agriculture world may 2016
Post on 01-Aug-2016
217 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE W RLDW RLD
The Pulse � Global Agriculture
Echoing Sustainable Environment and Agriculturewww.krishijagran.comkrishi.jagran @krishijagran
Volume II Issue 5 May 2016 `70 | | | ISSN 2455-8184
GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia
GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia
AGRICULTURE WORLDCONTENTS
Editor-in-ChiefMC Dominic
Directors Shiny EmanuelMG Vasan
Sr. Executive Editor Dr. KT ChandyRK Teotia
Assistant Editor Ruby Jain
Sr. Correspondent Imran KhanSonal Handa
CorrespondentManish ChauhanDeepshikhaSameer TiwariAslam Rasool KhanJyoti Sharma
V.P. Int. Business D.D. Nair Gavrilova Maria
Marketing Head Sanjay Kumar GM - Marketing Farha KhanSr. Manager Marketing K J SaranyaSara Khan
Marketing Manager Megha SharmaAfsana Malik Sr. Executive Marketing Chunki BhutiaPoonam BishwakarmaRinki PundirLaxmi PandeySoniya MahajanShifali MahajanPreeti ChauhanKanchan SinghHema SharmaRajni KumariKarishma LehriMeena PandeyPriya TripathiAayesha KhanVanita Singh
Circulation Head Nishant K Taak
Circulation Manager Rahul SinghAbdus Samad
Sr. Executive Circulation Prashant SharmaAnku YadavPappu RayMohitFurkan QureshiShahzeb Ahmed
AGRICULTURE WORLDIN THIS ISSUE
The Pulse � Global Agriculture
Volume 2 Issue 5 May 2016 Total Page- 44
Head Pre-Press Alka Gupta
Graphic Designer Dharmendra KumarYogesh Kumar
AccountsKB Indira
O�ce Assistant Devender KumarJagdish JanaPrem KumarRajiv
DD NairVP International Business (Russia & CIS Countries)6 Mikluho-Maklaya STR, Moscow, Russia 117198Mob: +7903729 98 30, Tel: +7499501 99 10Email: ddnair@krishijagran.com
M MezhukanalE-16F - 33, Hamriya Free Zone, Sharjah, UAEMob: +971 50 2870465 Email: mezhukanal@krishijagran.com
For Circulation & SubscriptionNishant Kr. TaakMob: +91-9953756433Email: circulation@krishijagran.com, subscription@krishijagran.com
CONTACT USEnquiryinfo@krishijagran.com
Editorialeditor@krishijagran.com
Marketingresponse@krishijagran.com
Printed and Published by: M. C. Dominic60/9, 3rd Floor, Yusuf Sarai Market, Near Green Park Metro Station, New Delhi 110016.Tel: 011-26511845, 26517923Mobile: +91-9313301029, +91-9654193353Email: info@krishijagran.com, edi-tor@krishijagran.com � Web: www.krishijagran.com
Printed at: Pushpak Press Pvt. Ltd., 203-204, DSIDC, Okhla Ph.-I, New Delhi - 110020
All rights reserved.Copyright @ Krishi Jagran Media Group.Agriculture World is published by Krishi Jagran Media Group.Editor: MC Dominic
Disclaimer:While every care has been taken to ensure accuracy of the information contained in this publications, the publishers are not responsible for any errors or omissions that might have crept into this publications.No part of this publication may be reproduced or kept in a retrieval system, without the express permission of the publishers.
08. GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia
12. Indian Private Industries in GM Crop Research
INTERVIEW
14. The Fate of Indian GM Mustard:
18. Twenty Successful Years Of Gm Crops
24. Status of Bt Brinjal in India
26. GENETIC TRANSFORMATION IN INSECTS
32. Colour Coding of Land Classes
krishijagran.com
M C DominicEditor‐in‐Chief
dominic@krishijagran.com
EDITORIAL
ndia is deplorably deficient in oil seed production and negatively poised in its oil seed export-import ratio. In 2014-
I15 alone 12 million tonnes of edible oil was imported. Among the oilseeds in India rapeseed and mustard are the two most important oilseeds after groundnut. In this respect GM mustard is a very promising oil seed crop to meet our
edible oil deficiency. However anti-GM lobby has blocked it from cultivation which is certainly a national crime and shame. Further it is a slur on the scores of scientists who developed GM mustard after several years of painstaking research. Dr C. D Mayee, Founder President, South Asia Biotechnology Centre, New Delhi in his article on “GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia” explains how political populist decisions go against the scientific truths.
