directly or indirectly contribute to policyformulations or prescriptions. In the last two and half decades, CESS has publishedseveral books and working papers. The Centre has decided to start its monographseries in this year. The monographs are basically research studies and projectreports done at the Centre. It provides an opportunity for CESS faculty, visitingscholars and students to disseminate their research work.
The biotechnology has been knocking the doors of Indian agriculture for quitesome time now. However, the commercialization of the technology started onlyin 1996 in the world. In India, the trajectory of biotechnology in agriculturestarted with the approval by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)in 2002-03 of three cotton hybrids suitable for the central and southern India
CESS Monograph - 3 iv
belonging to Monsanto Mahyco Biotech Limited, having in-built resistance tobollworms with the introduction of a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillusthuriengensis (Bt). The number of such hybrids approved by GEAC increasedrapidly over the last five years to reach 137 as of now. There are very fewempirical studies on the impact of biotechnology in India or Andhra Pradesh. Itis noteworthy that all the BT hybrids are brought out by the private sector seedcompanies including multinational companies unlike in the green revolution dayswhen the public sector research institutions were responsible for bringing outseeds of new high yielding varieties. Further, the role of public research institutionswas also minimized in the case of Bt hybrids unlike in the case of other cropvarieties, where they used to conduct regionwise agronomic trials and advisefarmers on the best ones. This has left the farmers 'susceptible to any biasedclaims from the various companies involved, and more exposed to the vagariesof market forces'. Further, public reservations and uncertainties about impactsadd to the danger that appropriate biotechnologies will remain inaccessible tothose who stand to benefit the most. Therefore, an ex-post, farm level study onthe impact of Bt cotton introduced in the state is highly relevant.
Two hypotheses are particularly relevant and need to be tested in the Indianconditions. They are - the hypothesis that the cultivation of Bt cotton can havesizeable yield effects in India as the pest population is not effectively controlledotherwise; and the hypothesis that there can be positive labour effects in countrieswhere cotton is picked manually. In this background, the present study isundertaken with the specific objectives of finding out the impact of BT cottoncultivation on cost of pesticides, cost of production and profitability across farmersbased on social categories and size groups; finding out the impact on employmentacross social categories and size groups; and finding out the problems and prioritiesas perceived by the farmers.
The results of the study validate both the above hypotheses. It was found that theBt cotton technology is superior to the conventional cotton hybrids in terms ofyield, net returns and employment opportunities. Also, it was found from theproduction functions that Bt cotton impacts the yield significantly and positively.The Bt farmers from all social groups, size categories and all agro-climatic zonesbenefited from its cultivation compared to non-Bt farmers from the same categories.The study also proved that many of the small farmers and SC farmers participatedin using the technology and improved their position with regard to profitabilityby growing Bt cotton. While most of the increase in employment is accountedfor by the hired labourers, the female labourers are the major beneficiaries amongthem. The major issues in further adoption and popularization of the technologyinclude making quality seeds available at affordable prices, creating awarenessabout BT cultivation, state intervention for seed supply and developing seeds
CESS Monograph - 3 v
resistant to all bollworms and rainfed conditions. It is also suggested that thepublic research institutions may bring in varieties instead of hybrids so that thefarmers can recycle the seeds for some years instead of going to the market everyyear.
The results of the study seem to explain the very high rates of adoption of thetechnology in a matter of five years in India. When we look at the figures, thearea under Bt cotton increased from a mere 44500 hectares in 2002-03 to 3.8million hectares in 2006-07 forming 40 per cent of the cotton area in the countryand it is estimated that this might have already gone up to 55 per cent in 2007.The results of the study assume significance in this background. However, furtherresearch is needed to ascertain any adverse impact on environment and othernatural resources including fauna and flora.
I hope that this monograph on the socioeconomic impact of Bt cotton will beuseful for research community, civil society and policy makers.
S. Mahendra Dev Director, CESS.
CESS Monograph - 3 vi
CONTENTS
List of Tables ix-xii
Acknowledgements xiii
Executive Summary 1-7
I: Agricultural Biotechnology and Transgenic Cotton 9-14
1.1. Pattern of Commercialization of Transgenics in the World 91.2. Bollgard Technology 11
II: Methodology 15-18
III: Profile of Growers and Details of Cotton Cultivation 19-38
IV: Costs and Returns 39-66
4.1. Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cottons 394.2. Impact across Groups of Farmers 47
V: Employment and Perceptions 67-795.1 Impact on Employmen 675.2. Perceptions of Farmers 73
VI: Conclusions 80-82
References 83-85
Appendices 87-93
CESS Monograph - 3 viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Page No
2.1 Sample Units for the Study 17
3.1 Sample Farmers from Different Districts 19
3.2 Number and Percent of Sample Farmers Growing BT 20
Cotton
3.3 Sample Farmers By Religion 20
3.4 Sample Farmers By Social Categories 21
3.5 Type of Family in BT Cotton and Non-BT 22
Cotton Farmers
3.6 Land Ownership Pattern in BT Cotton and Non-BT 22
Cotton Farmers
3.7 Sizewise Distribution of Sample Farmers 23
3.8 Education and Occupational Pattern of BT Cotton and 24
Non-BT Cotton Farmers
3.9 Basic Details of Cotton Cultivation in BT Cotton and 26
Non-BT Cotton
3.10 Basic Details of Cotton Cultivation across Social Categories 27-28
3.11 Irrigation Inventory for BT-Cotton and Non-BT Farmers 29
3.12 Irrigation Inventory for BT and Non-BT Farmers 29
Across Social Categories
3.13 Percentage of Actual Rainfall to Normal Rainfall 31
Monthwise in the Selected Mandals
3.14 Rainfall in the Selected Districts in 2004-2005 32
3.15 Average Area in BT and Non- BT Cotton in Acres 33
3.16 Particulars of Area under BT Cotton and non-BT 34-35
Cotton and Other Details in Selected Districts
3.17 Official and Unofficial BT Cotton in Selected Districts 36
3.18 Details of Refuge, Barrier and Trap Crops in 38
BT Cotton Farmers
4.1 Costs and Returns in BT Cotton and Non-BT Cotton 41
4.2 Estimated Production Functions 43
4.3 Farm Harvest Prices for Raw Cotton 46
4.4 Imports and Exports of Cotton (lakh bales of 170 kgs each) 47
4.5 Per Cent Changes Across Different Categories of Bt 48
Farmers Over Non-Bt Cotton
4.6 Costs and Returns in Warangal and Nalgonda Districts 52-53
4.7 Costs and Returns in Guntur and Kurnool Districts 54-55
4.8 Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cotton Social 57-58
Categorywise
4.9 Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cotton Size 60-61
Categorywise
4.10 Costs and Returns in Official and Unofficial BT Cotton 63
4.11 Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cotton in 64
Irrigated and Rainfed Conditions
4.12 Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cotton in Different 66
Soils
5.1 Human Labour Utilisation in BT Cotton and Non-BT 67
Cotton
5.2 Wages Paid to Hired Labour in BT Cotton and Non-BT 68
Cotton
5.3 Human Labour Utilisation Districtwise in BT Cotton 70
5.4 Employment Elasticities in BT Cotton over Non-BT 71
Cotton
5.5 Human Labour Utilisation in Irrigated and Rainfed Cottons 72
5.6 Human Labour Utilisation Among Different Social and 74
Size Categories of Farmers
5.7 Perceptions of BT Farmers in Selected Districts 75
5.8 Perceptions of BT Farmers Across Social Categories 77
5.9 Perceptions and Some Features of Cultivation in BT and 78
Non-BT Cotton
5.10 Perceptions and Some Features of Cultivation of BT and 79
Non-BT Cotton Farmers
Appendices
A - 1 Labour Requirement and Wages for Cotton in 87
2004-2005 Per Acre
A - 2 Labour Requirement and Wages for BT Cotton in 88
2004-2005 Per Acre
A - 3 Labour Requirement and Wages for Non- BT Cotton in 89
2004-2005 Per Acre
A - 4 Study Mandals in Warangal District 90
A - 5 Study Mandals in Nalgonda District 91
A - 6 Study Mandals in Guntur District 92
A - 7 Study Mandals in Kurnool District 93
Figures
2.1 Sample Districts in Andhra Pradesh 16
4.1 Per Cent Yield Levels of Different Bt Farmers 49
Relative to Total Bt Sample
4.2 Net Income from BT Cotton to Different
Categories of Farmers 50
CESS Monograph - 3 xii
Acknowledgements
This study is sponsored by the Andhra Pradesh Netherlands BiotechnologyProgramme (APNBP) of the Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad. We aregrateful to Dr. M.V.Rao and Prof.G.Pakki Reddy of the APNBP for usefulcomments at all stages of the study. We are also grateful to Prof. S.Galab, Dr.P.Prudhvikar Reddy, Prof. Subrahmanyam, and Dr.Sivaprasad for suggestions inthe formulation of field study. Finally, thanks are due to Mr. A. Prasanna KumarMr. K. Prasada Rao, and Ms. K. Anita for their help in collection and processingof the data. Last but not the least, we are indebted to all the cotton farmers, whoungrudgingly shared their experiences with us on the various aspects of cultivationof the Bt cotton as well as the conventional hybrid cotton.
Authors
Executive Summary
The agricultural biotechnology has created high expectations on breaking yieldbarriers, technical change, and promise of benefiting dry lands and ecologicallyfragile areas. The controversies regarding biotechnology revolved mainly aroundgenetic modification in agricultural crops. The transgenic crops were commercialisedin 1996 in the world and in 2002 in India. The area has been increasing steadily ata double-digit growth rate of 11 percent per annum and the area reached 102.0million hectares in 2006 in the world in 22 countries. It is estimated that Bollgardcotton was grown in five lakh hectares in the country and in 72786 hectares inAndhra Pradesh in the year 2004-2005. In 2005-2006, it increased to 1.3 millionhectares in the country and it reached 3.8 million hectors in 2006-07. The Bollgardcotton was cultivated in 28 per cent of world cotton area or 9.8 million hectares in2005 mainly in the U.S.A and China. In our country, nearly 50 percent of the Rs.3000crores of pesticides is sprayed on cotton for the control of the bollworms, whichaccount for major damage for the crop. Several farmers committed suicides due tocrop failure as a result of pest attack in 1987 and 1997 in Andhra Pradesh and in2000 in Maharashtra. The introduction of BT cotton assumes a lot of importance inthis situation. This can help the farmers, who are mainly small and marginal, if itresists American bollworm and raise productivity. There are very few empiricalstudies on the socio economic impacts of biotechnology in India or Andhra Pradeshand an ex-post, farm level study on the socio-economic impact of BT cottonintroduced is highly relevant. Two hypotheses are particularly relevant and need tobe tested in the Indian conditions. They are - the hypothesis that the cultivation ofBt cotton can have sizeable yield effects in India as the pest population is noteffectively controlled otherwise; and the hypothesis that there can be positive laboureffects in countries where cotton is picked manually. In this background, the presentstudy is undertaken with the specific objectives of finding out the impact of BTcotton cultivation on cost of pesticides, cost of production and profitability acrossfarmers based on social categories and size groups; finding out the impact onemployment across social categories and size groups; and finding out the problemsand priorities as perceived by the farmers.
The study adopted multi-stage stratified random sampling method to achieve theobjectives. The districts of Warangal, Nalgonda, Guntur and Kurnool in AndhraPradesh are selected to represent the four agro-climatic zones. The selection ofMandals and villages is done based on the area under BT cotton. The number ofMandals selected for the study was nine from the four districts and the villages
CESS Monograph - 3 2
from them are fourteen. The sample selected was proportional to the area under BTcotton in each agro-climatic zones. The farmers were selected after stratificationbased on farm size and social category. The sample size is 623. The proportion ofadopters and non-adopters was around 70 and 30 percent. Primary survey wasundertaken with pre-tested schedules and participatory methods like focused groupdiscussion were used as supplementary. The data collected pertains to 2004-2005and to be specific Kharif 2004-2005. The results of the study are presented in briefhere.
The cost of production in an acre of BT cotton at Rs.16975 is higher by 17 per centcompared to Rs.14507 for non-BT cotton. The cost A2, which mainly shows thepaid out costs, is Rs.11445 and higher by 11.8 per cent over non-BT cotton. Theexpenditure on insecticides decreased by 18.2 per cent in BT cotton over non-BTcotton. The number of pesticidal sprays have come down from 12 in non-BT cottonto 9 in BT cotton, on an average. The decrease in cost on insecticides by Rs. 594 ismore than matched by increased costs on seed (Rs.804), labour costs (Rs.801),fertilizers (Rs.86) and irrigation charges (Rs.45). The cost of seed increased by134.4 per cent from Rs.598 in non-BT cotton to Rs.1402 in BT cotton, whereaslabour costs increased by 20.58 per cent in BT cotton. Out of the Rs.801 increaseon labour, human labour accounted for the major portion viz., Rs.676. The BTfarmers on an average hired human labour more than non-BT farmer by an amountof Rs.303 and utilized family labour more intensively. This increase in employmentopportunities due to the new BT technology is a big gain for the rural economy asa whole, since the rural employment growth has been the biggest concern in thestate in the past decade. This creation of employment opportunities is typical ofbiological technology as was the case during the green revolution days.
The physical yield obtained in BT cotton is 9.49 quintals per acre compared to 7.21quintals per acre for non-BT cotton and 32 per cent higher than non-BT. This clearlyshows the superiority of BT cotton in increasing yields over non-BT cotton andgives us a clue as to why the non-BT cotton seed manufacturers are going out ofbusiness. Then, the question to be answered is whether the increase in yield isattributable to BT technology alone or are there any other factors that may be leadingto the increase in yield. It was found that relatively irrigated and better soils are putunder BT cotton cultivation and relatively upper social and size category farmersare cultivating it. But the difference is not sizeable and it happens like that in caseof all the new technologies. The green revolution technologies have been utilizedby upper stratum of farmers and later gradually spread to the other stratum. But inthis case of biotechnological application, the small farmers and SC and ST farmersalso made use of the technology well. On the other hand, this small difference inirrigation, quality of soil and social and economic background of farmers could nothave lead to a 32 per cent increase in yield. The analysis using production function
CESS Monograph - 3 3
indicated that there can be a 36 per cent increase in yield due to Bt cotton cultivation.The results of the study clearly validate the hypothesis that there can be considerableyield effects in developing countries like India. The positive yield effects can alsobe explained in damage control framework.
The immediate fall out of the higher yield in BT cotton is that all its per quintalcosts are lower over non-BT cotton though the absolute costs are higher. The perquintal Cost A2, Cost B2 and Cost C2 are lower by 15 per cent, 12 per cent and 11per cent, respectively in BT cotton over non-BT cotton. It is well known that theeconomic theory states that the average costs matter in decision-making and decidingthe profitability rather than absolute costs.
Ultimately, returns to farming matter in deciding whether the technology is superiorover the non-BT cotton hybrids. In case of farming, the necessary business measuresare gross income, net income, farm business income, family labour income andfarm investment income. These are worked out for both BT cotton and non-BTcotton. The average price per quintal in case of BT cotton could cover Cost B2 andfalls short of Cost C2 by a small margin viz., Rs.39. But, in case of non-BT cotton,average price per quintal could not cover even B2. The net income viz., grossincome over Cost C2 is negative in both BT and non-BT cotton. This may beindicative of the farming crisis. But BT performed better here also by being able tocover all the imputed costs along with paid-up costs except a minor portion andimproved over non-BT by 83 per cent. The net income, farm business income,family labour income and farm investment income in BT cotton improved by Rs.1806(83%), Rs.3067 (146%), Rs.2088 (158 per cent) and Rs.2785 (222%), respectivelyover non-BT cotton. This clearly shows that BT cotton outperformed non-BT cottonin regard to all the measures. The farm business income, which shows us the excessof gross income over paid-up costs (Cost A2), is Rs.5166 per acre in case of BTcotton and 146 per cent higher comparatively.
There may be two reasons for the negative net income for both BT and non-BTfarmers. The first one is the fact that the actual rainfall in 2004-2005 in the studyarea is 33 per cent lower than the normal. This might have reduced the physicalyield. The other factor is the drastic decline in prices for raw cotton during the year.These low prices seems to have affected the net income of both BT and non-BTcotton farmers during the year. It is noteworthy that the average price realized forthe sample farmers at Rs.1739 per quintal is 13 per cent lower than the previousseven-year average of farm harvest prices, which was Rs.2000/- per quintal.
The performance of BT cotton across the four districts studied to represent fourdifferent agro-climatic situations show that the performance in Guntur and Warangalis quite well compared to Nalgonda and Kurnool. The physical yield in quintals per
CESS Monograph - 3 4
acre in BT cotton in Warangal and Guntur is 11, followed by 8 in Nalgonda and 6 inKurnool. However, the difference over non-BT cotton was 40, 30, 18, 86 per centin Warangal, Nalgonda, Guntur and Kurnool districts, respectively. The BT farmershave covered even the Cost C2 and achieved positive net income in Warangal andGuntur. On the other hand, the non-BT farmers in Nalgonda and Kurnool could notcover all costs. In fact, they could cover only paid-up costs represented by Cost A2.These findings also suggest that the performance of BT cotton may be hindered byagro-ecological conditions, as the low performing districts of Kurnool and Nalgondafall under low rainfall districts and also very low percent of cotton area underirrigation. The percent area irrigated of BT cotton in Kurnool (27%) and Nalgonda(25%) are very low compared to Guntur (85%) and Warangal (54%). In Kurnool,the drought situation as a result of deficient rainfall was more acute. But then this istypical in scanty rainfall region. These factors may explain the low performance ofBT cotton.
The BT cotton farmers from SCs obtained 10 per cent lesser yield than their counterparts from OCs with a two per cent lower cost of production. The BT farmers fromSCs incurred 9 per cent higher cost per quintal than the OC farmers, as their yield islower. The OC-BT farmers could cover all the costs and get a net income of Rs.711per acre, while BT farmers from SCs could not cover Cost C2 and get a net loss ofRs.1275 per acre. But this happened not only with the SCs, but also with the BCs.When we consider the paid-up costs represented by Cost A2, the SC BT farmersgot an income of Rs.4162 per acre and this is lower than BT farmers from OCs by30 per cent.
Then, if we compare the BT farmers from SCs with non-BT farmers from the samecommunity, a different picture emerges. The BT farmers from SCs got 40 per centhigher yield than non-BT SC farmers with 17 per cent lower cost per quintal. Thishas led to improving the net income by 59 per cent. The farm business income,which shows the excess of gross income over paid-up costs, is higher by threetimes than non-BT farmers from SCs. Therefore, it is very clear that the farmersfrom SCs, who are also generally small farmers, got benefited from growing thistechnology, though not on par with the OCs and BCs. On the whole, all socialcategories of farmers are better off with BT cotton than without the BT cotton.
The BT farmers from small farmers obtained 23 per cent lower yield compared tothe BT farmers from the large farmers with a 20 per cent lesser total cost of productionand 3 per cent higher cost per quintal. The small farmers spent lower amounts onalmost all items of production. They also spent 18 per cent less on insecticidescompared to large farmers growing BT cotton. The small farmers got lower netincome by four times compared to the large farmers in BT cultivation. The farmbusiness income is also lower by 37 per cent in case of small farmers growing BT
CESS Monograph - 3 5
cotton compared to the LFs growing the same cotton. On the other hand, the SFsgrowing BT cotton have significantly improved their position compared to the non-BT growing SFs. They got a 10 per cent higher yield compared to SFs growingnon-BT cotton and average cost per quital is also lower by12 per cent. The netincome improved by 69 per cent and farm business income improved by 108 percent. This clearly shows that the small farmers are better off with BT cotton thanwithout BT cotton. However, the small farmers are doing worse compared to thelarge farmers vis-à-vis SC farmers against OC farmers.
The official BT cotton yielded 24 per cent more than unofficial BT cotton. But, thecost of production in official BT cotton was higher by 37 per cent than the unofficialBT cotton. The farm business income, which indicates the excess of gross incomeover paid-up costs, is 26 per cent higher in official BT cotton. The performance ofBT cotton under irrigated conditions is much better compared to BT cotton inunirrigated conditions expectedly and yielded 35 per cent higher than the latter.While the BT cotton in irrigated conditions yielded 35 per cent higher than non-BTcotton in the same conditions, the BT cotton in unirrigated conditions gave 28 percent higher yield compared to the non-BT in similar unirrigated conditions. Thereis no considerable difference between BT cotton grown in black and other soils.However, the BT cotton in black soils performed slightly better.
Employment: While additional income generation is very important for the farmingcommunity as a result of new technologies like Bollgard cotton, the creation ofadditional employment for the labour is no less significant for the rural economy asa whole and landless labourers in particular. The total man-days equivalent (TMDE)for human labour (including casual, family and attached labour) are 66.29 for BTcotton and are 21 per cent higher than non-BT cotton. Out of this increase, hiredlabour, family labour and attached labour accounted for 63 per cent, 27 per centand 10 per cent, respectively. While the major beneficiary of this increase is hiredlabour, there is also increase in the use of family labour and attached labour to acertain extent. The female labourers are the major beneficiaries among casuallabourers. They got 10.05 days more of employment due to BT cotton cultivation.The employment elasticity for BT cotton is found to be 0.65, meaning that onepercent growth in BT cotton yield over non-BT cotton increases employment by0.65 per cent. This validates the hypothesis that there can be considerable positiveyield effects in countries where the cotton is picked manually.
It was found that only 63 per cent of the BT cotton farmers have grown refugecrops. Though good percent of BT farmers have grown refuge in Warangal (84%)and Nalgonda (78%), the farmers in Guntur (27%) and Kurnool (2%) have notcared to grow it. This practice is almost non-existent in Kurnool. The farmersrevealed that they have now stopped growing refuge, though they cultivated it in
CESS Monograph - 3 6
some rows in the first year. They feared losing some portion of their land and furtherthey observed that the bollworm attack is very heavy for the refuge rows, which inturn makes it necessary to spray some chemicals. If this trend on non-observance ofrefuge rows increases further in BT cotton cultivation, the selection pressure forthe pest may increase, as it faces BT cotton in thousands of acres in contiguousareas. Finally, it may lead to development of full resistance in 8-10 years as thescientists warned.
While 83 per cent of the farmers in the sample have grown BT cotton for the firsttime in 2004-2005, 84 per cent of the farmers have grown BT cotton again in 2005-2006 and another 5 per cent are willing to use the BT cotton. It was found thatmajor traits, the adopters expected in the BT cotton, are higher yield (79%), lowerexpenditure (43%) and low insecticidal sprays (16%). There was no resistance atall from the neighbouring farmers for growing BT cotton. Among the adopters,very few (2.1%) knew about other possible transgenic crops. The major problemsin the cultivation of BT cotton according to the adopters are high cost of seeds(41%), lower yield than expected (21%), unavailability of quality BT seeds (18%)and lack of awareness (11%) and non-control of the target pest (5%). It can beconcluded from this that the cost and availability of seeds are the major problems.The suggestions according to them are making quality seeds available at affordableprices (70%), creating awareness about BT cultivation (27%), state intervention inthe supply of seeds (10%) and finally developing seeds resistant to all bollworms(5%). The farmers of BT and non-BT are alike in respect of certain non-pesticideand agronomic measures like phermone traps, bird perches, spray of NPV solutionetc. The major problem seems to be that majority of the farmers in both BT andnon-BT category apply pesticides either as a precautionary measure or immediatelyafter the pest is observed in the field without any regard to the intensity of thedamage and cost-benefit ratios.
Conclusion: The results of the study prove that the BT cotton technology is superiorto the conventional cotton hybrids in terms of yield and net returns. The expenditureon insecticides decreased by 18 per cent and still the cost of production is 17 percent higher. The yield is also higher by 32 per cent. As a result of this, the cost perquintal is lower by Rs.223 and 11 per cent in BT cotton. Though both BT and non-BT cottons could not cover all costs of the farmers, viz., paid-up and imputed, theBT cotton farmer could improve his net income by 83 per cent. This may be due toscanty rainfall and lower price realization compared to the previous years. Thedistricts of Warangal and Guntur performed better compared to Nalgonda andKurnool in the same order. But, in all these districts, BT outperformed non-BTcotton. The BT cotton farmers from SCs obtained 10 per cent lesser yield and 9 percent higher cost per quintal than the OC-BT farmers and could not cover cost C.But the BT-SC farmers got 40 per cent more yield than their non-BT counter parts.