There was time when too much emphasis was on the public sector enterprises. Today it is public-private partnership that is stressed more; in many times the private enterprises are taking lead in key areas of science and technology. That is true also in the genetic engineering and related fundamental and applied research. Dr. Shivendra Bajaj, Executive Director, ABLE AG, in his article on highlights the role of “Indian Private Industries in GM Crops Research” refers to the GM phobia created by anti-science and anti-technical people who think of only social development.
The article by R. K. Teotia, Aslam Rasool Khan & Sameer Tiwari pose a wonderful challenge to the government which in its unreasonable ban on the Bt Brinjal and GM mustard have been insulting the scientists who after many years of painstaking work have developed them. They are the Indian scientists working in the public sectors and there is no involvement of external multinational companies as in the case of Bt Cotton. Why can't the government asses the Bt inventions objectively and learn from our neighbouring country Bengladesh on Bt Brinjal? Why the govt is importing Rs 85000 crore worth GM oil? These are legitimate questions raised by the authors of this article.
GM crops are making a-fast-track-in-roads into the agricultural production scenario not only the developing countries but also in the developed countries though there are well calculated opposing forces working against it. Drawing much from the field level raw data on the spread of GM technology in a number of crops and the resulting rise in the production both in the Asian-African countries and developed countries Clive James, Emeritus Chairman and Founder, ISAAA, convincingly presents the real scenario of GM crop-acceptance by the farmers all over the world. The “Top Ten Facts” he has enumerated and explained in this article are based on solid research findings.
The medicinal and nutritional importance of Brinjal is indisputable and India being one of the places of origin of Brinjal in the world its importance in the life of the people in this country needs no debate. Because it is available abundantly many people ignore its importance in their life as medicinal food item. Brinjal being the same family as the cotton plant the Bt technology become very handy to control the fruit and shoot borer infestation found to be a major constraint to yield. Miss Rashmi Verma, PhD research Scholar, Graphic Era University Dehradun in her article on Status of Bt Brinjal in India describes the noble efforts of scientists in developing the Bt Brinjal contrasting with the hypocritical attitude of the government of India.
In the modern world of science and technology genetic research is contributing perhaps more than any other to the wellbeing of humans in the world. Ever since man has discovered genes as the basis of all living being's characters genetic engineering has gone into gene mapping of almost all the living beings including humans. Genomics is the wholesale descriptive analysis of an organism's genome, including DNA sequence and gene expression information. By now we have witnessed the realization of the long-sought goal of genetically transforming insects of medical and agricultural importance. The article on Genetic transformation in insects by Prashant K. Natikar, D. N. Kambrekar and R. A. Balikai, Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, details the technical details of the GM in insects is another milestone in the genetic research in India.
Often the quality of agricultural land varies from plot to plot. This is due to the variations in the various parameters of the soil such as soil depth, soil texture, permeability, moisture content, drainage, soil fertility, organic matter, topography etc. Hence the capability of the land to produce crops too varies from plot to plot. The ordinary farmers do have have some innate knowledge about it. However a scientific approach will strengthen the native knowledge or the common man's understanding of the land capability classification. Soils are colour coded in order to distinguish their production potential. Dr. K. T. Chandy in his article presents the universally accepted colour coding on the soil.