CESS Monograph - 3 7
The small farmers are also better off with BT cotton than without BT cotton situation.On the whole, the small farmers are doing worse compared to the large farmers vis-à-vis SC farmers against OC farmers. The study also found that many of the smallfarmers and SC farmers participated in using the technology and improved theirposition with regard to profitability by growing BT cotton. .
The total man-days equivalent for human for BT cotton is 21 per cent higher thannon-BT cotton and out of this increase, hired labour, family labour and attachedlabour accounted for 63,27 and 10 per cent, respectively. While the major beneficiaryof this increase is h ired casual labour, there is also increase in the use of familylabour and attached labour to a certain extent. The female labourers are again themajor beneficiaries among casual labourers. They got 10.05 days more ofemployment due to BT cotton cultivation.
It was found a very high percent (84%) of BT cotton growers have grown it in2005-2006 and another 5 per cent willing to take up the new BT hybrid. The majorproblems in cultivation of BT, as perceived by the growers are high cost of seeds,lower yield than expected, unavailability of quality BT seeds, lack of awarenessand non-control of target pest. The suggestions of the adopters include makingquality seeds available at affordable prices, creating awareness about BT cultivation,state intervention for seed supply and developing seeds resistant to all bollworms,and rainfed conditions. The adoptors also asked for varieties instead of hybrids tobe able to recycle the seeds for some years without going to the market. Theseissues may be considered by the policy makers at the governmental level.
CESS Monograph - 3 8
1. Agricultural Biotechnology and Transgenic Cotton
The agricultural biotechnology has created high expectations on breaking yieldbarriers, technical change, and promise of benefiting dry lands and ecologicallyfragile areas. The controversies regarding biotechnology revolved mainly aroundgenetic modification in agricultural crops. In the process, low-end biotechnologicaltools like biofertilisers, biopesticides and tissue culture are getting less attentionand the focus is on transgenics mainly from both protagonists and the antagonists.The potential of agricultural biotechnology is unquestionable, considering the factthat even the strongest critics also ask for more studies before commercialization.There are three broad arguments in this regard on the usefulness of agriculturalbiotechnology. Some question the genetic manipulation itself, as contrary to therules of nature (For e.g. Shiva and Crompton, 1999). Many scholars accept geneticmodification tools and question the technology developed by multinationalcompanies and others. The last strand holds that biotechnology is good as scienceas well as technology. The good approach may be the second one, which givesscope for case-by-case study. The risks associated with agricultural biotechnologyare widely documented in many studies. It will be suffice to briefly mention themhere. The unpredictable risks relate to the process of genetic modification itself.The theory of substantial equivalence, which states that the genetically modifiedorganisms behave like their naturally occurring counterparts, may not work inpractice and there is the possibility of mutations. An example is that the Bacillusthuringensis, which has been effective against bollworms in nature since ages maydevelop resistance in a host plant in a very short period. Some of the importantpredictable risks are the loss of biodiversity through horizontal and vertical genetransfer; development of super weeds; and food safety issues. The possibility oftransgenes escaping into wild is higher in the developing countries.
1.1. Pattern of commercialization of Transgenics in the World
The commercialised agricultural biotechnology is limited to input traits like herbicidetolerance, insect resistance etc., in four crops viz., soybean, cotton, maize and canola.The crops with modified output traits like Golden Rice, soybean with high lysine,protein rich potato etc., require expression of more than one gene and aretechnologically more complex. It may take quite a few years for them to come outof the experimental stage1 . The single largest input trait of the commercialized
1 Please see Rao (2004b) and Pingali and Raney (2005) for detailed discussion.
CESS Monograph - 3 10
2 The Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme for Dry Land Agriculture(APNLBP), Hyderabad is a good example. Detailed exposition can be seen in Krishna andReddy (2005)
transgenics is herbicide tolerance accounting for more than 8 percent of the 90.0million hectares in 2005. Most of the transgenics have hybrids as their carriers andthe commercialised transgenics are non-food crops in the sense that they do notdirectly enter the food chain.
The stiff opposition to imports and permissions for cultivation of geneticallymodified crops in the world for the past few years eased in 2004. The EuropeanUnion has allowed import of genetically modified maize and also permitted growingtransgenics during the year, ending four years of moratorium after the United Statesof America approached the Appellate body of the World Trade Organisation.Therefore, the area under transgenics is likely to increase at a still higher growthrates in future. On the other hand, the extension of transgenics area to food cropsdoes not seem to be possible in the immediate future.
Round up ready wheat of Monsanto met with a lot of resistance from all the quartersin the U.S.A and the company had to withdraw it in May 2004. In this context,innovative technology development programmes taking the aspirations and needsof people is very important and it will go a long way in developing appropriatetechnologies and getting accepted by the stakeholders2 .
The transgenic crops were commercialised in 1996 in the world and in 2002 inIndia. The area has been increasing steadily at a double-digit growth rate of morethan 10 percent per annum and the area reached 102.0 million hectares in 2006 inthe world in 22 countries (ISAAA, 2006). The trajectory of transgenics started inthe country with three cotton hybrids suitable for the central and southern Indiabelonging to Monsanto Mahyco Biotech Limited, having in-built resistance to bollworms with the introduction of a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt). The number of BT cotton hybrids approved by the Genetic EngineeringApproval Committee of the Government of India has been 137 as of now. The areaunder this cotton increased from 44500 hectares in 2002-2003 to 1.3 million hectaresin 2005-2006 and it reached 3.8 million hectares in 2006-2007, which is more than40 per cent of the total cotton area in the country. On the other hand, the Bt cottonwas already cultivated in 28 percent of world cotton area or 9.8 million hectares in2005 mainly in the U.S.A and China. India became the fifth principal adopter ofgenetically modified crops after the U.S.A (58 m. ha), Argentina (18 m.ha), Brazil(11.5 m.ha) and Canada (6.1 m.ha) and went ahead of China (3.5 m.ha) in 2006(ISAAA, 2006).
CESS Monograph - 3 11
1.2. Bollgard Technology
The incorporation of BT gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis Kurstakiin any crop can effectively control bollworms. These bollworms are polyphagousviz., they attack many crops like cotton, chillies, brinjal, tomato, red gram, blackgram, green gram, etc. This makes the BT technology very lucrative and offershuge market around the globe. The gene supplier for many of the approved BThybrids is Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Limited. In fact, more than 50 percent ofresearch on agricultural biotechnology is accounted by the Bollgard cotton hybridsin the country. Some of the private firms are trying to release hybrids with a nativeBT gene and for which no royalty needs to be paid to Monsanto. The public researchinstitutions like Central Institute of Cotton Research in Nagpur are trying to releaseindigenous varieties. These efforts may reduce cost of the seed in the long run.
The empirical evidence across the countries shows that Bt cotton impacts thepesticide use, yield, labour use and thereby the income distribution patterns. Thereare variations across the countries on the impact on each of these things. It is emergingfrom the literature that the reduction in pesticide consumption is high in countrieswhere the pesticide use is already very high like in Mexico and China. The literatureon the yield effects clearly point to an increase in yield in all the countries studied.However, the positive yield effects in temperate climates like in the U.S.A andChina are lower than those observed in tropical and sub-tropical climates where thepest population is severe. Based on this, Qaim (2003) hypothesizes that thecultivation of Bt cotton can have sizeable yield effects in India as the pest populationis not effectively controlled otherwise. Further, Qaim and Matuschke (2004) alsohypothesize that there can be positive labour effects in countries where cotton ispicked manually. A brief review on the empirical experience of Bt cotton cultivationis presented here.
Experience Across Countries
The cost of production per kilogram of cotton was reduced by 28 per cent in 1999in China (Huang et al, 2002). The average yield effect is 10 per cent in China,while the labour use declined by 5-7 per cent. It was also concluded that the pesticidalsprays have come down by 67 per cent and the expenditure on pesticides was reducedby 82 per cent in China (Huang et al, 2004). In the U.S.A, 11.4 percent increase inyields and 72 percent decrease in sprays led to increase in profits in Southeast to atune of $ 51 per acre. On the other hand, there was a 8 per cent increase in thenational average yield of cotton in the U.S.A. (Hubbel et al 2000). There were alsoregional winners and losers in the U.S.A due to lack of adopted varieties (Zepeda etal, 2000). Contrary to small increases in yield in the U.S.A and China, the yieldeffects are sizeable with 33 per cent3 and 22 per cent4 respectively in developingcountries like Argentina and South Africa.
CESS Monograph - 3 12
The performance of Bt cotton in India is highly controversial. Qaim (2003) reportedyield increase of 80 per cent using trial plot data. There were also refutations ofclaims of cost reduction and yield increase by some scholars. Based on field trialsconducted in India, Shiva and Others concluded that the yield in all the trial plotswere found to be low and a comparison of the local hybrid variety cultivated andBT showed that the yield from both the crops was more or less same. Farmers ofthe trial plots reported that except for the protection from bollworm, nothing muchhas benefited them. The cost of cultivation has also worked out to be same for allthe farmers. They further explained that from the various studies (like Sutton, 1998;Bryant et al, 1997), it is clear that wherever the bollworm pressure is not high, BTcotton might not be economically suitable. A survey in Mississippi for two years byGibson et al (1997) revealed that there was no difference in the total cost ofproduction, but better yields were reported in case of BT cotton. However, BTcotton required more expenses in the form of fertilizers, fungicide treatments andthe technology fees (Shiva et al, 1999).
The first year of Bt cotton cultivation was a disaster in many of the cotton growingstates like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat(Krishnakumar, 2003). In 2002-03, small saving in pesticide sprays (Rs.217/ac),less profits and susceptibility to pink bollworm were reported in a study conductedin Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh (Sahai and Rehman, 2003). Similar resultswith more attack of sucking pests were also reported from a season long study onBT cotton in Andhra Pradesh (Qayum and Sakkari, 2003). In another field surveyin the first year of commercialization in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra andAndhra Pradesh, it was found that the yields increased by 34 per cent in BT cottonover conventional cotton and that the farmers of Andhra Pradesh suffered a loss inaverage incomes (Naik et al, 2005). However, the unauthorised BT cotton in Gujaratwas also reported to have given higher yields (Bunsha, 2002). The performance in2003-2004 seemed to be slightly better compared to the previous year. In a studyconducted in two districts of Maharashtra, it was found that the yield increased by52 per cent in Bt cotton from 15.77 quintals per hectare in non-BT cotton to 24.00quintals in BT cotton and the same study concluded that the profit per hectare wasRs.31883 in BT cotton as against Rs.17797 in non-BT cotton implying an increaseof 79 per cent, though the cost of pest control increased slightly (Narayanamoorthyand Kalamkar, 2006). A nationwide survey by Nielson and ORG MARG for 2003-04 season concluded that there was a 60 percent reduction in pesticide use and 29percent increase in yield leading to 78% increase in net profit. The critics of Btcotton questioned the objectivity of this survey, as Monsanto commissioned thesurvey. Further, these two studies did not take fixed costs into account while workingout changes in costs and returns from Bt cotton cultivation over non-Bt hybrids.Qayum and Sakkari (2004) made another season-long survey and negated theseclaims. The attack of bollworms in 2003-2004 was below normal. It is also alleged
CESS Monograph - 3 13
that the cotton from the Bt hybrids is of inferior quality and that it cannot standheavy rainfall conditions etc. It is possible that the negative traits like short-stapledcotton, low yield etc., may be of the hybrids used to incorporate the Bt gene thanthe gene (Cry 1ac) itself. Therefore, the evidence on the usefulness of this cotton inreducing the attack of bollworms is inconclusive and there is a need for empiricalstudies in three or four consecutive years.
Employment
The new technologies will have a certain impact on employment of human labour.These technologies generally are expected to have a positive impact on employment,as there is always a huge under-employment and disguised unemployment in thecountry. The green revolution in the early sixties introduced biological andmechanical technologies in agriculture. While the introduction of new high yieldingvarieties of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, multiple cropping etc., are a part of thebiological technologies, the use of tractors, harvesters, threshers etc., formed themechanical technology. Several studies conducted after the green revolution foundthat the biological technology favoured employment creation and the mechanicaltechnology displaced labour (Rao, 1975).
It can be said with certainty that the introduction of biotechnological seeds in theform of transgenics in crops is the next major change contemplated in Indianagriculture after the green revolution. Therefore, it will be very important to analyseits impact on the use of human labour, with a particular emphasis on its gender bias.As already mentioned earlier the Bt cotton cultivation is expected to increase labouruse in India, though it is labour saving in countries like U.S.A, where most fieldoperations are mechanized.
It seems from the brief review, that transgenic cotton crop varieties restrictedbollworm attack well and a certain increase in yield in almost all the studies. In theIndian context, cotton accounts for 45 percent of the Rs.3000 crores of agro-chemicals used, though it is cultivated in only 5 percent of gross cropped area andAndhra Pradesh alone accounts for 33 percent of off-take of these chemicals. Theloss due to insect pests is about 50 percent of cotton output because some insectssuch as Helicoverpa armigera and whitefly have developed resistance to chemicalpesticides (Birthal et al, 2000). Andhra Pradesh ranks third in area and productionof cotton in the country with around 10 lakh hectares. The state has recorded suicidedeaths of farmers in 1987 and 1997 due to failure of cotton crop because of pestmenace (Rao, 2004a). The cotton farmers spend around Rs.5000 per acre on pesticidespray and use 10 to 12 varieties of pesticides and spray cocktailed pesticides for 15to 25 times (Parthasarathy and Shameem, 1998). The state has the productivity of316 kgs of lint per hectare as against 417 in Gujarat and 556 in Punjab in 2004-2005 and an all-India average of 332 kgs per hectare.
CESS Monograph - 3 14
In this background, the introduction of Bt cotton in the state assumes a lot ofimportance. The variety can help the farmers, who are mainly small and marginal,if it resists American bollworm and raise productivity. Further, raising theemployment is also crucial in the background of low employment growth inagriculture and other sectors. There are very few empirical studies on the impact ofbiotechnology in India or Andhra Pradesh. The role of Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch (ICAR) was minimized in the case of Bt hybrids unlike in the case ofother crop varieties, where ICAR used to conduct regionwise agronomic trials andadvise farmers on the best ones. This has left the farmers ‘susceptible to any biasedclaims from the various companies involved, and more exposed to the vagaries ofmarket forces’ (Chaturvedi, et al 2007). Further, public reservations anduncertainties about impacts add to the danger that appropriate biotechnologies willremain inaccessible to those who stand to benefit the most (Lipton, 2001). Therefore,an ex-post, farm level study on the impact of Bt cotton introduced in the state ishighly relevant.
Organisation of the Presentation and Limitations
The study is organized in to six Chapters. The second Chapter brings out themethodology of the study and the third Chapter gives profile of the farmers anddetails of cotton cultivation. The fourth Chapter brings out the costs and returnsand the fifth Chapter gives the employment and perceptions. The final Chapterconcludes. The major limitation of the study is the limitation of the field survey atsingle point. It is assumed that the farmers remember the details of their cultivation.Then, the rainfall in the study area is found to be 33 per cent less than the normalrainfall. The low prices prevailing in 2004-2005 for raw cotton also was a limitation.These also might have affected the profitability of the farmer.
2. Methodology
Against the expectations, claims and experience across different countries presentedin the previous Chapter, the study aims to bring out the socioeconomic impact ofthe introduction of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh. The specific objectives of thestudy are to:
1. To find out the impact of BT cotton cultivation on cost of pesticides,cost of production and profitability across farmers based on socialcategories and size groups;
2. To find out the impact on employment across social categories andsize groups; and
3. To find out the problems and priorities as perceived by the farmers.
The study adopted multi-stage stratified random sampling method to achieve theobjectives. The study was done in the districts where BT cotton is grown with anintention to cover different agro-climatic zones in the state by taking one districtfrom each ecological zone, where the BT cotton hybrids were introduced. Thereare five agro-climatic zones in the state, according to the Cost of Cultivation Schemeof the Government of India. The North Coastal, South Coastal, Rayalaseema, NorthTelangana and South Telangana are the five zones. Among these zones, the cultiva-tion of cotton in North Coastal zone is negligible and therefore no district wastaken in this zone. The area under cotton in 2004-2005 in all the other four zoneswas collected and one district from each zone selected randomly. Thus, Warangal,Nalgonda, Guntur and Kurnool were selected to represent the four zones (Figure2.1).
The selection of Mandals was done based on the area under BT cotton. The areasown of BT cotton was made available by the Commissioner and Director of Agri-culture. This data were used to select the Mandals with highest areas under BTCotton for the study. We have chosen more than one Mandal from each district tosee that the sample is well spread out and more representative (Appendices 4 to 7).The number of Mandals selected for the study was nine from the four districts. Thevillages were selected based on the area under BT cotton. The number of villagesselected for the study was fourteen (Table 2.1).
CESS Monograph - 3 16
The sample selected was proportional to the area under BT cotton in each agro-climatic zone. The area under BT cotton in these four districts representing fouragro-climatic zones was in the proportion of 52.1 per cent, 30.46 per cent, 16.36per cent and 1.1 per cent respectively. The size of the sample was selected in theseproportions by taking maximum number from Warangal followed by Nalgonda,Guntur and Kurnool. Though the area under BT cotton in the Rayalaseema zone invery low in 2004-2005, some farmers are selected from Kurnool district also as it isa potential cotton belt.
Figure 2.1: Sample Districts in Andhra Pradesh
The farmers were selected after stratification based on farm size and social category.The farmers are stratified as small, medium and large based on size of owned landholding. The farmers owning less than 4.99 acres are considered small; who ownland holding between 5 acres and 9.99 are considered medium and those whopossessed 10.0 acres and more are considered as large farmers. The sample size is
CESS Monograph - 3 17
623. Besides adopters, some non- adopters were also surveyed. The proportion ofadopters and non-adopters was around 70 and 30 percent. Primary survey wasundertaken with pre-tested schedules and participatory methods like focused groupdiscussion were used as supplementary. The data collected pertain to 2004-2005and to be specific Kharif 2004-2005.
Table 2.1: Sample Units for the Study
District Mandal Village BT Non-BT TotalFarmers Farmers
Warangal Gisugonda Ookal 22 17 39 Dharmaram 42 8 50 Sayampet Pattipaka 42 16 58 Mailaram 20 9 29 Parkal Nagaram 42 21 63 Puligilla 19 4 23 187 75 262Nalgondda Mungode Velmakanne 56 22 78 Kompalle 7 8 15 Shaligowraram Chittaloor 50 25 75 Nakrekal Vogodu 14 6 20 127 61 188Guntur Gurajaala Ambapuram 36 14 50 Prattipadu Koyavaripalam 34 7 41 Kondepadu 4 8 12
74 29 103Kurnool Kautalam Badhinihal 49 21 70
TOTAL 437 186 623
Cost Concepts: The cost concepts viz., Cost A1,
Cost A2,
cost B1,
Cost B2,
Cost C1
and Cost C2
were followed in the analysis as is done by the Commission forAgricultural Costs and Prices for better comparison. These concepts are given belowin detail.
Cost A1: Value of hired human labour + attached labour, value of owned and hiredbullock labour + charges on owned and hired machinery + value of seed (both farmproduced and purchased) + value of owned and purchased manures + value offertilizers + value of plant protection chemicals used + depreciation + repairs andmaintenance of farm machinery and farm implements and farm buildings + landrevenue, cesses + interest on working capital.
CESS Monograph - 3 18
Cost A2 : Cost A1 + rent paid on leased in land.
Cost B1
: Cost A2 + imputed interest on owned fixed capital excluding land.
Cost B2 : Cost B1 + imputed rental value of owned land (less land revenue paid
thereon).Cost C1 : Cost B
1+
imputed value of family labour
Cost C2 : Cost B2 + imputed value of family labour.
Farm Business Measures: The farm business measures are gross income, netincome, farm business income, family labour income and farm investment income.They are used in the study to arrive at the gains to the BT and non-BT farmers aswell as different social and size categories of farmers. They are calculated using thestandard formulae as follows.
Gross income … Value of total output(Main + by - product)
Net income … Gross income – Cost C2
Farm business income … Gross income – Cost A1 or Cost A
2
Family labour income … Gross income – Cost B2
Farm investment income … Farm business income – imputed value of familylabour
3. Profile of Growers and Details of Cotton Cultivation
It is necessary to know the profile of the growers of BT cotton and also non-BTcotton for assessing the exact impact of new technology. Therefore, the profile ofgrowers, their education status, irrigation inventory, basic details of cotton cultivationetc are presented here in this chapter. These are later used in chapter 4 to analysethe impact of BT cotton on yield and income.
The number of selected farmers in the state was 623, of which BT cotton farmersformed 70 per cent viz., 437 and non-BT cotton farmers formed the rest with a totalnumber of 186 (Table 3.1). As per the proportion to area under BT cotton, Warangaldistrict with a sample size of 262 BT and non-BT farmers formed the major portionof the sample followed by Nalgonda, Guntur and Kurnool.
Table 3.1: Sample Farmers from Different Districts
BT / Non-BT Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total
BT 187 (43) 127 (29 ) 74 (17 ) 49 (11 ) 437 (100 )Non-Bt 75 (40 ) 61 (33 ) 29 (16 ) 21 (11 ) 186 (100 )Total 262 (42 ) 188 (30 ) 103 (17 ) 70 (11 ) 623 (100 )
Note: Figures in the parentheses are percentages.
The sample mainly consisted of male farmers in both BT and non-BT cottoncategories (Table 3.2). They are also mostly Hindus in both BT and non-BT cottoncategories except in Kurnool, where 12 per cent and 19 per cent are Christians inBT and non-BT categories respectively (Table 3.3).
CESS Monograph - 3 20
Table 3.3: Sample Farmers by Religion
Religion Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total
Bt Cotton
Hindu 184 (98.4) 122 (96.1) 71 (95.9) 43 (87.8) 420 (96.1)Muslim 0 2 (1.6) 0 6 (12.2 ) 8 (1.8 )Christian 3 (1.6 ) 3 (2.4 ) 3 (4.1 ) 0 9 (2.1 )
Total 187 (100 ) 127 (100 ) 74 (100 ) 49 (100 ) 437 (100 )
Non-BT Cotton
Hindu 73 (97.3) 56 (91.8) 27 (93.1) 17 (81.0) 173 (93.0)Muslim 0 4 (6.6) -- 4 (19.0) 8 (4.3)Christian 2 (2.7) 1 (1.6) 2 (6.9) 0 5 (2.7)
Total 75 (100) 61 (100) 29 (100) 21 (100) 186 (100)
Social Categories
The farmers from SCs and STs comprised 25 per cent and 26 per cent respectivelyin BT and non-BT categories (Table 3.4). The BCs and OCs fomed 40 per cent and35 per cent in BT cotton and 41 per cent and 33 per cent respectively in non-BTcotton. The proportion of SCs is quite low in Guntur (19%) and Warangal (20%)and higher in Kurnool (41%) and Nalgonda (28%) in BT cotton. In non-BT cottoncategory also, the same pattern can be observed. The farmers from OCs formedmore than 50 per cent in Guntur district under both BT and non-BT category.
Table 3.2: Number and Percent of Sample BT Cotton Farmers
Sex Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total
Bt Cotton
Male 184(98.4 ) 127(100.0 ) 74(100.0 ) 49(100.0 ) 434(99.3 )Female 3(1.6 ) 0 0 0 3(0.7 )Total 187(100 ) 127(100 ) 74(100 ) 49(100 ) 437(100 )
Non-BT Cotton
Male 74(98.7 ) 61(100.0 ) 29(100.0 ) 21(100.0 ) 185(99.5 )Female 11.3 ) 0 0 0 1.5 )Total 75(100 ) 61(100 ) 29(100 ) 21(100 ) 186(100 )
CESS Monograph - 3 21
Table 3.4: Sample Farmers By Social Categories
Community Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total
Total sample
SC 51 (19.5) 53 (28.2 ) 21 (20.4 ) 22 (31.4 ) 147 (23.6 )ST 4 (1.5 ) 1 (.5 ) 0 4 (5.7 ) 9 (1.4 )BC 123 (46.9 ) 83 (44.1 ) 26 (25.2 ) 20 (28.6 ) 252 (40.4 )OC 84 (32.1 ) 51 (27.1 ) 56 (54.4 ) 24 (34.3 ) 215 (34.5 )
BT Cotton
SC 35 (18.7) 35 (27.6 ) 14 (18.9 ) 15 (30.6 ) 99 (22.7 )ST 3 (1.6 ) 1 (0.8 ) 4 (8.2 ) 8 (1.8 )BC 86 (46.0 ) 57 (44.9 ) 19 (25.7 ) 14 (28.6 ) 176 (40.3 )OC 63 (33.7 ) 34 (26.8 ) 41 (55.4 ) 16 (32.7 ) 154 (35.2 )
Non-BT Cotton
SC 16 (21.3 ) 18 (29.5 ) 7 (24.1 ) 7 (33.3 ) 48 (25.8 )ST 1 (1.3) 0 0 0 1 (0.5)BC 37 (49.3 ) 26 (42.6 ) 7 (24.1 ) 6 (28.6 ) 76 (40.9 )OC 21 (28.0 ) 17 (27.9 ) 15 (51.7 ) 8 (38.1 ) 61 (32.8 )
Family Type
The sample farmers have joint and nuclear families in a proportion of 25 per centand 75 per cent in both BT and non-BT cotton categories (Table 3.5). However, wecan find higher proportion of joint families (30%) in BT cotton in Warangal and theleast proportion of joint families (16%) in Kurnool districts in BT cotton.
CESS Monograph - 3 22
Table 3.5: Type of Family in BT Cotton and Non-BT Cotton Farmers
Type of Family Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total
BT Cotton
Joint 55 (29.4 ) 32 (25.2 ) 16 (21.6 ) 8 (16.3 ) 111 (25.4 )Nuclear 132 (70.6 ) 95 (74.8 ) 58 (78.4 ) 41 (83.7 ) 326 (74.6 )
Total 187 127 74 49 437
Non-BT Cotton
Joint 17 (22.7 ) 17 (27.9 ) 8 (27.6 ) 5 (23.8 ) 47 (25.3 )Nuclear 58 (77.3 ) 44 (72.1 ) 21 (72.4 ) 16 (76.2 ) 139 (74.7 )
Total 75 (100 ) 61 (100 ) 29 (100 ) 21 (100 ) 186 (100 )
Type of Land Ownership
The sample farmers are mainly owner cultivators and they constitute 68 per centand 67 per cent respectively in BT and non-BT categories and the rest are tenantsand owner-cum-tenants (Table 3.6). Among the latter two, the owner-cum-tenantsis the bigger one containing 28 per cent and 31 per cent under BT and non-BTcategories. The tenants are the maximum in Kurnool with 12 per cent of the BTfarmers. The land lease market seems to be highly active in Guntur with 57 per centof the BT farmers and 48 per cent of the non-BT farmers being owner-cum-tenants.
Table 3.6: Land Ownership Pattern in BT Cotton and Non-BTCotton Farmers
Type of Family Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total
BT Cotton
Owners 140 (74.9 ) 97 (76.4 ) 31 (41.9 ) 31 (63.3 ) 299 (68.4 )Tenants 2 (1.1 ) 5 (3.9 ) 1 (1.4 ) 6 (12.2 ) 14 (3.2 )Owner-cum-tenants 45 (24.1 ) 25 (19.7 ) 42 (56.8 ) 12 (24.5 ) 124 (28.4 )
Total 187 (100 ) 127 (100 ) 74 (100 ) 49 (100 ) 437 (100 )
Non-BT Cotton
Owners 55 (73.3 ) 44 (72.1) 13 (44.8 ) 13 (61.9 ) 125 (67.2 )Tenants 1 (1.3 ) 0 2 (6.9 ) 1 (4.8 ) 4 (2.2 )Owner-cum-tenants 19 (25.3 ) 17 (27.9 ) 14 (48.3 ) 7 (33.3 ) 57 (30.6 )Total 75 (100 ) 61 (100 ) 29 (100 ) 21 (100 ) 186 (100 )
CESS Monograph - 3 23
Size Categories
The sample on the whole consisted small, medium and large farmers in the proportionof 43.34, 32.91 and 32.76 per cent respectively (Table 3.7). There is a slightlyhigher proportion of small farmers in the non-BT category (47%). The majorexception is Kurnool, where the small farmers constituted 54 per cent and 52 percent in BT and non-BT categories.
Table 3.7: Sizewise Distribution of Sample Farmers
Size category Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total
Total sample
Small farmers 108(41.22) 79(42.02) 45(43.69) 38(54.29) 270(43.3)Medium farmers 93(35.5) 61(32.45) 31(30.1) 20(28.57) 205(32.91)Large farmers 61(23.28) 48(25.53) 27(26.21) 12(17.14) 148(32.76)
BT Cotton
Small farmers 72(38.71) 54(42.19) 32(43.24) 25(52.08) 183(41.88)Medium farmers 70(37.63) 40(31.25) 22(29.73) 15(31.25) 147(33.64)Large farmers 44(23.66) 34(26.56) 20(27.03) 8(16.67) 106(24.26)
Non-Bt cotton
Small farmers 36(47.37) 25(41.67) 13(44.83) 13(59.09) 87(46.77)Medium farmers 23(30.26) 21(35) 9(31.03) 5(22.73) 58(31.18)Large farmers 17(22.37) 14(23.33) 7(24.14) 4(18.18) 42(22.58)
Age, Family Size, Education and Occupation
There are no differences as far as family size and average age of the farmers areconcerned in BT and non-BT categories. The average size is 5 and average age is44 years in both the cases (Table 3.8). However, the Warangal farmers are theyoungest with 41 years and the farmers of Kurnool oldest with 49 years. The literacypercentage is 77 per cent in both BT and non-BT categories. Here again, the illiteratesare higher in Kurnool with 39 per cent compared to a lower percent of 29 in Warangalin BT and 81 per cent in Kurnool and 18 per cent in Warangal in non-BT. The BTfarmers and non-BT farmers have agriculture as the main occupation with 93.4 percent and 96.8 per cent being engaged in it, respectively. Among the BT farmers, 20per cent depend on casual labour as the subsidiary occupation. This proportion isslightly high in Kurnool with 39 per cent in BT cotton category depending on casuallabour as subsidiary occupation. In non-BT category as a whole also, higherproportion of farmers (25%) depend on casual labour as a subsidiary occupation.
CESS Monograph - 3 24
Table 3.8: Education and Occupational Pattern of BT Cotton and Non-BTCotton Farmers
Sl.No Item Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Totalsample
BT Cotton
I Average family size 5 5 5 5 5II Average age of farmer 44 46 43 42 44
III Education LevelsPrimary 31 21 15 14 81
(16.5 ) (16.7 ) (20.3 ) (28.6) (18.5)
Secondary 19 18 17 5 59(10.1 ) (14.3 ) (23.0 ) (10.2) (13.5)
Higher Secondary & 68 34 13 10 125above (36.2 ) (27.0 ) (17.6 ) (20.4) (28.6)
Technical 2 1 3(1.1 ) (2.0) (0.7)
Illiterate 55 44 28 19 146(29.3 ) (34.9 ) (37.8 ) (38.8) (33.4)
IV Main Occupation 178 114 72 44 408Agriculture (94.7 ) (90.5 ) (97.3 ) (89.8) (93.4)
V Subsidiary Occupation 7 9 2 3 21Agriculture (3.7 ) (7.1 ) (2.7 ) (6.1) (4.8)Agri. Casual Labor 27 26 13 19 85
(14.4 ) (20.6 ) (17.6 ) (38.8) (19.5)
Non-BT Cotton
I Average family size 5 5 5 5 5II Average age of farmer 41 45 45 49 44
III Education LevelsPrimary 15 15 10 2 42
(20.3 ) (24.2 ) (34.5 ) (9.5 ) (22.6 )
Secondary 7 3 3 1 14(9.5 ) (4.8 ) (10.3 ) (4.8 ) (7.5 )
Higher Secondary & 32 13 3 1 49above (43.2 ) (21.0 ) (10.3 ) (4.8 ) (26.3 )
Technical 1 1(3.4 ) (0.5 )
Illiterate 13 21 11 17 62(17.6 ) (33.9 ) (37.9 ) (81.0 ) (33.3 )
IV Main OccupationAgriculture 72 61 27 20 180
(97.3 ) (98.4 ) (93.1 ) (95.2 ) (96.8 )
V Subsidiary OccupationAgriculture 3 1 4
(4.1 ) (3.4 ) (2.2 )
Agri. casual Labor 16 19 6 6 47(21.6 ) (30.6 ) (20.7 ) (28.6 ) (25.3 )
CESS Monograph - 3 25
Irrigation and Soils
The percent of irrigated land in the BT cotton category is 47.6 and 7 percent higherthan the non-BT category (Table 3.9). Among the four districts BT farmers in Gunturand Warangal have higher percent of their land under irrigation with 85 and 54 percent respectively. The non- BT farmers in these two districts also have higher per-cent of land under irrigation. It can be clearly observed from the table that thepercent of irrigation in Kurnool and Nalgonda is very low at around 26 per cent inboth BT and non-BT categories of farmers.
While 80 per cent of the BT cotton land is under black soil in the sample, 73 percent is under black soil in non-BT cotton. This is 10 per cent higher than non-BTcotton. With regard to the problems in soils, 91 per cent of BT cotton soils and 88per cent of non-BT soils are normal soils. The main problem in the rest of the soilsis salinity.
CESS Monograph - 3 26
Table 3.9: Basic Details of Cotton Cultivation in BT Cotton and Non-BT Cotton
Sl.No Item Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool Total sample
BT Cotton
1 Type of irrigation Irrigated 53.8 25 85.1 26.5 47.6 Un irrigated 46.2 75 14.9 73.5 52.4
2 Type of soil Black soil 76.3 73.4 91.9 100 80 Red soil 18.3 23.4 8.1 16 Other soil 5.4 3.1 4.0
3 Problem in soil Salinity 9.7 12.5 1.4 8 No problem 88.7 86.7 97.3 100 90.8
4 Source of irrigationIrrigated from canal 3.8 2.3 77 16.3 17.2 Lift irrigation 1.1 3.9 2.7 10.2 3.2 Bore well 5.4 13.3 4.1 6.9 In well bore 7 0.8 3.2 Dug well 31.7 2.3 14.2 Tank 3.2 1.4 1.6
Non-BT Cotton
1 Type of irrigation Irrigated 50.1 26.7 79.3 28.6 44.6 Un irrigated 50.0 73.3 20.7 71.4 55.4
2 Type of soil Black soil 65.8 63.3 96.6 95.2 73.1 Red soil 30.3 25 3.4 21 Others 3.9 11.7 4.8 5.9
3 Problem in soil Salinity 9.2 15 8.6 No problem 84.2 83.3 100 100 88.2
4 Source of irrigation Irrigated from canal 2.6 79.3 14.3 15.1 Lift irrigation 3.3 14.3 2.7 Bore well 10.5 15 9.1 In well bore 3.9 1.7 2.2 Dug well 28.9 11.8 Tank 3.9 1.7 2.2
CESS Monograph - 3 27
The percent of irrigated land in the BT and non-BT categories according to socialand size categories is shown in Table 3.10. The large farmers and OC farmers with61.4 per cent and 57.5 per cent of their BT cotton land being irrigated, respectivelyare obviously at an advantageous position. The small farmers with 34.4 per centand SCs with 39.3 per cent of their BT cotton land under irrigation are laggingbehind the sample average percent irrigation of 47.6 per cent. In case of non-BT,the position is better for LFs (71.9%) and OCs (58.3%) and worse for SFs (37.2)and SCs (38.8%). The BCs and medium farmers’ position with regard to irrigationis also slightly less than the sample average in both BT and non-BT cotton catego-ries. The LFs and OCs also have relatively higher percent of land under BT cottoncultivation in the sample.
Table 3.10: Basic Details of Cotton Cultivation Across Social Categories
Sl.No Item SC & BC OC SF MF LF TotalST sample
BT Cotton
1 Type of irrigation Irrigated 39.3 44 57.5 34.4 42.3 61.4 47.6 Un irrigated 60.7 56 42.5 55.6 57.7 38.6 52.4
2 Type of soil Black soil 81.3 78.9 82.6 77.5 81.2 86.1 80 Red soil 15.9 17.7 14.2 19.8 15.4 9.9 16 Other soils 2.8 3.4 3.2 2.7 3.3 4 4.0
3 Problem in soil Salinity 7.5 6.3 10.3 9.6 8.7 4 8 No problem 91.6 92 89 88.8 89.9 96 90.8
4 Source ofirrigation Irrigated from canal 12.1 13.7 24.5 17.6 12.1 23.8 17.2 Lift irrigation 1.9 3.4 3.9 2.1 3.4 5 3.2 Bore well 3.7 8 7.7 4.8 8.7 7.9 6.9 In well bore 3.7 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.7 4 3.2 Dug well 13.1 13.1 16.1 12.3 14.1 17.8 14.2 Tank 2.8 1.7 0.6 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.6
CESS Monograph - 3 28
Table 3.10: Contd...
Sl. Item SC& BC OC SF MF LF TotalNo ST sample
Non-BT Cotton
1 Type of irrigation Irrigated 38.8 37.7 58.3 37.2 41.7 71.9 44.6 Un irrigated 61.2 62.3 41.7 62.8 58.3 28.1 55.4
2 Type of soil Black Soil 67.3 75.3 75.0 73.4 66.7 84.4 73.1 Red Soil 22.4 20.8 20 19.1 26.7 15.6 21 Other soils 10.2 3.9 5.0 7.5 6.6 0 5.9Problem in soil Salinity 12.2 9.1 5 13.8 5 8.6 N.A 83.7 87 93.3 84 88.3 100 88.2
3 Source of irrigation Irrigated from canal 8.2 9.1 28.3 8.5 15 34.4 15.1 Lift irrigation 6.1 2.6 5.3 2.7 Bore well 8.2 10.4 8.3 8.5 8.3 12.5 9.1 In well bore 2 1.3 3.3 3.3 6.3 2.2 Dug well 8.2 11.7 15 9.6 13.3 15.6 11.8 Tank 2 2.6 1.7 3.2 3.1 2.2
Irrigation Inventory
The irrigation inventory with both BT and non-BT farmers is brought out in Tables3.11 and 3.12 in different districts and social and size categories respectively. Thefarmers cultivating BT cotton have more borewells with water than the farmerscultivating non-BT cotton. There are also very few of them in Guntur, may bebecause the farmers could irrigate with canals. On the other hand, in Kurnool, theextent of irrigation is very low. Across social categories, it is the BCs , who pos-sessed more number of borewells with water followed by OCs. The LFs also pos-sessed only 35 borewells. The non-BT cotton farmers among all social categoriesand size categories have few number of borewells as compared to their counter-parts in BT cultivation. This may definitely have positive impact on physical yieldin the BT cotton.
CESS Monograph - 3 29
Table 3.11: Irrigation Inventory for BT-Cotton and Non-BT Farmers
Sl. Item Waran- Nal- Guntur Kurnool A.PNo gal gonda
BT Cotton
1 No.of farmers withbore wells having water 30 50 7 0 87
2 No.of farmers withbore wells having failed 22 26 15 0 63
Non-BT Cotton
1 No.of farmers withbore wells having water 13 25 1 0 39
2 No.of farmers withbore wells having failed 13 15 0 0 28
Table 3.12: Irrigation Inventory for BT and Non-BT Farmers Across SocialCategories
Sl.No Item SC&ST BC OC SF MF LF
BT Cotton
1 No.of farmers withbore wells having water 11 46 30 17 35 35
2 No.of farmers withbore wells having failed 2 27 34 12 17 34
Non-BT Cotton
1 No.of farmers withbore wells having water 6 16 17 12 16 11
2 No.of farmers withbore wells having failed 6 13 9 8 13 7
CESS Monograph - 3 30
Rainfall Received in the Selected Mandals
The state received an average rainfall of 704 mm. during the year 2004-2005, whichis lower by 25 per cent over the normal rainfall of 940 mm. The rainfall in theselected Mandals and averages for the districts are shown in Tables 3.13 and 3.14.It can be observed from the tables that the study Mandals in Warangal, Nalgonda,Guntur and Kurnool received 41 per cent, 29 per cent, 17 per cent and 45 per centless than the normal rainfall, respectively in 2004-2005. The study area in all thefour districts had a combined deficit of 33 per cent in the actual rainfall comparedto the normal rainfall during the year. The situation in Guntur seems to be muchbetter compared to other districts with minimum gap between the actual and thenormal compared to other districts and also the actual rainfall of 682 mm beinghigher than that in any other districts. In Kurnool, the gap between the actual andthe normal is higher at 45 per cent and the actual rainfall is much lower viz., 351mm, typical of a scanty rainfall zone. On the other hand, in Warangal, though thegap is higher, the actual rainfall is 607 mm and reasonably good.
Average Area of Cotton
The average area under BT cotton in the sample is found to be 2.77 acres and 20 percent less than that under non-BT cotton, which is 3.45 acres (Table 3.15). This maybe because the farmers are in a way trying BT cotton in parts of their fields in 2004-2005 before they can totally replace the non-BT cotton with BT cotton. This relativelylower area under either BT or non-BT cotton also reminds us the need to study theissues of adoption of the Bollgard technology from a different perspective comparedto either U.S.A or any other developed country, where each farmer cultivatesthousands of acres. Among districts, Guntur and Kurnool have relatively higherarea under BT cotton, whereas Warangal farmers have very low average area underBT cotton. The farmers from SCs expectedly are the ones with the lowest acreagewith 1.88 acres under BT cotton.
CESS Monograph - 3 31
Tabl
e 3.
13:
Per
cent
age
of A
ctua
l Rai
nfal
l to
Nor
mal
Rai
nfal
l Mon
thw
ise
in t
he S
elec
ted
Man
dals
War
anga
lN
algo
nda
Gun
tur
Kur
nool
Mon
thG
eesu
-Sa
yam
pet
Park
alM
un-
S.G
ow-
Nak
reka
lG
uraj
ala
Prat
ti-
Kau
tala
mgo
nda
gode
rara
mpa
du
June
33.4
847
.44
55.0
460
.78
71.1
570
.48
58.9
612
2.5
55.7
7
July
75.9
255
.89
40.2
812
2.8
80.6
353
.47
145
115.
4562
.39
Aug
ust
33.4
442
.81
55.4
19.8
716
.99
24.3
522
.65
24.4
47.8
9
Sept
embe
r53
.520
083
.13
98.0
710
1.2
34.6
713
3.5
138.
7380
.34
Oct
ober
161
75.7
363
.95
159.
310
2.4
158.
587
.54
67.8
155
.87
Nov
embe
r24
.67
34.4
836
.35.
714
00
21.5
324
0
Dec
embe
r0
00
00
00
00
Tto
tal
rain
fall
in m
m64
559
758
064
4.7
577
510.
464
571
935
1
Nor
mal
rai
nfal
l in
mm
.10
1410
2110
4274
580
591
578
386
363
6
Per
cent
of
actu
al to
nor
mal
63.6
158
.51
55.7
086
.54
71.6
955
.78
82.4
183
.27
55.2
0
CESS Monograph - 3 32
Table 3.14: Rainfall in the Selected Districts in 2004-2005
Month Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool
June* 45.32 67.47 90.73 55.77
July* 57.36 85.63 130.23 62.39
August* 43.88 20.4 23.53 47.89
September* 112.2 77.98 136.12 80.34
October* 100.2 140.1 77.675 55.87
November* 31.82 1.905 22.77 0
December* 0 0 0 0
Total rainfall in mm 607.3 577.4 682 351
Normal rainfall in mm. 1026 821.7 823 636
Per cent of actual to
normal 59.27 71.34 82.84 55.20
Note: * indicates percentage of actual rainfall to the normal rainfall
Details of BT and non-BT Cotton Cultivation
It can be observed from Table 3.16 that RCS-2 is the most popular of BT cottonhybrids among the farmers in the selected districts except in Kurnool, whereunofficial BT cotton growers outnumber all other BT hybrids like MECH- 12 andRCS-2. Here it needs to be mentioned that even Bunny is not officially approvedfor commercial cultivation by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of theCentral Government for 2004-20053. The unofficial BT cotton seeds are grown by20 per cent of farmers in the state. Among the non-BT cotton hybrids, Bunny is themost popular among farmers in all the districts and as a whole except in Kurnool,where H-44 is the dominant one. In fact, there are large numbers of hybrids in themarket for cotton making it almost impossible to know the traits and yield potentialsof all the hybrids. In the present study, we have found that the 186 non-BT cottonfarmers have grown 73 hybrids. It can be observed from Table 3.16 that the percentof non-BT farmers growing other hybrids is 56. This is a troublesome situation asthe textile industry is asking for reduction of the number of hybrids so that there arenot huge variations in the quality of cotton and contamination is minimised4.
3 It has become customary for the companies to market BT hybrids in advance of the approvalby the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Government in anticipation of theapproval.4 However, the scientists of ICAR disagree with this saying that the biodiversity has to bemaintained. There should be reconciliation between these two arguments and the numberhas to be minimized.
CESS Monograph - 3 33
Table 3.15: Average Area in BT and Non- BT Cotton in Acres
BT Cotton Non-BT Cotton Total sample
Districts
Warangal 2.12 3.37 2.48Nalgonda 2.92 3.67 3.16Guntur 3.62 3.83 3.68Kurnool 3.55 2.52 3.24
Social Category
SC 1.88 2.57 2.1BC 2.54 3.41 2.8OC 3.64 4.2 3.8
Size Category
SF 2.48 2.52 2.49MF 2.61 3.89 2.97LF 3.48 4.76 3.84
Type of irrigation
Irrigated 2.75 3.47 2.96Unirrd. 2.78 3.43 2.98
Source of Seed
Official 2.4 - -Unofficial 3.83 - -Soil TypeBlack soil 2.79 3.42 2.96Other soil 2.67 3.52 2.99
2.77 3.45 2.97
CESS Monograph - 3 34Ta
ble
3.16
: P
arti
cula
rs o
f Are
a un
der
BT
Cot
ton
and
non-
BT
Cot
ton
and
Oth
er D
etai
ls in
Sel
ecte
d D
istr
icts
Sl.N
oIt
emW
aran
gal
Nal
gond
aG
untu
rK
urno
olTo
tal
sam
ple
BT
Cot
ton
1Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g M
EC
H-1
224
.155
.925
.72.
031
.12
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
grow
ing
RC
S-2
72.7
26.8
24.3
4.1
43.5
3Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g B
anni
-12
2.1
3.1
18.9
4.1
5.5
4Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g U
noff
icia
l BT
1.1
14.2
31.1
89.8
19.9
5Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s, A
grl.
Off
icer
rec
omm
ende
d5.
92.
40
03.
26
Per
cent
of
farm
ers,
see
d de
aler
rec
omm
ende
d18
.711
.816
.22.
014
.47
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
neig
hbou
ring
far
mer
s re
com
men
ded
40.6
48.0
52.7
53.1
46.2
8Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s M
onsa
nto/
Ras
i fie
ld s
taff
reco
mm
ende
d4.
83.
14.