Why The Hue and
Cry on GM Crops?
krishijagran.com06 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
he decision of the Minister of TEnvironment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF &CC) not to allow commercial planting of GM mustard after the meeting of the apex scientific body, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), is yet another blow to the wishes of small holder farmers of the country. More so it is an utter disappointment to the s c i en t i f i c commun i t y. Wh i l e pronouncing the decision on GM mustard, the Minister of MOEF&CC detoured from the science-based decision making, dodged the main purpose of GEAC's meeting and indirectly doubted the capacity of scientific community of India. It was a classic example of continuing the policies adopted by UPA government to dec l i ne approva l fo r t he commercialization of genetically improved crops irrespective of its being developed by public or private sec tor ins t i tu t ions . Even th is Government appears to hold the
same lame duck arguments as earlier ones to deny permission. There seems to be a no sign of revival and clarity in policy from the current regime on genetically i m p r o v e d c r o p s u s i n g biotechnological approaches. In fact the current advances in agri-biotechnology have led to the developments of series of transgenic varieties of crop plants popularly referred as GM or GE crops ( g e n e t i c a l l y m o d i f i e d o r engineered).
There has been confusion amongst public about Bt technology that Bt is all that GM or GM means Bt. GM mustard is about development of a hybrid technology using the biotech tools but the utter confusion with Bt amongst the public has been exploited conveniently by the anti-G M O a c t i v i s t s t o s t o p i t s commercialization. Bt is one of the many GM technologies that has been developed as an insect-
GM Mustard Muddled up in GM PhobiaGM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia
�
�
GM mustard is about development of a hybrid technology
using the biotech tools but the utter confusion
with Bt amongst the public has been
exploited conveniently by the anti-GMO activists to stop its commercialization.
krishijagran.com08 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
resistant trait. The classical example is Bt cotton which contains genes from t he na t u ra l l y o c cu r r i ng so i l bacterium, Bacillus thuringensis (Bt). The biotechnological tools are used to introduce the Bt genes into cotton plants which then expresses a protein that effectively tackles insect pests like bollworms. This technology offers the cheapest and most efficient method of protecting the crops against the dreaded pest, bollworms in several crops such as; cotton, brinjal, maize, chickpea and pigeon pea etc. Traditional breeding methods which have been highly successful in bringing the first green revolution in cereal crops have not been successful in developing bollworm resistant cotton, stem borer resistant corn or stem and fruit piercing pest of brinjal and okra.
GM mustard is developed indigenously by scientists of Delhi University with the financial support of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. So those usual arguments in case of Bt cotton that the multinational will control the seed sector falls flat. Also that the GM technologies are the m o n o p o l y o f m u l t i n a t i o n a l companies proves totally erroneous and untenable. It is increasingly becoming clear that like Bt brinjal
during UPA regime, GM mustard has also become a victim of political vacillations of the GEAC. In fact the regulatory body was made toothless
earlier when former Minister of Environment & Forests through Gazette notification replaced the word 'APPROVAL' with 'APPRAISAL' in GEAC. From toothless, it has been now made dysfunctional due to continuing political intervention in its working. In spite of having the experience of growing successfully the only GM crop; Bt cotton over 11.6 million hectare accruing additional farm benefits of Rupee 10,500 crore annually for the last 15 years, we are
creating a GM phobia deliberately in the minds of general public. Just because of a recent epidemic of white fly in North India, which has nothing to do with the Bt technology, the activists are lobbying for a total ban on all GM crops being developed
through this science and closing the door for powerful and emerging genome ed i ted techno log ies . Prolonging the resistance of cotton to
bollworms through Bt is dependent on how we follow the regulatory norms of adopting the 'refugia' techniques, cultivating short duration cultivars in the rain- fed areas and c lose monitoring of the crop cultivation. Not only the Indian private sector but also the public institutions are engaged in research in agri-biotechnology and series of biotech products expressing insect resistance to herbicide tolerance to drought tolerance traits in important crops such as chickpea, pigeon pea, mustard, maize, rice, brinjal, okra, potato, sugarcane, sorghum and groundnut, and also fortifying food crops by developing golden rice.