10
3.7
9Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s, d
ecid
ing
to g
row
n on
ow
n se
lf29
.934
.627
.044
.932
.510
Mos
tly g
row
n pr
evio
us c
rops
(T
hree
) (%
)C
otto
n (5
5)C
otto
n (5
8)C
otto
n (4
2)C
otto
n (5
9)C
otto
n (6
8)C
hilli
es (
13)
Chi
llies
(15
)C
hilli
es (
53)
Chi
llies
(20
)C
hilli
es (
20)
Mai
ze (
9)M
aize
(14
)R
agi (
20)
S.Fl
ower
(20)
Mai
ze(3
6)11
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
getti
ng te
chni
cal a
dvis
e fr
omre
com
men
ding
age
ncy
3.2
0.8
00
1.6
12Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s ge
tting
see
ds o
n cr
edit
5451
1412
4113
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
getti
ng e
xpos
ure
visi
ts f
rom
reco
mm
endi
ng a
genc
y5
1647
1016
CESS Monograph - 3 35
Tabl
e 3.
16:
Con
td...
Sl.N
oIt
emW
aran
gal
Nal
gond
aG
untu
rK
urno
olTo
tal
sam
ple
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
1Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g B
unny
18.0
250
.54
30.7
719
.05
31.4
42
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
grow
ing
Tul
si1.
8011
.83
10.2
614
.29
7.58
3Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g 44
0.0
2.15
0.0
52.3
84.
924
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
grow
ing
Oth
ers
80.1
835
.48
58.9
714
.29
56.0
65
Mos
tly g
row
n pr
evio
us c
rops
(T
hree
) (%
)C
otto
n (6
8)C
otto
n (6
6)C
otto
n (3
4)C
otto
n (8
6)C
otto
n (6
4)B
ajra
(24
)R
agi (
54 )
Chi
llies
(59
)R
agi (
43)
Rag
i (59
)R
agi (
56)
Chi
llies
(13)
Rag
i (86
)S.
Flow
er(3
3) C
hilli
es(2
2)6
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
getti
ng te
chni
cal a
dvis
e fr
omre
com
men
ding
age
ncy
6.7
1.6
04.
83.
87
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
getti
ng s
eeds
on
cred
it fr
omre
com
men
ding
age
ncy
4726
1438
348
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
getti
ng s
eeds
on
cred
it47
2614
3834
9Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s ge
tting
exp
osur
e vi
sits
fro
mre
com
men
ding
age
ncy
6.7
3.3
410
10.2
CESS Monograph - 3 36
The adoption of BT cotton is mainly on the advice of neighbouring farmers (46.2%)and own decision (32.5%). The role of neither the field staff of BT hybrid companies(3.7%) nor the Agricultural Department personnel (3.2%) is significant. The seeddealer could motivate 14.4% of the farmers to take-up BT cultivation. The previouscrops grown in case of BT cotton crop are mainly cotton (68%) and chillies (20%).The percent of BT cotton farmers getting technical advise from the recommendingagency is negligible. However, 16 per cent of them reported to have been taken onexposure visits.
Official and Unofficial BT Cotton
It was found that the unofficial BT cotton is more in the districts of Kurnool andGuntur (Table 3.17). The percent of farmers growing unofficial BT cotton in Kurnoolis the highest with 94 per cent and followed by Guntur with 50 per cent. The menaceof unofficial BT cotton seeds is the lowest in Warangal, probably because of thestrong farmers mobilization in the district unlike other districts. There is no particulartrend in the cultivation of unofficial BT cotton among social categories. However,among size groups, maximum number of small farmers (29%) cultivated them. Evenamong the unofficial BT, Guntur district cultivators (19% of BT farmers) have gonefor Bunny hybrid, which is definitely BT, though not officially approved for 2004-2005.
Table 3.17: Official and Unofficial BT Cotton in Selected Districts
District/Category Official BT cotton Unofficial BT cotton Total
Districts
Warangal 181 (96.79) 6 (3.21) 187 (100)Nalgonda 105 (82.68) 22 (17.32) 127 (100)Guntur 37 (50.00) 37 (50.00) 74 (100)Kurnool 3 (6.12) 46 (93.88) 49 (100)
Social categories
SCs 70 (65.42) 37 (34.58) 107 (100)BCs 146 (82.95) 30 (17.05) 176 (100)Ocs 110 (71.43) 44 (28.57) 154 (100)
Size categories
SFs 133 (71.12) 54 (28.88) 187 (100)MFs 117 (78.00) 33 (22.00) 150 (100)LFs 76 (76.00) 24 (24.00) 100 (100)
Total sample 326 (74.60) 111 (25.40) 437 (100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate respective percentages
CESS Monograph - 3 37
Refuge, Barrier and Trap Crops
It is known that the bollworm can develop resistance to BT toxin, if it is feedingexclusively on the BT gene incorporated crop without any change. Therefore, thecompanies are trying to postpone the development of resistance agronomically bygrowing certain rows of non-BT cotton in the BT cotton crop. It will be interestingto see how many of the BT farmers have grown such refuge rows. The farmers arealso questioned about growing trap crops and barrier crops, recommended byscientists as agronomical ways of controlling bollworms. The details are presentedin Table 3.18.
It can be observed from the table that only 63 per cent of the BT cotton farmershave grown refuge crops. Though good percent of BT farmers have grown refugein Warangal (84%) and Nalgonda (78%), the farmers in Guntur (27%) and Kurnool(2%) have not cared to grow it. This practice is almost non-existent in Kurnool.The farmers revealed that they have now stopped growing refuge, though theycultivated it in some rows in the first year. They feared losing some portion of theirland and further they observed that the bollworm attack is very heavy for the refugerows, which in turn makes it necessary to spray some chemicals. If this trend ofnon-observance of refuge rows increases further in BT cotton cultivation, theselection pressure for the pest may increase, as it faces BT cotton in thousands ofacres in contiguous areas. Finally, it may lead to development of full resistance in8-10 years as the scientists warned5.
The practice of growing trap crops and barrier crops in BT cotton is almost same.While 14 per cent of the BT farmers have grown trap crops, which is 26 per centlower than that of non-BT, barrier crops are grown by 14 per cent of the farmers inboth BT and non-BT. This allays the fear that the new technology like BT may notbe conducive to non-pesticidal ways of controlling pest using agronomic measures.Therefore, Bollgard technology can be a supplement to the other measures like trapcrops, barrier crops etc at the field level. It may be altogether a different issue at themacro policy level, where the focus of research on environment friendly and costeffective ways of pest control may be lost.
5 A study at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi by Chandrasekhar andGujar in 2004 found that the resistance may not last longer than 7-10 years (Krishnakumar,2004). Similar results were reported by Prakash (1997) and Shiva et al (1999). On the otherhand scholars like Qaim (2001) opined that selection pressure in developing countries maybe low in view of the small land holding size and it may delay development of resistance.
CESS Monograph - 3 38Ta
ble
3.18
: D
etai
ls o
f R
efug
e, B
arri
er a
nd T
rap
Cro
ps in
BT
Cot
ton
Far
mer
s
Sl.N
oIt
emW
aran
gal
Nal
gond
aG
untu
rK
urno
olA
. P.
BT
Cot
ton
1Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g re
fuge
cro
p84
.078
.027
.02.
063
.42
Ave
rage
num
ber
of r
ows
of r
efug
e gr
own
2.5
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.5
3Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g tr
ap c
rops
26.7
1.6
2.7
12.2
13.7
4A
vera
ge n
umbe
r of
row
s of
trap
cro
ps g
row
n1.
95
1.5
5.0
2.3
5Fr
eque
ntly
gro
wn
trap
cro
ps w
ith %
of
Cas
tor
(54)
Cas
tor
(100
)R
ed g
ram
(10
0)M
arig
old
(67)
Cas
tor
(52)
farm
ers
grow
ing
them
Mar
igol
d (2
6)C
asto
r (3
3)M
arig
old
(28)
6Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g ba
rrie
r cr
ops
18.2
14.2
4.1
12.2
14.0
7A
vera
ge n
umbe
r of
row
s of
bar
rier
cro
ps g
row
n4.
35.
11.
34.
74.
48
Freq
uent
ly g
row
n ba
rrie
r cr
ops
with
% o
fR
ed g
ram
(53
)R
edgr
am (
83)
Red
gra
m (
100)
Red
gra
m (
100)
Red
gra
m (
69)
farm
ers
grow
ing
them
Cas
tor
(27)
Cas
tor
(11)
Red
gra
m (
100)
Cas
tor
(18)
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
3Pe
r ce
nt o
f fa
rmer
s gr
owin
g tr
ap c
rops
33.3
6.6
3.4
23.8
18.8
4A
vera
ge n
umbe
r of
row
s of
trap
cro
ps g
row
n4.
54.
01
44.
35
Freq
uent
ly g
row
n tr
ap c
rops
with
% o
fC
asto
r (5
2)C
asto
r (1
75)
Red
gra
m (
100)
Mar
igol
d (1
00)
Cas
tor
(46)
farm
ers
grow
ing
them
Mar
igol
d (3
6)M
arig
old
(25)
Mar
igol
d (4
3)6
Per
cent
of
farm
ers
grow
ing
barr
ier
crop
s14
.721
.33.
44.
814
.07
Ave
rage
num
ber
of r
ows
of b
arri
er c
rops
gro
wn
3.5
6.0
16
4.8
8Fr
eque
ntly
gro
wn
barr
ier
crop
s w
ith %
of
Red
gra
m (
73)
Red
gram
(77
)R
ed g
ram
(10
0)G
inge
ly (
100)
Red
gra
m (
73)
farm
ers
grow
ing
them
Cas
tor
(36)
Cas
tor
(15)
Cas
tor
(8)
4.1. Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cottons
The farmers incur costs directly and also indirectly. While the cash expenses aredirectly seen, the utilization of his fixed assets (like land, farm buildings, implementsetc) and owned inputs like family labour in production have also to be accounted togive a realistic picture of the total costs incurred. This is attempted in the study bytaking both the fixed and operational costs. Different cost concepts (Costs A, B, C)used in standard farm management studies are calculated in the study andcorresponding farm business measures like net income, farm business income, familylabour income and farm investment income are worked out. This is necessary to bemore scientific and also to be comparable6.
The cost of production in an acre of BT cotton is 17 per cent higher in BT cotton atRs.16975 compared to Rs.14507 for non-BT cotton in the state (Table 4.1). Thecost A2, which mainly shows the paid out costs, is Rs.11445 and higher by 11.8 percent over non-BT cotton. The expenditure on insecticides decreased by 18.2 percent in BT cotton over non-BT cotton. This decrease in cost on insecticides by Rs.594 is more than matched by increased costs on seed (Rs.804), labour costs (Rs.801),fertilizers (Rs.86) and irrigation charges (Rs.45). The cost of seed increased by134.4 per cent from Rs.598 in non-BT cotton to Rs.1402 in BT cotton, whereaslabour costs increased by 20.58 per cent in BT cotton. Out of the Rs.801 increaseon labour, human labour accounted for the major portion viz., Rs.676. The BTfarmers on an average hired human labour more than non-BT farmer by an amountof Rs.303 and utilized family labour more intensively. This increase in employmentopportunities due to the BT technology is a big gain for the rural economy as awhole, since the rural employment growth has been the biggest concern in the statein the past decade. This creation of employment opportunities is typical of biologicaltechnology as was the case during the green revolution days.
The fixed costs are also higher in BT cotton due to higher rent paid for leased-inland and imputed values of rental value of owned land, depreciation and interest onowned fixed capital. The rental value of owned land is higher due to higher grossincome whereas the latter two are higher due to higher inventory and fixed assets
6 The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices also presents the costs and returns inthis manner.
4. Costs and Returns
CESS Monograph - 3 40
with the BT farmers compared to the non-BT farmers. On the whole the total costof production (cost C) in BT cotton is Rs.16975 per acre and is higher by 17 percent compared to non-BT cotton. This includes paid costs and imputed costs ofdepreciation, interest on owned fixed capital, rental value of owned land, familylabour etc. The cost per quintal in BT cotton is lower by Rs.223 and 11 per centcompared to non-BT. The farmer entrepreneur must be covering all these costs iffarming is to be termed profitable. If he could not cover all costs, then covering thepaid-up costs (Cost A1) is crucial to remain in business.
The reduction in insecticides is only 18 per cent, whereas Qaim and Matuschke(2004) showed from the review of studies that this reduction was to an extent of 77per cent in Mexico, 65 per cent in China. In the study area, farmers sprayed pesticideswith a fear of attack of Heliothes larvae from the adjoining fields, as they are stillnot fully aware of the nature of Bt technology. This may change later and moresavings in insecticides may result. Ismael et al (2002) also observed that during theearly stages of adoption, Bt growers use more insecticides than needed6. Severalstudies (See for e.g. Qaim and Matuschke, 2004; Huang et al 2002a) showed thatthe Bt technology adopting farmers also increase their input use. This also increasesthe cost of cultivation compared to non-Bt farmers. The study by Narayanamoorthyand Kalamkar (2006) also found a 34 per cent increase in the cost of cultivation ofBt cotton over non-Bt.
The physical yield obtained in BT cotton is 9.49 quintals per acre compared to 7.21quintals per acre for non-BT cotton and 32 per cent higher than non-BT. This clearlyshows the superiority of BT cotton in increasing yields over non-BT cotton andgives us a clue as to why the non-BT cotton seed manufacturers are going out ofbusiness.
CESS Monograph - 3 41
Table 4.1: Costs and Returns in BT Cotton and Non-BT Cotton
Item BT NBT Change Per cent Totalover non-BT change
in Rs. over non-BT
Casual labour 1779.7 1476.31 303.39 20.55** 1674.58Attached labour 217.74 127.29 90.45 71.06** 186.46Family labour 1128 845.78 282.22 33.37** 1035.21Total human labour 3125.4 2449.38 676.02 27.6** 2896.25Bullock labour 859.48 855.36 4.12 0.482 858.05Machine labour 707.6 586.83 120.77 20.58** 665.75Seed 1402.2 598.17 804.03 134.4** 1123.57Chemical fertilisers 1579.2 1602.67 -23.47 -1.46 1587.36Manure 514.76 405.66 109.1 26.89** 478.31Total fertilizers 2094 2008.33 85.67 4.266 2065.67Insecticides 2673 3267.43 -594.43 -18.2** 2878.98Irrigation charges 98.25 53.61 44.64 83.27** 82.79Interest on working capital 411.83 378.83 33 8.711 400.47Miscellaneous 94.3 83.86 10.44 12.45* 94.5Operational cost 11466 10281.8 1184.2 11.52* 11066Rental value of owned land 3607.1 2715.94 891.16 32.81** 3298.22Rent paid for leased-in-land 753.41 522.7 230.71 44.14** 673.47Land revenue 77.92 55.23 22.69 41.08** 70.06Depreciation on impl&bldgs 276 225 51 22.67** 253Interest on fixed capital 794 706 88 12.46* 747Fixed cost 5508.5 4224.87 1283.63 30.38** 5041.75Cost of production 16975 14506.7 2468.3 17.01* 16107.8Cost A1 10692 9716.25 975.75 10.04* 10353.9Cost A2 11445 10239 1206 11.78* 11027.4Cost B1 12239 10945 1294 11.82* 11774.4Cost B2 15847 13660.9 2186.1 16* 15072.6Cost C1 13367 11790.7 1576.3 13.37* 12809.6Cost C2 16975 14506.7 2468.3 17.01* 16107.8Physical yield in quintals 9.49 7.21 2.28 31.62** 8.7Cost A1/quintal 1126.7 1347.61 -220.91 -16.4* 1190.1Cost A2/quintal 1206.1 1420.1 -214 -15.1* 1267.51Cost B1/quintal 1289.7 1518.02 -228.32 -15* 1353.37Cost B2/quintal 1669.8 1894.71 -224.91 -11.9* 1732.48Cost C1/quintal 1408.6 1635.33 -226.73 -13.9* 1472.36Cost C2/quintal 1788.7 2012.02 -223.32 -11.1* 1851.47Average price per quintal 1750.4 1711.19 39.21 2.291 1739.11Farm business measures 0Gross income in Rs. 16612 12337.7 4274.3 34.64** 15130.3Net income -363 -2169 1806 83.3** -977.52Farm business income 5166.1 2098.73 3067.37 146.2** 4102.91Family labour income 765.01 -1323.2 2088.21 158** 57.687Farm investment income 4038.2 1252.95 2785.25 222.3** 3067.7
Note: * and ** indicates significance at 1 per cent and 5 per cent respectively.
CESS Monograph - 3 42
The immediate fall out of the higher yield in BT cotton is that all its per quintalcosts are lower over non-BT cotton though the absolute costs are higher. The perquintal Cost A2, Cost B
2 and Cost C
2 are lower by 15 per cent, 12 per cent and 11
per cent, respectively in BT cotton over non-BT cotton. It is well known that theeconomic theory states that the average costs matter in decision-making and decidingthe profitability rather than absolute costs. Then, the question to be answered iswhether the increase in yield is attributable to Bt technology alone or are there anyother factors that may be leading to the increase in yield? To answer this question,we go back to the background of the farmers and then take the help of productionfunction analysis.
The percent of irrigated land in BT cotton is 48 per cent compared to 45 per cent incase of non-BT cotton and 7 per cent higher over the latter (Table 3.10). While 80per cent of the BT cotton land is under black soil in the sample, 73 per cent is underblack soil in non-BT cotton. This is 10 per cent higher than the non-BT cotton. Theproblem in soils, as found in the study, is mainly salinity in an extent of 8 and 9 percent of soils in BT cotton and non-BT cotton respectively. The BT cotton farmerscomprises of 25 per cent of SC and STs and lower by non-BT farmers by 7 per centas they have higher proportion viz., 26.3 per cent of these category (Table 3.4).From a size category perspective also, the BT farmers have less number of smallfarmers by 10.5 per cent over non-BT (Table 3.7). As far as literary position isconcerned, there is not much difference as 77 per cent of the farmers are literate inboth BT and non-BT cotton farmers (Table 3.8). It can be inferred from this thatrelatively irrigated and better soils are put under BT cotton cultivation and relativelyupper social and size category farmers are cultivating it. But the difference is notsizeable and it happens like that in case of all the new technologies. The greenrevolution technologies have been utilized by upper stratum of farmers and latergradually spread to the other stratum. But in this case, the small farmers and SC andST farmers also made use of the technology well. Whether this small difference inirrigation, quality of soil and social and economic background of farmers couldhave led to a 32 per cent increase in yield? This question is examined by usingproduction function, which can conclusively reveal about the impact of Bt cottonon yield.
Results of Production Function
The yield in quintals is taken as the dependant variable and expenditure on fertilizers,expenditure on irrigation, expenditure on plant protection, education in years andage in years are taken as the independent variables. Apart from these, the Bt dummyis also included in the production function. The model is specified in double logform and analysed using the method of ordinary least squares. Therefore, thecoefficients are also elasticities. The results show that there is a significant impact
CESS Monograph - 3 43
of Bt cotton hybrid on the yield of the farmers (Table 4.2). The coefficient for Btdummy indicated that there can be a 36 per cent increase due to Bt cotton cultivation.All the other variables contributed positively to the yield except education.Narayanamoorthy and Kalamkar also reported negative contribution of education.But, this may be due to the fact that some of the educated farmers in the samplecould not get good yield because of deficient rainfall.
Table 4.2: Estimated Production Functions (n = 623)
Item Coefficient t-Statistic
Constant -4.420 -12.151*Fertilizers (Rs./ac) 0.438 10.323*Irrigation (Rs./ac) .0003 0.195Pesticide (Rs./ac) 0.386 9.960*Education in years -0.089 -3.185**Age in years 0.062 0.915Bt dummy 0.355 8.561*Adjusted R2 0.581
* and ** indicates significance at 1 per cent and 5 per cent respectively.
The results of the study clearly validate the hypothesis that there can be considerableyield effects in developing countries like India. Other studies also reported increasein yield in the Indian conditions. It was reported that genetically modified cottonhybrids in India improved yields by 29 per cent over the traditional seeds (GoI,2005, P.155). Whereas Naik et al (2005) reported 34 per cent increase in yield fromthe field data from Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in2002-2003, Narayanamoorthy and Kalamkar (2006) reported yield increase of 52per cent in Maharashtra in 2003-2004. The production function analysis of a similarkind by both the above authors showed that there was significant positive impacton Bt cotton yield in their sample studies. There is uncontrolled damage due to thebollworm attack in Andhra Pradesh and this pest pressure is high as cotton is grownin a typically tropical climate in the state. As explained in Qaim and Matuschke(2004), Bt cotton cultivation in this situation results in increase in yield due tobetter management of the pest problem and thereby enabling to reach the potentialof the variety/hybrid in question. Following Qaim and Matuschke (2004), the positiveyield effects can be explained in a damage control framework as below. If Y is theeffective cotton yield, and F (.) is potentital yield without insect damage, whichdepends on variable input, x., D (.) is the damage function determining the fractionof potential output being lost to insect pests. Crop losses depend on exogenous pest
CESS Monograph - 3 44
pressure, N, and they can be reduced through application of chemical insecticides,z, and/or the use of Bt technology.
Y = F (x) [1-D (z, Bt; N) ]
If pest pressure is high and farmers use a lot of chemical insecticides in conventionalcotton, Bt adoption should lead to substantial insecticide reductions. On the otherhand, if there is uncontrolled pest attack with the chemical insecticides, Bt cottoncould increase the effective yield by controlling the damage function, D. This laterseems to have happend in the study area.
Returns in Bt and Non-Bt Cultivation
Ultimately, returns to farming matter in deciding whether the technology is superiorover the non-BT cotton hybrids. In case of farming the necessary business measuresare gross income, net income, farm business income, family labour income andfarm investment income. These are worked out for both BT cotton and non-BTcotton (Table 4.1). The average price realized for BT cotton is Rs.1750/- comparedto Rs.1711/- for non-BT cotton. It is two per cent more than the non-BT. It is contraryto some of the earlier studies, which mentioned that BT cotton is not purchased bytraders on par with the conventional hybrids. The farmers are combining all theirBT and non-BT cotton and selling. Therefore, the traders could not discriminatebetween the two. The small increase in the price for BT cotton reflects the bargainingpower of the BT cotton farmers, who are generally stronger, compared to non-BTfarmers. The average price per quintal in case of BT cotton could cover Cost B
2 and
fall short of Cost C2 by a small margin viz., Rs.39. But, in case of non-BT cotton,
average price per quintal could not cover even B2. The net income viz., gross income
over Cost C2 is negative in both BT and non-BT cotton. This may be indicative of
the farming crisis in the state. But BT performed better here also by being able tocover all the imputed costs along with paid-up costs except a minor portion andimproved over non-BT by 83 per cent. The net income, farm business income,family labour income and farm investment income improved by Rs.1806 (83%),Rs.3067 (146%), Rs.2088 (158 per cent) and Rs.2785 (222%), respectively. Thisclearly shows that BT cotton outperformed non-BT cotton in regard to all themeasures. The farm business income, which shows us the excess of gross incomeover variable costs (Cost A
2), is Rs.5166 per acre in case of BT cotton and 146 per
cent higher comparatively.
CESS Monograph - 3 45
The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) reported negative netreturns of Rs.656 per acre in 1996-97 in cotton in Andhra Pradesh, when the realizedprice per quintal of seed cotton was Rs.1707. The cotton farmers from Punjab arealso reported to have got negative returns in 1995-96 and 1996-97 (GoI, 2000).According to the Commission, in 2001-2002, the net returns are only Rs.120 peracre, when the realized price is Rs.1848. In Gujarat, for 2001-02, the net returnsare –1531 per acre. In the same year, cotton farmers from Maharashtra and TamilNadu also are reported to have got negative returns (GoI, 2005). Therefore, it is notuncommon for the cotton farmers to get negative net returns, if all the paid-out andimputed costs are properly accounted as is done systematically by the CACP.
There may be two reasons for the negative net income for both BT and non-BTfarmers. The first one is the fact that the actual rainfall in 2004-2005 in the studyarea is 33 per cent lower than the normal. This might have reduced the physicalyield. The other factor is the drastic decline in prices for raw cotton during the year.The low cotton prices seem to have affected the net income of both BT and non-BTcotton farmers during the year. The trade liberalization might have this effect. It isnoteworthy that the farm harvest price of cotton declined drastically in this year by21 per cent (Table 4.3). The average price realized for the sample farmers in thestate at Rs.1739/- is 13 per cent lower than the previous seven-year average of farmharvest prices, which was Rs.2000/-. The imports of cotton have increased afterliberalization and an average of 15 lakh bales of cotton was imported in this seven-year period, while only 1.87 lakh bales were imported on an average per annum inthe previous seven year period (Table 4.4). All this might have reduced theprofitability of cotton farmers including BT cotton farmers.
CESS Monograph - 3 46
Tabl
e 4.
3: F
arm
Har
vest
Pri
ces
for
Raw
Cot
ton
in A
ndhr
a P
rade
sh
Yea
r19
94-
1995
-19
96-
1997
-19
98-
1999
-20
00-
2001
-20
02-
2003
-20
04-
9596
9798
9900
0102
0304
05*
Farm
har
vest
Pric
e21
6019
4317
5219
7319
8719
0221
4117
3719
0323
5617
39
* T
he p
rice
for
200
4-20
05 is
the
aver
age
pric
e re
ceiv
ed b
y th
e sa
mpl
e fa
rmer
s7 .
Sour
ce:
Dir
ecto
rate
of
Eco
nom
ics
and
Stat
istic
s, H
yder
abad
.
7 T
he c
orre
spon
ding
far
m h
arve
st p
rice
is
1855
. T
he p
rice
rec
eive
d by
BT
cot
ton
farm
ers
is R
s.17
50 p
er q
uint
al a
nd i
t w
asR
s.17
11 f
or n
on-B
T f
arm
ers.
CESS Monograph - 3 47
Table 4.4: Imports and Exports of Cotton (Lakh bales of 170 kgs each)
Year Opening Stock Imports Exports
1990-91 33.04 - 11.91991-92 22.64 3.0 0.771992-93 32.78 1.15 13.771993-94 33.15 3.0 3.91994-95 26.75 5.89 1.081995-96 35.02 0.5 8.531996-97 39.16 0.3 16.821997-98 30.38 4.13 3.51998-99 30.0 7.87 1.011999-2K 36.5 22.01 0.652000-2001 40.5 22.0 1.02001-2002 29.00 25.0 1.02002-2003 40.00 16 1.02003-04 24 14.88* 10.57*2004-05 NA 11.50* 5.10*
Source: Different issues of Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, GoI* These are taken from CMIE-Agriculture, April 2007
In a study conducted in two districts of Maharashtra, it was found that the yieldincreased by 52 per cent in BT cotton from 15.77 quintals per hectare in non-BTcotton to 24.00 quintals in BT cotton and the same study concluded that the profitper hectare was Rs.31883 in BT cotton as against Rs.17797 in non-BT cottonimplying an increase of 79 per cent, though the cost of pest control increased slightly(Narayanamoorthy and Kalamkar, 2006). A nationwide survey by Nielson and ORGMARG for 2003-04 season concluded that there was a 60 percent reduction inpesticide use and 29 percent increase in yield leading to 78 per cent increase in netprofit. In this background, the results of the study seem quite justifiable.
4.2. Impact across Groups of Farmers
The biotechnology, as already stated at the beginning, is expected to benefit drylands and ecologically fragile areas. Then, what are the benefits of Bt cultivation tothe farmers in these areas? The gains due to the new technology are ideally to beshared among all sections of the farmers equally. But, this does not happen in thereal world due to differences in asset position as well as different positions due tosocial stratification in our society on caste lines. Therefore, one has to ask 'whetherthe new technology benefits the SCs & STs and small farmers on par with the OCsand large farmers?' At the least, are they getting any benefits from the technology toimprove their financial position? We try to find answers to these questions byanalyzing the field survey data of the study here (Table 4.5 and Figure 4.1 and 4.2).
CESS Monograph - 3 48
It can be observed from Table 4.5 that all social groups viz., SC and ST, BC andOC, all size categories of farmers, farmers from all the districts representing differentagro-climatic zones, farmers from both irrigated and rainfed conditions could reducetheir expenditure on pesticides, and increase the yield in quintals per acre. Theincrease in yield over non-Bt cotton is significant in most of the cases at one percent level of significance and at five per cent level of significant for small farmersand un-official Bt farmers. The decrease in the expenditure on pesticides is alsosignificant in most of the groups of farmers. Therefore, it can be concluded that allcategories of farmers got benefited by cultivating Bt cotton. Then, the next question
Table 4.5: Per Cent Changes across Different Categories ofBt Farmers Over Non-Bt Cotton
Sl.No Category Per cent change in Percent change inexpenditure on yield in quintals
pesticides per acre
I SC & ST -7.95 39.62**
BC -18.2* 28.35**
OC -21.73* 29.87**
II Small farmers -26.4** 10.09*
Medium farmers -30.06** 20.56**
Large farmers 14.85* 83.04**
III Irrigated farmers -19.60** 34.86**
Rainfed farmers -17.38* 28.08**
IV Official Bt farmers -9.84 41.19**
Unofficial Bt farmers -33.68** 13.59*
V Warangal -9.71 40.05**
Nalgonda -24.9* 30.21**
Guntur -29.5** 18.85**
Kurnool 17.31* 85.85**
Total sample -18.2** 31.62**
* and ** indicates significance at 1 per cent and 5 per cent respectively.
CESS Monograph - 3 49
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Series1 93.57 97.79 104 86.2 105.1 111.5 117.8 87.46 107.3 86.3 117.9 83.56 119.6 63.65 100
SC & ST
BC OC SF MF LF IrrdUnirr
dOffici
alUnofficial
Warangal
Nalgonda
Guntur
Kurnool
Total sampl
e
that needs an answer is that 'are there not any differences in the extent to which thebenefits accrued to different groups of farmers?' Figures 4.1 and 4.2 answer thisquestion to some extent. It can be seen from Figure 4.1 that the farmers from Guntur,Warangal, irrigated category, large category and OCs got the maximum yield relativeto the total sample. The farmers from the scanty rainfall zone viz., Kurnool andNalgonda obtained very poor yields and of course, the small farmers too. The similarsituation can be observed in the case of net income also (Figure 4.2). The farmersfrom irrigated category (Rs.981/ac), OC category (Rs.711/acre), Guntur (Rs.695/ac.), Warangal (Rs.525/ac.) and large category alone could cover all costs. All theothers could not cover all costs, though they could get higher and positive farmbusiness income over non-Bt cotton. However, as already explained, the deficientrainfall might have affected yield and net income in Nalgonda and Kurnool andalso to other groups of farmers. These two districts basically fall in scanty rainfallzone, with the normal rainfall being 751 mm. in Nalgonda and 670 mm. in Kurnoolcompared to 993 mm. in Warangal and 852 mm. in Guntur. The area under irrigationin these two districts is also quite low with only 25 per cent of the Bt cotton areairrigated compared to a 54 per cent and 85 per cent irrigated areas in Warangal andGuntur respectively. The detailed costs and returns in the selected districts, differentand social categories of farmers, rain fed and irrigated conditions, official andunofficial Bt cottons, different soils are given in the following pages.
Figure 4.1: Per Cent Yield Levels of Different Bt Farmers Relative toTotal Bt Sample
CESS Monograph - 3 50
Costs and Returns in Different Districts
The performance of BT cotton across the four districts studied to represent fourdifferent agro-climatic situations shows that the performance in Guntur and Warangalis quite well compared to Nalgonda and Kurnool (Table 4.6 and 4.7). The costs ofproduction in BT cotton increased by 29 per cent, 14 per cent and 26 per cent inWarangal, Nalgonda and Kurnool respectively over non-BT cotton, whereas itdeclined by one per cent in Guntur. The costs of production are quite high in Warangalat Rs.20307 per acre followed by Guntur (Rs.17830), Nalgonda (Rs.14832) andKurnool (Rs.11705). The costs of insecticides sprayed on BT cotton in all the districtsare lower over non-BT. They are lower by10, 25, 30 and 17 per cent respectively inWarangal, Nalgonda, Guntur and Kurnool, respectively in BT cotton over non-BT.The difference between cost of production between the two is the maximum inWarangal with higher cost of Rs.4600 and minimum in Guntur with a lower cost ofRs.100 in BT cotton.
The physical yield in quintals per acre in BT cotton in Warangal and Guntur is 11,followed by 8 in Nalgonda and 6 in Kurnool. However, the difference over non-BTcotton in these districts was 40, 30, 18, 86 per cent in Warangal, Nalgonda, Guntur
Figure 4.2: Net Income from BT Cotton to Different Categories of Farmers
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Series1 -1275 -839 711 -808 -295 254 981 -1284 -574 -68 525 -1722 695 -1671 -363
SC & ST
BC OC SF MF LF Irrd UnirrdOffici
alUnoffi
cialWaran
galNalgonda
Guntur
Kurnool
Total sampl
e
CESS Monograph - 3 51
and Kurnool districts, respectively8 . The average costs were the least in Gunturfollowed by Warangal. But the average price realized is the highest in Warangal,which may be due to the existence of marketing yards in the district and alsocontinuous farmers’ movements for remunerative prices for their cotton. Becauseof this higher average price realization, the BT farmers have covered even the CostC
2 and achieved positive net income in Warangal. The BT farmers of Guntur district
could also cover all costs including Cost C2
and get positive net income. On theother hand, the non-BT farmers in these two districts could not cover all costs. Infact, they could cover only paid-up costs represented by Cost A
2. In Nalgonda, the
BT farmers could cover only Cost A2 and family labour costs, whereas the non-BT
farmers could not cover even the family labour costs. But the farm business incomeimproved from Rs.573 in non-BT to Rs.2816 in BT cotton. In case of Kurnool, thesituation is much worse. Though the BT cotton performed better than non-BT, itcould also cover only paid-up costs represented by Cost A
2 and could not cover any
other costs. On the other hand, the non-BT cotton in Kurnool could not cover anycosts and incurred a net loss of Rs.1611 per acre, even if paid-up costs are represented.The BT cotton wiped this loss to the farmers and gave a net profit of Rs. 889 peracre on paid-up costs. The district is also notorious for the unofficial BT cottongrown. The unofficial BT cotton seed accounted for 90 per cent of the total BTfarmers in the district. Among all the unofficial BT cottons grown across districts,the farmers in Kurnool revealed that their BT seed performed very poorly. Thismay be one reason.
These findings also suggest that the performance of Bt cotton may be hindered byagro-climatic conditions, as the low performing districts of Nalgonda and Kurnoolfall under low and erratic rainfall districts. The per cent irrigated land in BT farmersin Warangal and Guntur districts is 54 and 85 per cent respectively, whereas it aslow as 27 per cent in Kurnool and 25 per cent in Nalgonda. The per cent of SCs (40)and small farmers (52) are higher in Kurnool district than the Bt cotton farmeraverage. In Kurnool, the drought situation as a result of deficient rainfall was moreacute, as the gap between actual and normal rainfall is 45 per cent. But then this istypical in scanty rainfall region. These factors may explain the low performance ofBt cotton in these districts. Though Warangal and Guntur obtained similar yield,the costs are very high in Warangal. On the other hand in Guntur, the yields arehigher over non-Bt because of canal irrigation. The higher price realization inWarangal saved the farmers from incurring losses.
8 The performance of non-BT was very good in Guntur followed by Warangal and theleast in Kurnool district.
CESS Monograph - 3 52Ta
ble
4.6:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
War
anga
l and
Nal
gond
a D
istr
icts
War
anga
lN
algo
nda
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
cott
onov
er n
on-B
Tch
ange
ove
rco
tton
over
non
-BT
chan
ge o
ver
in R
s.no
n-B
Tin
Rs.
non-
BT
Cas
ual
labo
ur19
15.7
214
20.8
494.
934
.834
1774
.89
1365
.03
409.
8630
.03
Atta
ched
lab
our
464.
722
5.35
239.
410
6.21
165.
211
4.4
50.8
44.4
1
Fam
ily l
abou
r15
02.0
397
2.64
529.
454
.428
1009
.484
0.79
168.
6120
.05
Tota
l hu
man
lab
our
3882
.45
2618
.812
6448
.253
2949
.49
2320
.22
629.
2727
.12
Bul
lock
lab
our
946.
3489
1.49
54.8
56.
1526
925.
2887
5.13
50.1
55.
731
Mac
hine
lab
our
769.
2854
7.93
221.
440
.397
653.
665
1.56
2.04
0.31
3
See
d16
18.5
162
8.33
990.
215
7.59
1488
.558
9.33
899.
1715
2.6
Fert
ilise
rs19
08.7
517
67.1
141.
78.
016
1374
.72
1367
.45
7.27
0.53
2
Man
ure
953.
3768
1.04
272.
339
.987
432.
9627
3.83
159.
1358
.11
Tota
l fe
rtili
zers
2862
.12
2448
.141
416
.912
1807
.68
1641
.28
166.
410
.14
Inse
ctic
ides
2849
.75
3156
.3-3
06.6
-9.7
1223
13.5
130
79.1
-765
.59
-24.
9
Irri
gatio
n ch
arge
s22
1.01
93.3
112
7.7
136.
8653
.19
36.5
516
.64
45.5
3
Inte
rest
on
wor
king
cap
ital
489.
5240
2.26
87.2
621
.692
381.
1534
7.97
33.1
89.
535
Mis
cell
aneo
us23
4.99
160.
7874
.21
46.1
5668
.147
.97
20.1
341
.96
Ope
rati
onal
cos
t13
874
1094
729
2726
.738
1064
0.5
9589
.11
1051
.39
10.9
6
Ren
tal v
alue
of
owne
d la
nd46
33.9
532
64.2
1370
41.9
6328
52.3
721
40.4
871
1.89
33.2
6
Ren
t pa
id f
or l
ease
d-in
-lan
d57
3.99
321.
1525
2.8
78.7
342
533
2.77
92.2
327
.72
Lan
d re
venu
e14
0.66
106.
1434
.52
32.5
2322
.61
31.3
2-8
.71
-27.
8
Dep
reci
atio
n on
im
pl&
bldg
s27
526
69
3.38
3521
520
96
2.87
1
Inte
rest
on
fixe
d ca
pita
l80
980
27
0.87
2867
665
719
2.89
2
Item
CESS Monograph - 3 53Ta
ble
4.6:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
War
anga
l and
Nal
gond
a D
istr
icts
(C
ontd
...)
War
anga
lN
algo
nda
Item
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
cott
onov
er n
on-B
Tch
ange
ove
rco
tton
over
non
-BT
chan
ge o
ver
in R
s.no
n-B
Tin
Rs.
non-
BT
Fix
ed c
ost
6432
.647
59.5
1673
35.1
5341
90.9
833
70.5
782
0.41
24.3
4C
ost
of p
rodu
ctio
n20
306.
615
707
4600
29.2
8414
831.
512
959.
718
71.8
14.4
4C
ost A
112
787.
610
347
2441
23.5
8898
68.7
189
88.6
488
0.07
9.79
1C
ost A
213
361.
610
668
2694
25.2
4910
293.
793
21.4
197
2.29
10.4
3C
ost
B1
1417
0.6
1147
027
0123
.545
1096
9.7
9978
.41
991.
299.
934
Cos
t B
218
804.
514
734
4071
27.6
2713
822.
112
118.
917
03.2
14.0
5C
ost
C1
1567
2.6
1244
332
3025
.955
1197
9.1
1081
9.2
1159
.910
.72
Cos
t C
220
306.
615
707
4600
29.2
8414
831.
512
959.
718
71.8
14.4
4Ph
ysic
al y
ield
in q
uint
als
11.1
97.
993.
240
.05
7.93
6.09
1.84
30.2
1C
ost A
1/qu
inta
l11
42.7
712
95-1
52.2
-11.
7612
44.4
814
75.9
7-2
31.4
9-1
5.7
Cos
t A2/
quin
tal
1194
.07
1335
.2-1
41.1
-10.
5712
98.0
715
30.6
1-2
32.5
4-1
5.2
Cos
t B
1/qu
inta
l12
66.3
614
35.5
-169
.1-1
1.78
1383
.32
1638
.49
-255
.17
-15.
6C
ost
B2/
quin
tal
1680
.48
1844
.1-1
63.6
-8.8
7317
43.0
119
89.9
7-2
46.9
6-1
2.4
Cos
t C
1/qu
inta
l14
00.5
915
57.3
-156
.7-1
0.06
1510
.61
1776
.55
-265
.94
-15
Cos
t C
2/qu
inta
l18
14.7
119
65.8
-151
.1-7
.686
1870
.321
28.0
3-2
57.7
3-1
2.1
Ave
rage
pri
ce p
er q
uint
al18
61.6
417
94.9
66.7
43.
7183
1653
.15
1624
.62
28.5
31.
756
Far
m b
usin
ess
mea
sure
sG
ross
inco
me
in R
s.20
831.
814
341
6491
45.2
613
109.
598
93.9
432
15.5
632
.5N
et i
ncom
e52
5.18
2-1
365
1890
-138
.5-1
722
-306
5.7
1343
.7-4
3.8
Farm
bus
ines
s in
com
e74
70.1
636
73.3
3797
103.
3628
15.7
757
2.52
622
43.2
4439
1.8
Fam
ily l
abou
r in
com
e20
27.2
1-3
92.8
2420
-616
.1-7
12.6
-222
515
12.4
-68
Farm
inv
estm
ent
inco
me
5968
.13
2700
.732
6712
0.98
1806
.37
-268
.26
2074
.63
-773
CESS Monograph - 3 54Ta
ble
4.7:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
Gun
tur
and
Kur
nool
Dis
tric
ts
Gun
tur
Kur
nool
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
cott
onov
er n
on-B
Tch
ange
ove
rco
tton
over
non
-BT
chan
ge o
ver
in R
s.no
n-B
Tin
Rs.
non-
BT
Cas
ual
labo
ur20
16.7
2162
.9-1
46.2
-6.7
5911
14.2
772.
9334
1.27
44.1
5
Atta
ched
lab
our
227.
0519
.99
207.
110
35.8
38.3
038
.3
Fam
ily l
abou
r76
8.62
819.
79-5
1.17
-6.2
4269
6.21
668.
8527
.36
4.09
1
Tota
l hu
man
lab
our
3012
.330
02.6
89.
620.
3204
1848
.814
41.7
840
7.02
28.2
3
Bul
lock
lab
our
679.
9985
9.46
-179
.5-2
0.88
797.
4759
0.57
206.
935
.03
Mac
hine
lab
our
751.
8762
4.77
127.
120
.343
614.
1842
0.38
193.
846
.1
See
d14
2265
8.4
763.
611
5.98
693.
3126
5.1
428.
2116
1.5
Fert
ilise
rs14
46.7
1880
.7-4
34-2
3.08
1469
.912
26.1
324
3.77
19.8
8
Tota
l fe
rtili
zers
1642
.219
78-3
35.8
-16.
9816
51.5
1516
.713
4.8
8.88
8
Man
ure
195.
4897
.398
.18
100.
918
1.56
290.
57-1
09.0
1-3
7.5
Inse
ctic
ides
3220
4567
.08
-134
7-2
9.5
2195
.218
71.2
832
3.92
17.3
1
Irri
gatio
n ch
arge
s10
.65.
415.
1995
.933
49.9
736
.613
.37
36.5
3
Inte
rest
on
wor
king
cap
ital
408.
9245
4.99
-46.
07-1
0.13
304.
9223
7.45
67.4
728
.41
Mis
cella
neou
s1.
879.
01-7
.14
-79.
2512
.824
.53
-11.
73-4
7.8
Ope
ratio
nal
cost
1115
012
159.
8-1
010
-8.3
0481
68.1
6404
.39
1763
.71
27.5
4
Ren
tal v
alue
of
owne
d la
nd42
73.6
3584
.19
689.
419
.235
1238
.685
0.36
388.
2445
.66
Ren
t pa
id f
or l
ease
d-in
-lan
d12
83.9
1085
.59
198.
318
.267
1270
.111
50.9
411
9.16
10.3
5
Lan
d re
venu
e56
3521
6017
3.49
28.3
145.
1951
3
Dep
reci
atio
n on
im
pl&
bldg
s27
226
93
1.11
5223
021
812
5.50
5
Inte
rest
on
fixe
d ca
pita
l79
579
7-2
-0.2
5162
561
96
0.96
9
Item
CESS Monograph - 3 55Ta
ble
4.7:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
Gun
tur
and
Kur
nool
Dis
tric
ts C
ontd
...)
Gun
tur
Kur
nool
Item
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
BT
cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cha
nge
Per
cent
cott
onov
er n
on-B
Tch
ange
ove
rco
tton
over
non
-BT
chan
ge o
ver
in R
s.no
n-B
Tin
Rs.
non-
BT
Fix
ed c
ost
6680
.557
70.7
890
9.7
15.7
6435
37.2
2866
.667
0.6
23.3
9C
ost
of p
rodu
ctio
n17
830
1793
0.6
-100
.6-0
.561
1170
592
70.9
924
34.0
126
.25
Cos
t A1
1070
911
644
-935
-8.0
378
75.4
5981
.84
1893
.56
31.6
6C
ost A
211
993
1272
9.6
-736
.6-5
.787
9145
.571
32.7
820
12.7
228
.22
Cos
t B
112
788
1352
6.6
-738
.6-5
.46
9770
.577
51.7
820
18.7
226
.04
Cos
t B
217
062
1711
0.8
-48.
8-0
.285
1100
986
02.1
424
06.8
627
.98
Cos
t C
113
557
1434
6.4
-789
.4-5
.502
1046
784
20.6
320
46.3
724
.3C
ost
C2
1783
017
930.
6-1
00.6
-0.5
6111
705
9270
.99
2434
.01
26.2
5Ph
ysic
al y
ield
in q
uint
als
11.3
59.
551.
818
.848
6.04
3.25
2.79
85.8
5C
ost A
1/qu
inta
l94
3.53
1219
.27
-275
.7-2
2.62
1303
.918
40.5
7-5
36.6
7-2
9.2
Cos
t A2/
quin
tal
1056
.613
32.9
4-2
76.3
-20.
7315
14.2
2194
.7-6
80.5
-31
Cos
t B
1/qu
inta
l11
26.7
1416
.4-2
89.7
-20.
4516
17.6
2385
.16
-767
.56
-32.
2C
ost
B2/
quin
tal
1503
.217
91.7
1-2
88.5
-16.
118
22.7
2646
.81
-824
.11
-31.
1C
ost
C1/
quin
tal
1194
.415
02.2
4-3
07.8
-20.
4917
32.9
2590
.96
-858
.06
-33.
1C
ost
C2/
quin
tal
1570
.918
77.5
5-3
06.7
-16.
3319
3828
52.6
1-9
14.6
1-3
2.1
Ave
rage
pri
ce p
er q
uint
al16
32.2
1629
.94
2.26
0.13
8716
61.4
1698
.91
-37.
51-2
.21
Far
m b
usin
ess
mea
sure
sG
ross
inco
me
in R
s.18
525
1556
5.9
2959
19.0
110
035
5521
.46
4513
.54
81.7
5N
et i
ncom
e69
4.76
-236
4.7
3059
-129
.4-1
671
-374
9.53
2078
.53
-55.
4Fa
rm b
usin
ess
inco
me
6532
2836
.33
3696
130.
388
9.19
-161
1.32
2500
.51
-155
Fam
ily l
abou
r in
com
e14
63.4
-154
4.9
3008
-194
.7-9
74.4
-308
0.68
2106
.28
-68.
4Fa
rm i
nves
tmen
t in
com
e57
63.4
2016
.54
3747
185.
8119
2.98
-228
0.17
2473
.15
-108
CESS Monograph - 3 56
Costs and Returns among Social Categories
The gains due to the new technology are ideally to be shared among all sections ofthe farmers equally. But, this does not happen in the real world due to differences inasset position as well as different positions due to social stratification in our societyon caste lines. Therefore, one has to ask ‘whether the new technology benefits theSCs & STs and small farmers on par with the OCs and large farmers?’ At the least,are they getting any benefits from the technology to improve their financial position?We try to find answers to these questions from analyzing the field survey data ofthe study here.
The BT cotton farmers from SCs9 obtained 10 per cent lesser yield than their counterparts from OCs with a two per cent lower cost of production (Table 4.8). Thoughtheir operational costs are more than OCs by 5 per cent, their overall cost ofproduction is lower due to 15 per cent lower fixed costs. The BT farmers from SCsincurred 9 per cent higher cost per quintal than the OC farmers. As a result of thehigher yield for the OCs, the average costs are relatively low for the OCs. Moreover,the BT farmers from OCs are also able to get higher price to their produce, whichmay be due to their better bargaining and social position. As a result of this, the OC-BT farmers could cover all the costs and get a net income of Rs.711 per acre, whileBT farmers from SCs could not cover Cost C
2 and get a net loss of Rs.1275 per acre.
But this happened not only with the SCs, but also with the BCs. When we considerthe paid-up costs represented by Cost A
2, the SC BT farmers got an income of Rs.4162
per acre and this is lower than BT farmers from OCs by 30 per cent.
Then, if we compare the BT farmers from SCs with non-BT farmers from the samecommunity, a different picture emerges. They benefited considerably from thecultivation of BT cotton as seen from the Table 4.8. The BT farmers from SCs got40 per cent higher yield than non-BT SC farmers with 17 per cent lower cost perquintal. This has led to improving the net income by 59 per cent. The farm businessincome, which shows the excess of gross income over paid-up costs, is higher bythree times than non-BT farmers from SCs. Therefore, it is very clear that the farmersfrom SCs, who are also generally small farmers, got benefited from growing thistechnology, though not on par with the OCs and BCs. On the whole, all socialcategories of farmers are better off with BT cotton than without the BT cotton.
9 The category of SCs in the text includes SCs and STs, unless otherwise stated.
CESS Monograph - 3 57Ta
ble
4.8:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
BT
and
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Soc
ial C
ateg
oryw
ise
BT
Cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
SC
BC
OC
SC
BC
OC
Cas
ual
labo
ur13
11.9
517
21.5
1993
.311
52.4
314
06.5
1706
.2
Atta
ched
lab
our
51.0
242
241.
4223
8.85
76.7
514
59.3
9822
0.62
Fam
ily l
abou
r16
80.9
610
89.5
782.
913
21.3
778
2.32
611.
81
Tota
l hu
man
lab
our
3043
.934
3052
.530
15.1
2550
.55
2248
.225
38.6
Bul
lock
lab
our
1076
.76
943.
9271
4.62
1007
.49
859.
1477
6.85
Mac
hine
lab
our
723.
1477
3.58
649.
5864
4.06
658.
8448
5.63
See
d13
15.4
714
66.1
1382
.355
6.23
622.
259
4.35
Fert
ilise
rs15
44.9
1616
.315
62.1
1496
.83
1757
.714
97.1
Tota
l fe
rtili
sers
1993
.17
2282
.219
80.4
1983
.28
2267
.217
57.7
Man
ure
448.
2766
5.88
418.
3548
6.45
509.
4726
0.61
Inse
ctic
ides
2693
.03
2801
.125
63.9
2925
.76
3424
.432
75.7
Irri
gatio
n ch
arge
s69
.05
124.
6487
.71
76.5
748
.06
47.9
8
Inte
rest
on
wor
king
cap
ital
395.
2143
340
0.99
357.
8239
5.51
372.
21
Mis
cella
neou
s77
.31
131.
5183
.36
117.
1363
.92
87.7
8
Ope
rati
onal
cos
t11
387.
0712
009
1087
810
218.
910
587
9936
.8
Ren
tal v
alue
of
owne
d la
nd31
65.9
938
14.7
3615
.622
18.8
828
69.3
2803
.8
Ren
t pa
id f
or l
ease
d-in
-lan
d75
7.71
543.
8591
8.85
621.
0338
9.62
607.
42
Lan
d re
venu
e14
0.72
55.8
373
.03
82.8
759
.68
37.1
5
Dep
reci
atio
n on
im
pl&
bldg
s17
923
528
718
122
627
7
Inte
rest
on
fixe
d ca
pita
l59
078
580
659
576
580
3
Item
CESS Monograph - 3 58Ta
ble
4.8:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
BT
and
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Soc
ial C
ateg
oryw
ise
(C
ontd
...)
BT
Cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
SC
BC
OC
SC
BC
OC
Fix
ed c
osts
4833
.42
5434
.457
00.5
3698
.78
4309
.645
28.3
Cos
t of
pro
duct
ion
1622
0.49
1744
316
578
1391
7.7
1489
714
465
Cos
t A1
1002
5.83
1121
010
455
9161
.39
1009
196
39.2
Cos
t A2
1078
3.54
1175
411
374
9782
.42
1048
010
247
Cos
t B
111
373.
5412
539
1218
010
377.
411
245
1105
0
Cos
t B
214
539.
5316
353
1579
612
596.
314
115
1385
3
Cos
t C
113
054.
513
628
1296
311
698.
812
028
1166
1
Cos
t C
216
220.
4917
443
1657
813
917.
714
897
1446
5
Phys
ical
yie
ld in
qui
ntal
s8.
889.
289.
876.
367.
237.
6
Cos
t A1/
quin
tal
1129
.035
1208
1059
.314
40.4
713
95.7
1268
.3
Cos
t A2/
quin
tal
1214
.363
1266
.611
52.4
1538
.12
1449
.613
48.2
Cos
t B
1/qu
inta
l12
80.8
0513
51.2
1234
1631
.67
1555
.414
53.9
Cos
t B
2/qu
inta
l16
37.3
3517
62.2
1600
.419
80.5
519
52.2
1822
.8
Cos
t C
1/qu
inta
l14
70.1
0214
68.6
1313
.418
39.4
316
63.6
1534
.4
Cos
t C
2/qu
inta
l18
26.6
3218
79.6
1679
.721
88.3
120
60.5
1903
.3
Ave
rage
pri
ce p
er q
uint
al16
83.0
817
89.2
1751
.717
01.0
617
17.1
1709
.9
Far
m b
usin
ess
mea
sure
s
Gro
ss in
com
e in
Rs.
1494
5.75
1660
417
289
1081
8.7
1241
512
995
Net
inc
ome
-127
4.74
-839
.371
0.62
-309
8.9
-248
2.3
-147
0
Farm
bus
ines
s in
com
e41
62.2
0648
49.9
5915
.110
36.3
219
34.3
2748
.7
Fam
ily l
abou
r in
com
e40
6.21
6225
0.2
1493
.5-1
777.
6-1
700
-858
.1
Farm
inv
estm
ent
inco
me
2481
.246
3760
.451
32.2
-285
.05
1152
2136
.9
Item
CESS Monograph - 3 59
Costs and Returns Among Size Classes of Farmers
The small farmer is the most vulnerable farmer to all kinds of problems in farming.Therefore, he must be the center of our analysis regarding introduction of a newtechnology and associated risks. An attempt is made to bring out this analysis inTable 4.9 and explained below. We need to remember here that farmers owning lessthan 4.99 acres of land are classified as small in the study as per the standard normin India. The large farmers are those who own 10 acres of above.
The BT farmers from SFs obtained 23 per cent lower yield compared to the BTfarmers from the LFs with a 20 per cent lesser total cost of production and 3 percent higher cost per quintal. The small farmers spent lower amounts on almost allitems of production. Surprisingly, the seed cost per acre of small farmers growingBT cotton is also lower by 27 per cent compared to the large farmers growing BTcotton indicating that the small farmers might have gone for unofficial BT seeds.They also spent 18 per cent less on insecticides compared to large farmers growingBT cotton.
The small farmers got lower net income by four times compared to the large farmersin BT cultivation. The farm business income is also lower by 37 per cent in case ofsmall farmers growing BT cotton compared to the LFs growing the same cotton.On the other hand, the SFs growing BT cotton have significantly improved theirposition compared to the non-BT growing SFs. They got a 10 per cent higher yieldcompared to SFs growing non-BT cotton and average cost per quintal is also lowerby12 per cent. The net income improved by 69 per cent and farm business incomeimproved by 108 per cent. This clearly shows that the small farmers are better offwith BT cotton than without BT cotton. On the whole, the small farmers are doingworse compared to the large farmers vis-à-vis SC farmers against OC farmers.
CESS Monograph - 3 60Ta
ble
4.9:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
BT
and
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Size
Cat
egor
ywis
e
BT
Cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
SF
MF
LF
SF
MF
LF
Cas
ual
labo
ur14
06.9
1820
.721
95.1
1342
.29
1829
.812
30.8
Atta
ched
lab
our
49.4
719
5.22
453.
630
.069
615
4.06
121.
29
Fam
ily l
abou
r14
25.5
1486
.777
0.29
1406
.832
1003
.832
6.07
Tota
l hu
man
lab
our
2881
.835
02.6
3419
2779
.192
2987
.716
78.2
Bul
lock
lab
our
834.
9696
1.8
782.
6110
0295
2.3
586.
17
Mac
hine
lab
our
658.
3668
8.13
788.
4667
5.76
743.
1731
5.04
See
d12
24.5
1471
.715
47.8
599.
6769
4.12
489.
75
Fert
ilise
rs13
17.3
1667
.418
08.9
1728
.13
1890
.611
44.2
Man
ure
432.
4164
6.17
478.
5347
6.24
492.
0723
1.88
Tota
l fe
rtili
sers
1749
.723
13.6
2287
.522
04.3
723
82.7
1376
.1
Inse
ctic
ides
2408
.327
27.4
2941
.332
7038
99.7
2561
Irri
gatio
n ch
arge
s67
.87
133.
0999
.16
71.1
349
.37
39.0
4
Inte
rest
on
wor
king
cap
ital
356.
4843
4.89
455.
7939
1.22
451.
2128
4.67
Mis
cella
neou
s67
.45
143.
1395
.37
62.4
310
6.31
82.4
6
Ope
rati
onal
cos
t10
249
1237
612
417
1105
5.77
1226
774
12.4
Ren
tal v
alue
of
owne
d la
nd28
75.8
3473
.647
1425
71.5
230
2125
19
Ren
t pa
id f
or l
ease
d-in
-lan
d79
3.61
1219
.121
6.8
755.
9470
0.45
90
Lan
d re
venu
e70
.66
73.5
291
.44
105.
7252
.752
.51
Dep
reci
atio
n on
im
pl&
bldg
s18
524
227
519
125
828
5
Inte
rest
on
fixe
d ca
pita
l61
278
781
662
279
080
8
Item
CESS Monograph - 3 61Ta
ble
4.9:
Cos
ts a
nd R
etur
ns in
BT
and
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Size
Cat
egor
ywis
e C
ontd
...)
BT
Cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Item
SF
MF
LF
SF
MF
LF
Fix
ed c
osts
4537
.157
95.2
6113
.242
46.1
848
22.2
3754
.5
Cos
t of
pro
duct
ion
1478
718
172
1853
015
301.
9517
089
1116
7
Cos
t A1
9079
.611
205
1201
399
45.6
611
573
7423
.8
Cos
t A2
9873
.212
424
1223
010
701.
612
274
7513
.8
Cos
t B
110
485
1321
113
046
1132
3.6
1306
483
21.8
Cos
t B
213
361
1668
517
760
1389
5.12
1608
510
841
Cos
t C
111
911
1469
813
816
1273
0.43
1406
886
47.9
Cos
t C
214
787
1817
218
530
1530
1.95
1708
911
167
Phys
ical
yie
ld in
qui
ntal
s8.
189.
9710
.58
7.43
8.27
5.78
Cos
t A1/
quin
tal
1110
1123
.911
35.5
1338
.581
1399
.512
84.4
Cos
t A2/
quin
tal
1207
1246
.211
55.9
1440
.323
1484
.213
00
Cos
t B
1/qu
inta
l12
81.8
1325
.112
33.1
1524
.038
1579
.714
39.8
Cos
t B
2/qu
inta
l16
33.4
1673
.516
78.6
1870
.137
1945
1875
.6
Cos
t C
1/qu
inta
l14
56.1
1474
.213
05.9
1713
.382
1701
.114
96.2
Cos
t C
2/qu
inta
l18
07.6
1822
.617
51.4
2059
.482
2066
.419
32
Ave
rage
pri
ce p
er q
uint
al17
08.9
1793
1775
.417
06.0
617
14.3
1719
.4
Far
m b
usin
ess
mea
sure
s
Gro
ss in
com
e in
Rs.
1397
917
877
1878
412
676.
0314
177
9938
.3
Net
inc
ome
-807
.8-2
94.9
825
3.84
-262
5.93
-291
1-1
229
Farm
bus
ines
s in
com
e41
05.5
5452
.465
54.1
1974
.426
1903
.524
24.5
Fam
ily l
abou
r in
com
e61
7.67
1191
.810
24.1
-121
9.09
-190
8-9
02.5
Farm
inv
estm
ent
inco
me
2680
3965
.657
83.8
567.
5942
899.
6720
98.4
CESS Monograph - 3 62
Costs and Returns in Official and Unofficial BT Cotton
The official BT cotton yielded 24 per cent more than unofficial BT. But, the cost ofproduction in official BT cotton was higher by 37 per cent than the unofficial BTcotton (Table 4.10). The costs of seed, pesticides, fertilizers, labour and all othersare lower in unofficial BT cotton. The fixed costs are also more in official BTcotton by 25 percent, as many of the farmers opting for unofficial BT cotton happenedto be small farmers and SCs. Therefore, the average costs are lower in unofficialBT cotton than BT cotton. Because of this the net income viz., gross income overCost C
2, is slightly higher in unofficial BT cotton than the official one. However,
the farm business income, which indicates the excess of gross income over paid-upcosts, is 26 per cent higher in official BT cotton. The farm investment income,which shows the excess of gross income over paid-up costs and family labour costs,is also higher by 18 per cent over unofficial BT cotton.
Costs and Returns in Irrigated and Unirrigated BT Cotton
The performance of BT cotton under irrigated conditions is much better comparedto BT cotton in unirrigated conditions expectedly and yielded 35 per cent higherthan the latter (Table 4.11). While the BT cotton in irrigated conditions yielded 35per cent higher than non-BT cotton in the same conditions, the BT cotton inunirrigated conditions gave 28 per cent higher yield compared to the non-BT insimilar unirrigated conditions.
The cost of production is higher by 14 per cent in BT cotton in irrigated conditionsover the non-Bt cotton under same conditions. On the other hand, the farmers underirrigated conditions have spent 9 per cent more than BT cotton in unirrigatedconditions. The cost of insecticides was lower by 20 per cent and 17 per centrespectively in irrigated and unirrigated BT cottons over their non-BT cottons. Onthe whole, the costs of production of both irrigated and unirrigated BT cottonexceeded that of their non-BT cotton by 14 per cent and 18 per cent.
The higher yield performance of BT cotton under both the conditions made theaverage total costs lower under both conditions and consequently average cost ofproduction is lower. The BT cotton in irrigated conditions covered all costs includingCost C2 and gained a net income of Rs.981 per acre and 176 per cent higher thanBT cotton under rain-fed conditions, whereas BT cotton in unirrigated conditionscould not cover all costs. It can be observed from the Table 4.11 that even theirrigated non-BT could not cover all costs. The farm business income in irrigatedBT is Rs. 6512 and 77 per cent higher than BT under rain-fed conditions.
CESS Monograph - 3 63
Table 4.10: Costs and Returns in Official and Unofficial BT Cotton
Item Official Unofficial BT CottonBT Cotton BT Cotton
Casual labour 1863 1625 1779.7Attached labour 309.96 51.66 217.74Family labour 1291 826.26 1128Total human labour 3464 2502.9 3125.4Bullock labour 932 725 859.48Machine labour 751 627 707.6Seed 1623 993 1402.2Fertilisers 1685 1384 1579.2Total fertilisers 2405 1520 2094Manure 720 136 514.76Insecticides 2946 2167 2673Irrigation charges 138 24 98.25Interest on working capital 457.67 326.96 411.83Miscellaneous 149 117 94.3Operational cost 12866 9002.9 11466Rental value of owned land 3987.4 2809.4 3607.1Rent paid for leased-in-land 766.51 757.18 753.41Land revenue 80 74 77.92Depreciation on impl&bldgs 265 262 276Interest on fixed capital 720 750 794Fixed costs 5818.9 4652.6 5508.5Cost of production 18685 13655 16975Cost A1 11920 8512.6 10692Cost A2 12686 9269.8 11445Cost B1 13406 10020 12239Cost B2 17394 12829 15847Cost C1 14697 10846 13367Cost C2 18685 13655 16975Physical yield in quintals 10.18 8.19 9.49Cost A1/quintal 1170.9 1039.4 1126.7Cost A2/quintal 1246.2 1131.8 1206.1Cost B1/quintal 1316.9 1223.4 1289.7Cost B2/quintal 1708.6 1566.4 1669.8Cost C1/quintal 1443.7 1324.3 1408.6Cost C2/quintal 1835.4 1667.3 1788.7Average price per quintal 1779 1659 1750.4
Farm business measures
Gross income in Rs. 18110 13587 16612Net income -574.31 -68.27 -363Farm business income 5424.1 4317.4 5166.1Family labour income 716.71 757.99 765.01Farm investment income 4133.1 3491.2 4038.2
CESS Monograph - 3 64
Table 4.11: Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cotton in Irrigated andRainfed Conditions
Item BT Cotton Non-BT Cotton
Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed
Casual labour 2022 1610 1821 1246Attached labour 206.6 206.64 148.23 122.4Family labour 1110 1161.9 856.57 840.1Total human labour 3339 2978.5 2825.8 2209Bullock labour 759 929 826 875Machine labour 755 674 619 565Seed 1475 1351 649 563Fertilisers 1640 1536 1660 1564Manure 480 539 418 398Total fertilisers 2120 2075 2078 1962Insecticides 3088 2382 3841 2883Irrigation charges 146 65 55 53Interest on working capital 443.2 389.75 421.38 350.3Miscellaneous 144 133 129 54Operational cost 12269 10977 11444 9514Rental value of owned land 4311 3112.2 3251.4 2359Rent paid for leased-in-land 807.3 715.8 490.05 539.2Land revenue 37 107 25 75Depreciation on impl&bldgs 288 256 256 231Interest on fixed capital 805 699 798 688Fixed cost 6248 4890 4820.4 3892Cost of production 18517 15867 16265 13406Cost A1 12178 10178 10869 8980Cost A2 12985 10894 11359 9519Cost B1 13790 11593 12157 10207Cost B2 18101 14705 15408 12566Cost C1 14206 12755 13013 11047Cost C2 18517 15867 16265 13406Physical yield in quintals 11.18 8.3 8.29 6.48Cost A1/quintal 1089 1226.3 1311.1 1386Cost A2/quintal 1161 1312.6 1370.2 1469Cost B1/quintal 1233 1396.8 1466.4 1575Cost B2/quintal 1619 1771.7 1858.6 1939Cost C1/quintal 1271 1536.8 1569.8 1705Cost C2/quintal 1656 1911.7 1962 2069Average price per quintal 1744 1757 1719.4 1704
Farm business measures
Gross income in Rs. 19498 14583 14253 11040Net income 980.5 -1284.2 -2011 -2366Farm business income 6512 3688.9 2894.8 1521Family labour income 1397 -122.33 -1155 -1526Farm investment income 5402 2527 2038.2 681
CESS Monograph - 3 65
Costs and Returns in Black and Other Soils
The cultivation of BT cotton in different soils affords us an opportunity to see if theperformance in black soils is significantly better than that in non-black soils viz.,other soils. The details are presented in Table 4.12 with this intention.
It can be observed from the table that there is no considerable difference betweenBT cotton grown in black and other soils. However, the BT cotton in black soilsperformed slightly better. The operational costs, total cost of production and costper quintal is higher by only 2 per cent in black soils over BT in other soils. Thephysical yield is almost same. But the farmers of BT cotton could get slightly higherprice (3%). Therefore, the net income improved by 17 per cent for farmers of BTcotton in black soils, though farmers of BT cotton in both types of soils could notcover all costs. The farm business income is higher by 4 per cent in black soilscompared to BT in other soils.
On the other hand, as is observed in all the other categories, the BT farmers in blacksoils as well as in other soils outperformed non-BT farmers in the respectivecategories. Whereas BT cotton in black soils yielded 30 per cent more than itscounterpart non-BT, BT cotton in other soils resulted in a 38 per cent hike in yield.The improvement in net income is 85 per cent and 83 per cent respectively in BTcotton in black soils and other soils compared over its respective non-BT cotton.
CESS Monograph - 3 66
Table 4.12: Costs and Returns in BT and Non-BT Cotton inDifferent Soils
Item BT Cotton Non-BT Cotton
Black Soils Other Soils Black Soils Other Soils
Casual labour 1800 1689 1509 1385Attached labour 206.64 206.64 122.43 122.43Family labour 1136.1 1178.3 840.13 825.12Total human labour 3142.74 3074 2471.6 2332.6Bullock labour 849 860 851 867Machine labour 708 707 598 554Seed 1384 1490 614 555Fertilisers 1580 1580 1582 1661Manure 490 632 383 468Total fertilisers 2070 2212 1965 2129Insecticides 2737 2378 3343 3055Irrigation charges 103 77 51 60Interest on working capital 413.63 404.83 382.21 369.38Miscellaneous 138 137 73 98Operational cost 11545.4 11340 10349 10020Rental value of owned land 3628.06 3493.6 2758.3 2588.5Rent paid for leased-in-land 751.33 766.82 522.35 523.66Land revenue 83 54 38 104Depreciation on impl&bldgs 249 257 265 272Interest on fixed capital 768 728 775 756Fixed cost 5479.39 5299.4 4358.6 4244.2Cost of production 17024.8 16639 14707 14264Cost A1 10741.3 10472 9811.6 9570.8Cost A2 11492.6 11239 10334 10094Cost B1 12260.6 11967 11109 10850Cost B2 15888.7 15461 13867 13439Cost C1 13396.7 13146 11949 11676Cost C2 17024.8 16639 14707 14264Physical yield in quintals 9.49 9.48 7.31 6.91Cost A1/quintal 1131.85 1104.7 1342.2 1385.1Cost A2/quintal 1211.02 1185.6 1413.7 1460.8Cost B1/quintal 1291.95 1262.4 1519.7 1570.3Cost B2/quintal 1674.25 1630.9 1897 1944.9Cost C1/quintal 1411.66 1386.7 1634.6 1689.7Cost C2/quintal 1793.97 1755.2 2012 2064.3Average price per quintal 1758 1712 1709.6 1715.8
Farm business measures
Gross income in Rs. 16683.4 16230 12497 11856Net income -341.34 -409.4 -2209.9 -2408.3Farm business income 5190.82 4990.5 2163.5 1761.4Family labour income 794.76 768.91 -1369.8 -1583.2Farm investment income 4054.72 3812.1 1323.3 936.24
5.1. Impact on Employment
While additional income generation is very important for the farming communityas a result of new technologies like BT cotton, the creation of additional employmentfor the labour is no less significant for the rural economy as whole and landlesslabourers in particular. If the new technology increases the net income to the farmerand at the same time reduces the need for labour, the net effect on the rural economymay not be positive. Therefore, the labour requirement for BT cotton and non-BTcotton are analysed and given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Human Labour Utilisation in BT Cotton and Non-BT Cotton
Item BT Cotton Non-BT Cotton All sample
Casual labour
Male 2.61 3.09 2.77Female 48.80** 38.75 45.32Children 5.34* 3.46 4.69Total man-days equivalent 37.81** 30.65 35.33
Family labour
Male 14.71* 12.75 14.03Female 14.03* 12.36 13.45Children 0.37 0.36 0.36Total man-days equivalent 24.25** 21.17 23.18
Attached labour
Male 4.17* 2.98 3.76Female 0.09 0.22 0.14Children - - -Total man-days equivalent 4.23* 3.13 3.85
Total labour utilized
Male 21.49* 18.82 20.56Female 62.92** 51.33 58.91Children 5.71* 3.82 5.05Total man-days equivalent 66.29** 54.95 62.36
Note : * and ** indicates significance at 1 percent and 5 percent, respectively
5. Employment and Perceptions
CESS Monograph - 3 68
The total man-days equivalent (TMDE) for human labour (including casual, familyand attached labour) for BT cotton are 66.29 and are 21 per cent higher than non-BT cotton (Table 5.1). Out of this increase, hired labour, family labour and attachedlabour accounted for 63, 27 and 10 per cent, respectively. While the major beneficiaryof this increase is hired labour, there is also increase in the use of family labour andattached labour to a certain extent. The female labourers are the major beneficiariesamong casual labourers. They got 10.05 days more of employment due to BT cottoncultivation. On the other hand, the increase in utilization of children in the labourforce in BT cotton is a cause of worry, as it is perpetuating the existing evil. Thedetailed operation-wise employment is shown in Appendices 1,2 and 3. It can beobserved from them that the increase in female labour participation is due toincreased utilization mainly in harvesting and weeding.
The wages paid to hired casual labour are shown in Table 5.2. The wages paid tothem increased by 17 per cent in BT cotton compared to non-BT cotton. The femalelabourers accounted for 81 per cent of this increase in wages followed by childrenwith 17 per cent and male labourers with 2 per cent. It can be concluded, from theforegoing analysis that the introduction of BT cotton has a positive impact onemployment. The major beneficiaries of this increase is for the hired labour andamong them women workers.
Table 5.2: Wages Paid to Hired Labour in BT Cotton andNon-BT Cotton
Sl.No Item BT Cotton Non-BT Cotton All Sample
1 Male 160.72 154 158.39
2 Female 1469.93 1225.25 1385.14
3 Children 149.08 97.06 131.05
Total 1779.73 1476.31 1674.58
The reduction of pesticidal sprays entails lower labour requirements and therefore,the utilization of labour declines on the whole in Bt cotton. This is the experiencein most of the countries where Bt is cultivated. But, in countries, where Bt is pickedmanually, higher yields with Bt leads to increased labour requirements. Therefore,Qaim and Matuschke (2004) hypothesized that the net effect on labour is ambiguous.In other studies on India [Qaim (2003) and Qaim et al., 2006)], it was found that thetechnology increased labour requirements. The present study also showed that theBt cultivation increases employment as there is yield increase to a tune of 32 percent and this cotton is plucked manually in the state.
CESS Monograph - 3 69
Employment Across Districts
The employment opportunities to human labour increased with BT cotton cultivationin all the districts, though not uniformly (Table 5.3). The percent increase over non-BT is the highest in Warangal (40.22%) followed by Kurnool (22.29%), Nalgonda(18.69%) and Guntur (4.0%). The number of total man-days equivalent is also veryhigh in Warangal (88.41). The hired labour got a major share of this increase inhuman labour utilization in all the districts. The share of hired labour in Guntur,Kurnool, Nalgonda and Warangal is 115 per cent, 105 per cent, 74 per cent and 51per cent, respectively. In Warangal district, the increase in employment due to BTcultivation is also shared by family labour. The practice of attached labour is almostnon-existent in Guntur and Kurnool.
10 The employment elasticity is obtained by dividing the percent change in employment inBT cotton over non-BT cotton with percent change in agricultural output growth in BTcotton over non-BT cotton.
CESS Monograph - 3 70Ta
ble
5.3:
Hum
an L
abou
r U
tilis
atio
n D
istr
ictw
ise
in B
T C
otto
n
BT
Cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Item
War
anga
lN
algo
nda
Gun
tur
Kur
nool
War
anga
lN
algo
nda
Gun
tur
Kur
nool
Cas
ual l
abou
r
Mal
e3.
082.
922.
421.
142.
223.
455.
50.
74Fe
mal
e61
.08
49.4
141
.59
30.6
244
.26
39.5
434
.35
18.3
4C
hild
ren
5.71
5.73
2.50
8.07
3.85
3.23
1.54
6.57
Tota
l m
an-d
ays
equi
vale
nt46
.66
38.7
331
.40
25.5
933
.65
31.4
329
.17
16.2
5
Fam
ily la
bour
Mal
e19
.83
12.2
711
.31
13.4
914
.47
11.2
910
.96
14.3
4Fe
mal
e18
.52
12.0
411
.36
12.1
713
.84
11.0
111
.06
13.7
Chi
ldre
n0.
380.
300.
370.
490.
280.
121.
080.
21To
tal
man
-day
s eq
uiva
lent
32.3
720
.45
19.0
721
.85
23.8
418
.69
18.8
723
.58
Att
ache
d la
bour
Mal
e9.
243.
140.
01.
265.
412.
410.
00.
0Fe
mal
e0.
220.
060.
00.
010.
230.
00.
730.
0C
hild
ren
00
00
00
00
Tota
l m
an-d
ays
equi
vale
nt9.
393.
180
1.27
5.56
2.41
0.49
0
Tota
l lab
our
utili
zed
Mal
e32
.15
18.3
313
.73
15.8
922
.117
.15
16.4
615
.08
Fem
ale
79.8
261
.51
52.9
542
.858
.33
50.5
546
.14
32.0
4C
hild
ren
6.09
6.03
2.87
8.56
4.13
3.35
2.62
6.78
Tota
l m
an-d
ays
equi
vale
nt88
.41
62.3
550
.47
48.7
063
.05
52.5
348
.53
39.8
3
CESS Monograph - 3 71
Table 5.4: Employment Elasticities in BT Cotton over Non-BT Cotton
District Per cent Change Per cent change Employmentin yield in BT cotton in employment in elasticityover non-BT cotton BT cotton over
non-BT cotton
Warangal 40.05 40.22 1.00
Nalgonda 30.21 18.69 0.62
Guntur 18.85 4 0.21
Kurnool 85.85 22.29 0.26
Total sample 31.62 20.64 0.65
The employment elasticities10 have been worked out and presented in Table 5.4. Itcan be seen from the table that the employment elasticity in BT cotton cultivation is0.65. It implies that one percent growth in yield due to BT cotton over non-BTcotton cultivation results in 0.65 per cent increase in employment. The employmentelasticity in Warangal is the highest with 1.00 meaning that one per cent growth inyield in BT cotton leads to one per cent increase in employment.
Employment in Irrigated and Rain-fed Conditions
There is no considerable difference in irrigated Bt cotton over rain fed BT cotton(Table 5.5). The increase in employment in irrigated BT is only 2.82 per cent.However, BT cotton in both irrigated and rain-fed conditions outperformed non-BT in the utilization of human labour. While the irrigated BT utilized 13 per centhigher human labour over irrigated non-BT, rain fed BT provided higher employmentby 26 per cent compared to rain fed non-BT. This increase in human labour utilizationis mostly for casual labour. The increase in casual labour accounted for 68 per centand 62 per cent in case of irrigated BT and rain-fed over their respective non-BTcotton crops.
CESS Monograph - 3 72
Table 5.5: Human Labour Utilisation in Irrigated and Rainfed
Item BT Cotton Non-BT Cotton All sample
Irrd. Rain-fed Irrd. Rain-fed
Casual labour
Male 3 2 4 2 2.77Female 51 47 43 36 45.32Children 5 6 3 4 4.69Total man-days equivalent 39.5 36.33 34.17 28 .5.33
Family labour
Male 15 15 13 13 14.03Female 13 15 12 12 13.45Children 0 0 1 0 0.36Total man-days equivalent 23.67 25 21.5 21 23.18
Attached labour
Male 4 4 3 3 3.76Female 0 0 1 0 0.14Children 0 0 0 0 -Total man-days equivalent 4 4 3.67 3 3.85
Total labour utilized
Male 22 21 20 18 20.56Female 64 62 56 48 58.91Children 5 6 4 4 5.05Total man-days equivalent 67.17 65.33 59.33 52 62.36
CESS Monograph - 3 73
Employment Across Social Categories and Size Groups
The maximum percent change in employment in BT cotton over non-BT cottoncultivation viz., 71.90, can be observed in large farmers followed by medium farmers(14.61%) among size groups (Table 5.6). There was no growth of employment incase of small farmers. In case of social categories, the per cent change is the highestin case of OCs with 23.69 per cent followed by BCs (20.65%) and SCs (17.43%).Among all these categories, the small farmers cultivated their BT cotton with theleast number of total man-days equivalent viz., 58.98, whereas the maximum (71man-days equivalent) could be observed in case of large farmers, medium farmersand BC farmers.
The increase in employment went mainly to the hired labour to an extent of 89 percent and 70 per cent in case of OC farmers and large farmers, respectively. Theincrease in employment in case of SCs (76.23%) and medium farmers (61.64%)went mainly to the family labour. They could better utilize their own family labourto undertake increased labour needs for agricultural operations in BT cotton. Thishelps them to get more of the returns from the cultivation of BT cotton. On theother hand, the maximum increase in labour utilization and major share of it goingto hired labourers in case of large farmers result in percolation of the benefits of theBT technology to the labourers also.
5.2. Perceptions of Farmers
While 83 per cent of the farmers in the sample have grown BT cotton for the firsttime in 2004-2005, 84 per cent of the farmers have grown BT cotton again in 2005-2006 and another 5 per cent are willing to use the BT cotton (Table 5.7). It wasfound that major traits, the adopters expected in the BT cotton, are higher yield(79%11), lesser expenditure (43%) and lower insecticidal sprays (16%). There is noresistance at all from the neighbouring farmers for growing BT cotton. Among theadopters, very few (2.1%) knew about other possible transgenic crops. The majorproblems in the cultivation of BT cotton according to the adopters are high cost ofseeds (41%), lower yield than expected (21%), unavailability of quality BT seeds(18%) and lack of awareness (11%) and non-control of the target pest (5%). It canbe concluded from this that the cost and availability of seeds are the major problems.The suggestions according to them are making quality seeds available at affordable
11 Figures in the parantheses in this sub-section indicated percent of farmers, expressing theperception.
CESS Monograph - 3 74Ta
ble
5.6:
Hum
an L
abou
r U
tilis
atio
n A
mon
g D
iffe
rent
Soc
ial a
nd S
ize
Cat
egor
ies
of F
arm
ers
BT
Cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Item
SC&
STB
CO
CS
FM
FL
FSC
&ST
BC
OC
SF
MF
LF
Cas
ual l
abou
r
Mal
e1.
522.
533.
062.
222.
413.
281.
554.
442.
492.
214.
952.
01Fe
mal
e36
.92
48.9
52.9
740
.52
51.8
755
.77
34.2
741
.31
38.3
641
.84
43.3
230
.28
Chi
ldre
n5.
845.
485.
064.
134.
947.
263.
473.
03.
923.
454.
262.
56To
tal
man
-day
s eq
uiva
lent
29.0
537
.87
40.9
031
.30
39.4
644
.09
26.1
333
.48
30.0
231
.83
35.9
623
.48
Fam
ily la
bour
Mal
e20
.98
16.5
910
.97
16.2
316
.72
10.7
415
.76
14.0
99.
916
.71
13.2
77.
79Fe
mal
e18
.92
16.7
810
.10
15.3
915
.99
10.3
216
.23
13.9
68.
8417
.012
.63
6.97
Chi
ldre
n0.
700.
380.
240.
450.
320.
310.
220.
570.
210.
290.
570.
20To
tal
man
-day
s eq
uiva
lent
33.9
427
.97
17.8
226
.72
27.5
417
.78
26.6
923
.68
15.9
028
.18
21.9
812
.54
Att
ache
d la
bour
Mal
e0.
874.
944.
740.
973.
768.
531.
741.
545.
050.
673.
385.
06Fe
mal
e0.
310.
060.
040
00.
300
00.
540.
00.
630.
0C
hild
ren
00
00
00
00
00
00.
0To
tal
man
-day
s eq
uiva
lent
1.08
4.98
4.77
0.97
3.76
8.73
1.74
1.54
5.41
0.67
3.8
5.06
Tota
l lab
our
utili
zed
Mal
e23
.37
24.0
618
.77
19.4
222
.89
22.5
519
.05
20.0
717
.44
19.5
921
.614
.86
Fem
ale
56.1
565
.74
63.1
155
.91
67.8
666
.39
50.5
55.2
747
.74
58.8
456
.58
37.2
5C
hild
ren
6.54
5.86
5.3
4.58
5.26
7.57
3.69
3.57
4.13
3.74
4.83
2.76
Tota
l m
an-d
ays
equi
vale
nt64
.07
70.8
263
.49
58.9
870
.76
70.6
054
.56
58.7
051
.33
60.6
961
.74
41.0
7
CESS Monograph - 3 75
Table 5.7: Perceptions of BT Farmers in the Selected Districts
S.No Item Warangal Nalgonda Guntur Kurnool A.P
1 Per cent growing BT for the 1st time 83.4 83.5 95.9 61.2 83.1
2 Reasons for growing- Higher yield 79.7 75.6 75.7 85.7 78.5Lesser expenditure 48.1 34.6 50.0 34.7 43.0Low insecticide requirement 21.9 6.3 17.6 14.3 15.8
3 Per cent reporting BT cotton to bebeneficial 92.0 83.5 83.8 61.2 84.7
4 Reasons for being beneficial
a. Higher yield 70.1 65.4 58.1 53.1 64.8
b.Lower cost of insecticides 63.1 46.5 59.5 40.8 55.1
5 Neighbourers objecting BT cottoncultivation 0 0 0 0 0
6 Per cent already grown BT again 90.9 73.2 90.5 73.5 83.8Per cent willing to grow BT again 5.9 3.1 5.4 2.0 4.6
Total 96.8 76.3 95.9 75.5 88.4
7 Per cent reporting to havereceived training 8 3.1 1.4 0 4.6
8 Per cent reporting to have goneon exposure visits 17.1 7.1 9.5 2.0 11.2
9 Per cent reporting visits by govt.inspecting agencies 11.8 14.2 13.5 8.2 12.4
10 Per cent knowing advantages/disadvantages in advance ofgrowing 64.2 66.1 39.2 44.9 58.4
11 Per cent reporting knowledge ofregulatory mechanism at districtand state levels 16.6 18.9 0 24.5 15.3
12 Per cent reporting knowledge ofother transgenics 3.2 2.4 0 0 2.1
13 Problems in BT cultivationHigh cost of seeds 51.3 49.6 20.3 8.2 40.7Low yield compared to expected 12.3 21.3 23.0 46.9 20.6Unavailability of quality BT seeds 14.4 17.7 5.4 49 17.6Lack of awareness 10.7 15.7 0 14.3 10.8Pest not controlled 5.9 0.8 10.8 4.1 5.0
14 Suggestions to overcome problemsMake quality seeds available ataffordable prices 71.7 71.7 58.1 79.6 70.3Create awareness aboutBT cultivation 33.2 35.4 10.8 6.1 27.0Government may supply seeds 8.6 15.0 8.1 8.2 10.3Research to make seeds thatcan control all bollworms 5.9 1.6 12.2 0 5.0
CESS Monograph - 3 76
prices (70%), creating awareness about BT cultivation (27%), state intervention inthe supply of seeds (10%) and finally developing seeds resistant to all bollworms(5%).
The BT farmers to have already grown BT again in 2005-2006 and those willing togrow it again are the maximum in Warangal (97%) followed by Guntur (96%) andthe least in Nalgonda and Kurnool (76%). This can be explained by the returns tofarming as explained in fourth chapter. The farmers in Kurnool opined thatunavailability of quality BT seeds (49%) and low yield compared to the expectedyield are the major problems.
The percent of farmers reporting to have received training on BT cultivation is verylow at 5 per cent. None of the BT cotton growers in Kurnool have received trainingon BT cotton cultivation. Nearly half (58%) of the BT cotton growers knew inadvance of cultivation the advantages and disadvantages of growing the crop andthe rest of them have taken up randomly in the hope that the new technology maysave them. The biosafety protocol envisages that the monitoring committees shouldbe set up at the state and district levels. But, very few BT cotton cultivators viz.,only 15.3 per cent heard about them.
It can be observed from Table 5.8 that only 79 per cent of SC-BT farmers and 81per cent of BT farmers from small farmers reported BT cotton to be beneficial.Among large farmers, 96 per cent revealed that BT cotton cultivation is beneficial.The same can be observed in case of growing BT cotton again. In this case, 94 percent of small farmers and 81 per cent of farmers from SCs reported that they wouldcultivate BT again. In fact, 92 per cent of BT small farmers and 79 per cent of Btfarmers from SCs have already grown it in 2005-2006. This is a very high percentageof adoption for any new technology. If farmers from these groups have grown thesame BT cotton in the second year at a high rate, there can not be any other proof ofthe superiority of the technology.
CESS Monograph - 3 77Ta
ble
5.8:
Per
cept
ions
of
BT
Far
mer
s ac
ross
Soc
ial C
ateg
orie
s
Sl.N
oIt
emSC
&ST
BC
OC
SFM
FL
FA
ll B
Tgr
ower
s
1Pe
r ce
nt g
row
ing
BT
for
the
1st ti
me
89.7
79.5
82.5
84.0
80.7
85.0
83.1
2R
easo
ns f
or g
row
ing-
Hig
her
yiel
d86
.076
.176
.080
.279
.374
.078
.5L
esse
r ex
pend
iture
40.2
39.2
49.4
44.4
37.3
49.0
43.0
Low
ins
ectic
ide
requ
irem
ent
15.0
13.1
19.5
19.8
11.3
15.0
15.8
3Pe
r ce
nt r
epor
ting
BT
cot
ton
to b
e be
nefi
cial
78.5
85.2
88.3
80.7
82.0
96.0
84.7
4R
easo
ns –
Hig
her
yiel
d62
.666
.564
.359
.964
.774
.064
.8L
ower
cos
t of
inse
ctic
ides
57.9
50.6
58.4
51.3
55.3
62.0
55.1
5N
eigh
bour
ers
obje
ctin
g B
T c
otto
n cu
ltiva
tion
00
00
00
06
Per
cent
alr
eady
gro
wn
BT
aga
in79
.485
.285
.191
.881
.391
.083
.8Pe
r ce
nt w
illin
g to
gro
w B
T a
gain
1.9
4.0
7.1
2.1
6.0
7.0
4.6
Tota
l81
.389
.292
.293
.987
.398
.088
.47
Per
cent
rep
ortin
g to
hav
e re
ceiv
ed tr
aini
ng2.
85.
15.
22.
75.
37.
04.
68
Per
cent
rep
ortin
g to
hav
e go
ne o
n ex
posu
re v
isits
2.8
11.9
16.2
9.6
12.7
12.0
11.2
9Pe
r ce
nt r
epor
ting
visi
ts b
y go
vt. i
nspe
ctin
g ag
enci
es11
.210
.814
.911
.212
.015
.012
.410
Per
cent
kno
win
g ad
vant
ages
/dis
adva
ntag
es in
adv
ance
of
grow
ing
40.2
66.5
61.7
55.1
60.0
62.0
58.4
11Pe
r ce
nt r
epor
ting
know
ledg
e of
regu
lato
ry m
echa
nism
at d
istr
ict a
nd s
tate
leve
ls11
.214
.818
.812
.314
.722
.015
.312
Per
cent
rep
ortin
g kn
owle
dge
of o
ther
tra
nsge
nics
1.9
1.1
3.2
1.6
3.3
1.0
2.1
13Pr
oble
ms
in B
T c
ultiv
atio
n H
igh
cost
of
seed
s37
.446
.636
.442
.844
.032
.040
.7L
ow y
ield
com
pare
d to
exp
ecte
d27
.119
.916
.921
.420
.719
.020
.6U
nava
ilabi
lity
of q
ualit
y B
T s
eeds
20.6
18.2
14.9
1617
.320
.017
.6L
ack
of a
war
enes
s11
.213
.617
.113
.98.
78.
010
.8Pe
st n
ot c
ontr
olle
d2.
84.
57.
15.
34.
06.
05.
014
Sugg
estio
ns t
o ov
erco
me
prob
lem
sM
ake
qual
ity s
eeds
ava
ilabl
e at
aff
orda
ble
pric
es74
.873
.363
.671
.769
.369
.070
.3C
reat
e aw
aren
ess
abou
t BT
cul
tivat
ion
26.2
23.3
31.8
27.8
27.3
25.0
27.0
Gov
ernm
ent m
ay s
uppl
y se
eds
7.5
14.2
7.8
9.1
9.3
14.0
10.3
Res
earc
h to
mak
e se
eds
that
can
con
trol
all
bollw
orm
s1.
95.
76.
54.
86.
04.
05.
0
CESS Monograph - 3 78
The farmers of non-BT cotton revealed that the high cost of seeds (55.4%), lackawareness (54.3%), fear of fertility depletion (9.1%) and perception that BT cottonhybrids are not suitable for high rainfall conditions (5.9%) as the reasons for notgrowing BT cotton (Tables 5.9 and 5.10). The farmers of BT and non-BT are alikein respect of certain non-pesticide and agronomic measures like phermone traps,bird perches, spray of NPV solution etc, negating the fears that BT cotton may notbe compatible with other non-pesticidal control measures. The major problem incotton cultivation in both BT and non-BT cotton growers is that they are sprayingpesticides either as a precautionary measure or on noticing pest without any regardto the economic threshold levels of the pest. Therefore, the cost of the pesticide islikely to be more than the benefit caused due to control of pest in many cases.
Table 5.9: Perceptions and Some Features of Cultivation in BT andNon-BT Cotton
Item BT Cotton Non-BT Cotton
Why not grown
High cost of seeds NA 55.4Lack of awareness NA 54.3Fear of fertility depletion NA 9.1Not suitable for high rain conditions NA 5.9Percent erecting phermone traps 19.5 12.9Per cent erecting bird perches 25.4 20.4Per cent knowing NPV 2.7 2.73Spray as precautionary measure 27.7 27.9Spray on noticing pest 68.1 65.6Spray on noticing damage 4.2 5.5Average expenditure on health in previous year 4719 6441Health problems at the time of spray 25.4 27.4Average expenditure on education in previous year 7519 392Per cent reporting drinking habit 62.0 78.7Drink daily 24 27.9Drink weekly 46.1 44.3
NA- Not applicable
CESS Monograph - 3 79Ta
ble
5.10
: P
erce
ptio
ns a
nd S
ome
Fea
ture
s of
Cul
tiva
tion
of
BT
and
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
Far
mer
s ac
ross
Dis
tric
ts
Item
BT
Cot
ton
Non
-BT
Cot
ton
WG
LN
LG
GN
TK
NL
WG
LN
LG
GN
TK
NL
Why
not
gro
wn
Hig
h co
st o
f se
eds
52.0
54.1
55.2
71.4
Lac
k of
aw
aren
ess
53.3
52.5
79.3
28.6
Fear
of
fert
ility
dep
letio
n21
.30
3.4
9.1
Not
sui
tabl
e fo
r hi
gh r
ain
cond
ition
s5.
39.
83.
40
Perc
ent
erec
ting
pher
mon
e tr
aps
31.0
12.6
13.5
2.0
24.0
8.2
3.4
0
Per
cent
ere
ctin
g bi
rd p
erch
es39
.616
.56.
822
.437
.311
.50
14.3
Per
cent
kno
win
g N
PV5.
31.
60
05.
31.
60
0
Spra
y as
pre
caut
iona
ry m
easu
re25
.033
.328
.422
.227
.026
.734
.525
.0
Spra
y on
not
icin
g pe
st66
.365
.971
.675
.663
.566
.765
.570
.0
Spra
y on
not
icin
g da
mag
e8.
70.
80
2.2
9.5
5.0
00
Ave
rage
exp
endi
ture
on
heal
th in
pre
viou
s ye
ar72
1972
0383
9176
4951
3566
8935
1414
429
Hea
lth p
robl
ems
at th
e tim
e of
spr
ay26
.227
.633
.84.
125
.336
.124
.114
.3
Ave
rage
exp
endi
ture
on
educ
atio
n in
pre
viou
s ye
ar13
451
9730
6724
4616
9395
5156
4293
2157
Per
cent
rep
ortin
g dr
inki
ng h
abit
74.9
65.4
25.7
59.2
73.3
70.5
34.5
66.7
Dri
nk d
aily
3016
.910
.524
.134
.527
.935
.521
.4
Dri
nk w
eekl
y46
.455
.415
.837
.941
.851
.230
.042
.9
It was found that the BT cotton technology is superior to the conventional cottonhybrids in terms of yield and net returns. The expenditure on insecticides decreasedby 18 per cent and still the cost of production is 17 per cent higher. The number ofpesticidal sprays have come down from 12 in non-BT cotton to 9 in BT cotton, onan average. The yield is higher by 32 per cent. As a result of this, the cost perquintal is lower by Rs.223 and 11 per cent in BT cotton. Though both BT and non-BT cottons could not cover all costs of the farmers, viz., paid-up and imputed, theBT cotton farmer could improve his net income by 83 per cent over non-BT cotton.It is noteworthy that the realised price of cotton during the year is 21 per cent lessthan previous seven year average and the actual rainfall in the study area is 33 percent less than the normal rainfall. These two factors might have combined to reducethe profitability to both BT and non-BT farmers. The analysis using productionfunctions revealed that there can be a 36 per cent increase in yield in Bt cottoncultivation compared to the non-Bt cotton. This is explained in the damage controlframework. This validates the hypothesis that there can be considerable yield effectsin tropical countries, where the pest pressure cannot be controlled otherwiseeffectively. The districts of Warangal and Guntur performed better compared toNalgonda and Kurnool in the same order. But, in all these districts, BT outperformednon-BT cotton. The BT cotton farmers from SCs obtained 10 per cent lesser yieldand 9 per cent higher cost per quintal than the OC-BT farmers and could not covercost C. But the BT-SC farmers got 40 per cent more yield than their non-BT counterparts. The small farmers are also better off with BT cotton than without BT cottonsituation. On the whole, the small farmers are doing worse compared to the largefarmers vis-à-vis SC farmers against OC farmers. The study also proved that manyof the small farmers and SC farmers participated in using the technology andimproved their position with regard to profitability by growing BT cotton.
The total man-days equivalent for human labour (includes hired labour, family labourand attached labour) for BT cotton are 66.29 and 21 per cent higher than non-BTcotton; and out of this increase, hired labour, family labour and attached labouraccounted for 63,27 and 10 per cent, respectively. While the major beneficiary ofthis increase is hired labour, there is also increase in the use of family labour andattached labour to a certain extent. The female labourers are the major beneficiariesamong casual labourers. They got 10.05 days more of employment due to BT cottoncultivation. The employment elasticity for BT cotton is found to be 0.65, meaningthat one percent growth in BT cotton yield over non-BT cotton increases employment
6. Conclusions
CESS Monograph - 3 81
by 0.65 per cent. This validates the second hypothesis that there can be considerablepositive impact on employment where the cotton is picked manually.
It was found that only 63 per cent of the BT cotton farmers have grown refugecrops. Though good percent of BT farmers have grown refuge in Warangal (84%)and Nalgonda (78%), the farmers in Guntur (27%) and Kurnool (2%) have notcared to grow it. This practice is almost non-existent in Kurnool. The farmersrevealed that they have now stopped growing refuge, though they cultivated it insome rows in the first year. They feared losing some portion of their land and furtherthey observed that the bollworm attack is very heavy for the refuge rows, which inturn makes it necessary to spray some chemicals. If this trend on non-observance ofrefuge rows increases further in BT cotton cultivation, the selection pressure forthe pest may increase, as it faces BT cotton in thousands of acres in contiguousareas. Finally, it may lead to development of full resistance in 8-10 years as thescientists warned.
While 83 per cent of the farmers in the sample have grown BT cotton for the firsttime in 2004-2005, 84 per cent of the farmers have grown BT cotton again in2005-2006 and another 5 per cent are willing to use the BT cotton. It was found thatmajor traits, the adopters expected in the BT cotton, are higher yield (79%), lesserexpenditure (43%) and lower insecticidal sprays (16%). There is no resistance atall from the neighbouring farmers for growing BT cotton. Among the adopters,very few (2.1%) knew about other possible transgenic crops. The major problemsin the cultivation of BT cotton according to the adopters are high cost of seeds(41%), lower yield than expected (21%), unavailability of quality BT seeds (18%)and lack of awareness (11%) and non-control of the target pest (5%). It can beconcluded from this that the cost and availability of seeds are the major problems.The suggestions according to them are making quality seeds available at affordableprices (70%), creating awareness about BT cultivation (27%), state intervention inthe supply of seeds (10%) and finally developing seeds resistant to all bollworms(5%). The farmers of BT and non-BT are alike in respect of certain non-pesticideand agronomic measures like phermone traps, bird perches, spray of NPV solutionetc, negating the fears that BT cotton may not be compatible with other non-pesticidalcontrol measures. The major policy implication from this study is that quality BTseeds should be made available to the farmers at affordable rates to increase the useby small farmers and to increase their profitability. Then the creation of awarenesson BT cultivation is also very important and it should be undertaken by thegovernmental agencies. The profitability of both BT and non-BT farmers are erodedby the depressing prices and so the government should introduce variable importtariffs according to the movement of international prices.
CESS Monograph - 3 82
The Bt cotton seeds of high quality should be made available to the farmers ataffordable rates to increase the use by small farmers and to increase their profitability.Then the creation of awareness on Bt cultivation is also very important and it shouldbe undertaken by the governmental agencies. The adopters also asked for varietiesinstead of hybrids for recycling of seeds. Further, they also wanted that the hybrid/variety should be resistant to all bollworms since Spodoptera larvae as well as pinkbollworms are causing considerable damage. These issues may be considered bythe policy makers at the governmental level.
CESS Monograph - 3 83
References
Birthal, S Pratap, O P Sharma and Sant Kumar (2000), ‘Economics of IntegratedPest Management: Evidences and Issues’, Indian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, Vol 55, No 4, October- December, pp 644-658.
Bunsha, Dionne (2002): ‘Narendra Modi’s Long Haul’, Frontline, Vol 19, No 19,September 27, pp 30-32
Chaturvedi, Sachin, Wendy Craig, Vanga Siva Reddy and Decio Ripandelli (2007),Environmental Risk Assessment, Socio-Economic Considerations and Decision-Making Support for LMOs in India, Report Prepared by an inter-disciplinaryteam from the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology(ICGEB) and Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS)as part of MoEF/GEF-World Bank-aided Capacity Building Project on Biosafety.
GoI, (2000), Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices for theCrops Sown During 1999-2000 Season, Department of Agriculture andCooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.
GoI, (2005), Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices,Departmernt of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,Government of India, New Delhi.
Huang, Jikun, Ruifa Hu, Qinfang Wang, James Keeley and Jose Falck Zepeda (2002),“Agricultural Biotechnology Development, Policy and Impact in China”,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.37, No. , July 6, Pp.2756-2761.
Huang, Jikun, Rauifa Hu, Hans van Meijl, Frank van Tangerine (2004),‘Biotechnology Boosts to Crop Productivity in China: Trade and WelfareImplications’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 75, No. , pp.27-54.
Hubbell,J.Bryan, Michele C. Marra, And Gerald A. Carlson.2000. Estimating theDemand for a New Technology: BT Cotton and Insecticide Policies, AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 82, No. 1.
ISAAA, (2006), Global Status of Commercialiased Biotech/GM Crops in 2006,International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, http://www.isaaa.org/kc/bin/briefs34/pk/pk.htm
Ismael, Y, R.Bennett, and S. Morse (2002), “Benefits from Bt cotton Use bySmallholder Farmers in South Africa”, AgBioForum 5: 1-5.
CESS Monograph - 3 84
Krishna, P.S. Janaki and G. Pakki Reddy (2005), “Agricultural Biotechnology inDeveloping Countries: Nature and ‘Code’ in Meeting the Needs of ResourcePoor”, Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, Vol.7, No.3, July, Pp.37-54, ISSN: 0972-7566.
Krishnakumar, Asha (2003), ‘A Lesson from the Field’, Frontline, Vol 20, No 11,June 6, pp 123-126.
Krishnakumar, Asha (2004), ‘New Claims on BT Cotton’, Frontline, Vol.21, No.12,June 5-18, pp.94-95.
Lipton, M. (2001), “Reviving Global Poverty Reduction: What Role for GeneticallyModified Plants?” Journal of International Development, Vol.15, No.7,Pp.823-846.
Naik, Gopal, Marin Qaim, Arjunan Subramanian and David Zilberman (2005), ‘BTCotton Controversy: Some Paradoxes Explained’, Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Vol.40, No. , April 9, Pp. 1514-1517.
Nair, K.T.Prabhakaran (2003), ‘Biotech: No Panacea for Farm Sector’s Ills’, TheHindu Business Line, April 15, p 8.
Narayanamoorthy, A and S.S.Kalamkar (2006), ‘Is BT Cotton CultivationEconomically Viable for Indian Farmers? An Emplical Analysis’, Economicand Political Weekly, Vol.41, No.26, June 30, Pp.2716-2724.
Parthasarathy, G and Shameem (1998), ‘Suicides of Cotton Farmers in AndhraPradesh: An Exploratory Study’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 33,No 13, March 28, pp 720-726.
Pingali, Prabhu and Terri Raney (2005), From the Green Revolution to the GeneRevolution: How will the Poor Fare?, ESA Working Paper No. 05-09,Agricultural and Development Economics Division, The Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, www.fao.org/es/esa
Prakash, C.S. 1997. ISB News Report, July 1997.
Qaim, Matin. (2001). ‘Transgenic Crops and Developing Countries’, Economicand Political Weekly, Vol.36,No.32.
Qaim, Matin (2003), “Bt Cotton In India: Field Trial Results and EconomicProjections”, World Development, Vol.31, No.12, Pp.2115-2127.
Qaim, Matin, Arjunan Subramanian, Gopal Naik and David Zilberman. (2006),“Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability: Insights from India”,Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol.28, No.1, Pp.48-58.
Qaim, Matin and Ira Matuschke (2004), “Economics of GM Crops: An InternationalPerspective with Special Reference to Developing Countries”, Paper
CESS Monograph - 3 85
presented at the International Conference on Biotechnology and India’sDevelopment organized during November 22-24 at Bangalore by theInstitute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and Sponsored bythe Indian Council of Social Sciences Research, New Delhi and the Indo-Dutch Project on Alternatives in Development, New Delhi.
Qayum, Abdul and Kiran Sakkhari (2003), ‘Did BT Cotton Save Farmers inWarangal? A Season Long Impact Study of BT Cotton in Warangal Districtof Andhra Pradesh’, Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity andDeccan Development Society, Hyderabad.
Qayum, Abdul and Kirna Sakkhar (2004), ‘Did BT Cotton Save Farmers inWarangal? A Season Long Impact Study of BT Cotton in Andhra Pradesh’,Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity and Deccan DevelopmentSociety, Hyderabad.
Rao, Chandrasekhara (1990), Commercialisation of Agriculture and its Impact onIncome Distribution and Employment in Prakasam District of Andhra Pradesh,Thesis submitted to Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad(unpublished).
Rao, N.Chandrasekhara (2004a), “Suicides of Farmers and Cotton Cultivation inIndia”, ICFAI Journal of Applied Economics, Vol.3, No.5, September, pp.28-46.
Rao, N.Chandrasekhara (2004b), “Plant Biotechnology and the Emerging Scenario”,Review of Development and Change, Vol.9, NO.1, Pp.69-92.
Rao, C.H.Hanumantha (1975), Technological Change and Distribution of Gainsin Indian Agriculture, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi and publishedby The Macmillan Company of India Limited, Delhi.
Sahai, Suman and Shakeelur Rehman (2003), ‘Performance of Bt Cotton: Datafrom First Commercial Crop’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38,No. , July 26, pp.
Shiva, Vandana and Tom Crompton (1998), ‘Monopoly and Monoculture: Trendsin Indian Seed Industry’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 33, No 39,September 26-October 2, pp A-137-151.
Shiva, Ashok Emani and Afsar H Jafri (1999), ‘Globalisation and Threat to SeedSecurity: Case of Transgenic Seed Trials in India’, Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Vol 34, Nos 10 and 11, March 6-13, pp 601-613.
Zepeda,Jose Benjamin Falck, Greg Traxler and Robert G. Nelson. 2000. ‘SurplusDistribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation’, AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.82, No.2.
CESS Monograph - 3 86
CESS Monograph - 3 87
Sl.
Ope
ratio
nH
uman
labo
ur/ A
cre
Fam
ily la
bour
day
sA
ttach
edB
ullo
ckM
achi
neN
ola
bour
labo
ur c
ost
labo
ur c
ost
days
Day
sW
age
Tota
lD
ays
Weg
eTo
tal
Day
sW
age
Tota
lM
ale
Fe-
Chi
lM
ale
Chi
lR
s.C
ost
Rs.
Cos
tR
s.C
ost
mal
ePe
rR
s.Pe
rR
s.Pe
rR
s. d
ayD
ayD
ay
1Su
mm
er p
loug
hing
0.08
57.0
04.
230.
0828
.24
2.35
0.00
20.0
00.
010.
690.
230.
000.
190.
0063
.58
30.5
515
.35
438.
22
2Pr
epar
ator
ycu
ltiva
tion
0.10
63.0
06.
220.
0525
.38
1.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.23
0.00
0.22
0.01
121.
1570
.31
5.68
116.
90
3F.
Y.M
0.27
55.7
715
.90
0.21
28.5
15.
830.
000.
000.
000.
600.
250.
020.
170.
000.
220.
030.
814.
33
4So
win
g0.
0252
.86
0.87
2.04
30.4
464
.47
0.06
26.2
11.
490.
580.
650.
010.
130.
0010
.41
10.9
40.
000.
41
5In
terc
ultiv
atio
n0.
3557
.89
20.6
70.
2427
.31
6.62
0.02
26.2
50.
581.
610.
850.
010.
510.
0230
7.02
239.
121.
145.
41
6Ir
riga
tion
0.13
63.7
87.
430.
1227
.94
3.18
0.01
20.0
00.
050.
230.
100.
000.
100.
010.
000.
650.
001.
92
7W
eedi
ng0.
0847
.50
3.21
12.9
928
.23
369.
210.
9727
.41
27.3
01.
903.
010.
080.
520.
020.
000.
000.
000.
00
8H
arve
stin
g0.
5067
.68
28.3
327
.02
31.7
686
2.66
3.52
28.6
098
.70
2.71
3.94
0.14
0.68
0.03
1.46
0.00
0.00
24.1
1
9Fe
rtili
sers
0.23
61.5
810
.83
2.05
28.8
353
.63
0.10
27.7
42.
771.
821.
800.
060.
520.
010.
000.
150.
000.
00
10Pe
stic
ides
0.95
61.7
158
.28
0.52
30.3
815
.32
0.00
30.0
00.
062.
922.
380.
030.
690.
030.
000.
570.
117.
8411
Rep
air
char
ges
0.07
97.5
02.
320.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
020.
000.
000.
010.
000.
050.
000.
003.
28
12T
rans
port
0.00
60.0
00.
100.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
080.
120.
000.
000.
020.
001.
840.
000.
3839
.76
Ave
rage
per
acr
e2.
7760
.71
158.
3945
.31
29.8
013
85.1
04.
6927
.94
131.
0514
.00
13.4
50.
363.
750.
1450
5.73
352.
3223
.46
642.
18
O W N E D
H I R E D
O W N E D
H I R E D
AP
PE
ND
ICE
S
App
endi
x 1:
Lab
our
Req
uire
men
t an
d W
ages
for
Cot
ton
in 2
004-
2005
Per
Acr
e
CESS Monograph - 3 88
App
endi
x 2:
Lab
our
Req
uire
men
t an
d W
ages
for
BT
Cot
ton
in 2
004-
2005
Per
Acr
e
Sl.
Ope
ratio
nH
uman
lab
our/
Acr
eFa
mily
labo
ur d
ays
Atta
ched
Bul
lock
Mac
hine
No
labo
urla
bour
cos
tla
bour
cos
tda
ys
Day
sW
age
Tota
lD
ays
Weg
eTo
tal
Day
sW
age
Tota
lM
ale
Fe-
Chi
lM
ale
Chi
lR
s.C
ost
Rs.
Cos
tR
s.C
ost
mal
eP
erR
s.P
erR
s.P
erR
s. d
ayD
ayD
ay
1Su
mm
er p
loug
hing
0.10
55.8
35.
390.
1228
.67
3.33
0.00
20.0
00.
020.
760.
250.
000.
230.
0065
.68
27.5
822
.16
455.
05
2Pr
epar
ator
ycu
ltiva
tion
0.12
64.5
97.
510.
0525
.00
2.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.25
0.00
0.23
0.00
126.
2769
.74
6.29
128.
29
3F.
Y.M
0.34
56.0
020
.31
0.24
28.8
26.
800.
000.
000.
000.
630.
260.
030.
190.
000.
330.
041.
242.
32
4So
win
g0.
0150
.00
0.44
2.16
30.6
468
.52
0.08
25.4
21.
870.
620.
690.
010.
140.
0011
.25
9.06
0.00
0.63
5In
terc
ultiv
atio
n0.
3458
.30
20.0
10.
2727
.34
7.54
0.03
25.8
30.
771.
690.
860.
010.
540.
0231
0.32
233.
181.
491.
16
6Ir
riga
tion
0.16
62.0
88.
990.
1627
.86
4.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.12
0.00
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.99
0.00
2.89
7W
eedi
ng0.
0160
.00
0.50
13.2
428
.33
380.
591.
0727
.57
30.4
42.
003.
150.
070.
530.
010.
000.
000.
000.
00
8H
arve
stin
g0.
2869
.75
20.9
529
.75
31.3
692
0.86
4.03
28.2
111
2.42
2.87
4.18
0.14
0.78
0.02
1.41
0.00
0.00
30.2
7
9Fe
rtili
sers
0.20
63.2
511
.05
2.28
28.8
860
.16
0.12
27.5
03.
421.
941.
900.
070.
590.
010.
000.
230.
000.
00
10Pe
stic
ides
1.02
61.9
763
.54
0.52
30.0
015
.22
0.00
30.0
00.
102.
932.
350.
040.
760.
020.
000.
870.
177.
20
11R
epai
r ch
arge
s0.
0210
0.00
1.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
4.19
12T
rans
port
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
2.19
0.00
0.00
43.9
0
Ave
rage
per
acr
e2.
6060
.97
160.
7248
.79
29.7
514
69.9
35.
3427
.71
149.
0814
.69
14.0
20.
374.
170.
0951
7.54
341.
7031
.34
675.
89
O W N E D
H I R E D
O W N E D
H I R E D
CESS Monograph - 3 89
App
endi
x 3
: L
abou
r R
equi
rem
ent
and
Wag
es f
or N
on-
BT
Cot
ton
in 2
004-
2005
Per
Acr
e
Sl.
Ope
ratio
nH
uman
lab
our/
Acr
eFa
mily
labo
ur d
ays
Atta
ched
Bul
lock
Mac
hine
No
labo
urla
bour
cos
tla
bour
cos
tda
ys
Day
sW
age
Tota
lD
ays
Weg
eTo
tal
Day
sW
age
Tota
lM
ale
Fe-
Chi
lM
ale
Chi
lR
s.C
ost
Rs.
Cos
tR
s.C
ost
mal
eP
erR
s.P
erR
s.P
erR
s. d
ayD
ayD
ay
1Su
mm
er p
loug
hing
0.04
61.6
72.
030.
0225
.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.20
0.00
0.13
0.01
59.5
836
.12
2.50
406.
25
2Pr
epar
ator
ycu
ltiva
tion
0.07
58.4
63.
790.
0327
.50
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.72
0.20
0.00
0.19
0.01
111.
4371
.35
4.52
95.3
7
3F.
Y.M
0.14
55.0
07.
550.
1527
.50
3.98
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.21
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.11
4So
win
g0.
0356
.67
1.68
1.81
29.9
756
.79
0.03
28.3
30.
780.
500.
560.
020.
100.
018.
8214
.49
0.00
0.00
5In
terc
ultiv
atio
n0.
3756
.96
21.9
20.
1927
.22
4.88
0.01
27.5
00.
241.
460.
840.
010.
470.
0330
0.62
250.
210.
4713
.42
6Ir
riga
tion
0.07
66.9
24.
490.
0328
.33
0.92
0.04
20.0
00.
160.
190.
060.
000.
020.
000.
000.
000.
000.
08
7W
eedi
ng0.
2043
.33
8.33
12.5
127
.98
347.
540.
7927
.06
21.3
51.
732.
750.
090.
500.
050.
000.
000.
000.
00
8H
arve
stin
g0.
9165
.20
42.2
321
.85
32.6
975
2.43
2.54
29.4
972
.77
2.41
3.47
0.15
0.47
0.05
1.56
0.00
0.00
12.4
8
9Fe
rtili
sers
0.28
57.6
510
.41
1.62
28.7
141
.30
0.05
29.0
01.
531.
591.
620.
060.
380.
020.
000.
000.
000.
00
10Pe
stic
ides
0.81
61.1
448
.32
0.52
31.1
515
.52
0.00
0.00
2.90
2.45
0.02
0.56
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.05
11R
epai
r ch
arge
s0.
1793
.33
2.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.56
12T
rans
port
0.00
60.0
00.
280.
000.
000.
000.
000.
230.
070.
010.
000.
010.
001.
190.
001.
0931
.94
Ave
rage
per
acr
e3.
0960
.12
154.
0038
.73
29.9
112
24.6
03.
4628
.48
97.0
612
.70
12.3
60.
362.
960.
2248
3.19
372.
178.
5857
8.25
O W N E D
H I R E D
O W N E D
H I R E D
CESS Monograph - 3 90
Apprendix 4 : Study Area in Warangal District
CESS Monograph - 3 91
Appendix 5 : Study Area in Nalgonda District
CESS Monograph - 3 92
Appendix 6 : Study Area in Guntur District
CESS Monograph - 3 93
Appendix 7 : Study Area in Kurnool District
About Authors
Prof. S. Mahendra Dev is currently Director, Centre for Economic and Social Studies,Hyderabad. He did his Ph.D from the Delhi School of Economics and his Post-doctoralresearch at the Economic Growth Centre, Yale University and was faculty member at theIndira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai for 11 years. He was SeniorFellow at Rajiv Gandhi Foundation during 1996-97 and Visiting Professor at University ofBonn, Germany in 1999. He has written extensively on agricultural development, povertyand public policy, food security, employment guarantee schemes, social security, farm andnon-farm employment. He has more than 70 research publications in national andinternational journals. He is the author of Inclusive Growth in India: Essays on Agriculture,Poverty and Human Development published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Hisco-edited books include "Social and Economic Security in India" (published by Institutefor Human Development), "Towards A Food Secure India: Issues & Policies" (publishedby Institute for Human Development (IHD) and Centre for Economic and Social Studies(CESS) , "Andhra Pradesh Development: Economic Reforms and Challenges Ahead"(published by CESS) and "Rural Poverty in India: Incidence, Issues and Policies" (publishedby Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR)). He has been a consultantand advisor to many international organizations like the UNDP, UNICEF, World Bank,International Food Policy Research Institute, ESCAP. He has been a member of severalgovernment Committees including Prime Minister's Task Force on Employment. He isalso a member of the Committee on 'Financial Inclusion' chaired by Dr.C. Rangarajan.
N. Chandrasekhara Rao is Fellow/Associate Professor at the Centre for Economic andSocial Studies, Hyderabad. Several of his research papers were published in reputed journalsin the field of economics. Also, he received Anamitra Saha Prize Award for the best articlein the Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Mumbai in 2004. His areas of researchinterest include agricultural and development economics, employment and poverty reduction.Email: [email protected]