Ironically, the set of activists and their reasons for opposing GM crops have also changed with a change of regime at the centre. So while the UPA regime pandered to environmental activists who opposed on the plank of environment safety, 'Swadeshi' lover and proponents find favour with the present NDA regime. It is a travesty that a democratic polity only has ears for anti-GM activists and their roundly demolished and flawed unscientific arguments, but do not have a heart for the pleadings of regular scientists involved in the pursuit and progress of Indian science across the public institutions of the country. It is sad that they do not
realise that academicians or scientists involved in the labs and fields do not shout slogans unlike activists who have no labs or fields but all the energy and time to shout and create enough noising to push their agenda. Mr. S w a m i n a t h a n S Ankalesari Aiyar a well known, senior journalist very rightly said that the “activists seek by hook or c r o o k t o d e l a y genet ical ly modif ied crops, using courts and
rented mobs financed partly by dollar inflows”.
When China is acquiring the global giant Swiss biotech company
krishijagran.com 09 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
�
�
GM mustard can fill the gap at least
partially by increased production
of mustard, and likely to arrest
further increase in imported edible
canola and soybean oil, which is all
derived from GMOs.
GM
Technolo
gy
Syngenta with the cash investment equivalent of Rs 2,80,000 crores, India's decision to keep the GM mustard on back burner is India's tryst with destiny. We have yet to realize that according to the United Nation's Report, India is expected to surpass the population of China and shall be the most populous country in the world by another six years, not very far. We heavily rely on imports of our protein and fat requirements spending US$ 4.5 billion on imported pulses and another US$ 10.5 billion on imported edible oil. It is expected that with urbanization, better employment opportunities coupled with more disposable income, the demand for nutritious food specially pulses, oils, vegetables, milk, meat, poultry food etc. will grow many folds. The situation currently is so grim that our Honourable Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi drew attention of scientists and farmers to the large import bill toward the pulses and vege tab le o i l s . We are a l so celebrating 2016 as the International Year of Pulses. Does this mean that count r ies l i ke Canada, USA, Australia and China which are regular exporter of pulses and edible oil to India should grow more of it for Indian consumers ins tead we deve l op ing t e chno log i e s f o r increasing our own production and productivity? India is the biggest importer of edible oil and pulses, yet we deny new technologies to improve the domestic production.
We are increasingly becoming
pay attention to scientific logic, reasoning and evidences presented in multi years scientific trials and data submitted by Delhi University and then evaluated r igorous ly by regulatory agencies like GEAC and RCGM. Let us not kill the science and its products, at least those developed by public sector institutions. The scientific community is tired of hearing the usual argument around public acceptance which is not only illusive but also misleading. Let us not entangle the GM permissions to the court verdicts. MOEF&CC and MOA&FW should work out an amenable solution of “NOCs” in order to smoothly conduct mandatory field trials of GM crops in States.
Finally, leave the safety, efficacy and performance of GM crops to the scientists, evaluators and regulatory agencies involved in the scrutiny of biotech products and not to rely on slogan mongering activists. It will be too late when the food security will be threatened by food shortages as seen with rising imports of maize, pulses and edible oil in the recent years. If the scientific temper is lost, there will be chilling effect on biotech sciences and the scientis ts shal l begin questioning themselves as to why spend years in developing GM crops in the knowledge that they will most likely be outlawed by Government fiat. The MOEF&CC should prioritize the scientific preparedness over mobocracy and protests. Indian scientists are capable of bringing in second green revolution provided they are permitted to do the science on developing the new technologies for Indian agriculture.
dependent on the imported food for feeding our growing population. Ironically, we are importing maize to feed our animals. On edible oil, the domestic production is tagged at around 7.6 million tonnes while the import is more than 11.8 MT valued at US$ 10.5 billion or around Rs 70,000 crores. The projected demand in the next 10 years will reach 34 MT and the domestic production shall be around 9-10 MT with the available technologies. GM mustard can fill the gap at least partially by increased production of mustard, and likely to arrest further increase in imported edible canola and soybean oil, which is all derived from GMOs. Scientific community is also very excited of the new GM technology of Bt chickpea, an important pulse crop developed indigenously with public-private-pa r t n e r s h i p be tween As sam Agricultural University (AAU) and Sungro a domestic seed company. If corrective policy decision is not taken Bt chickpea will meet the same fate as the GM mustard in spite of the fact that the country imports nearly 4.5 MT of pulses annually at the cast of Rs 30,000 crores. The recent report of the Group o f Secre tar ies on agriculture rightly recommended the development and t ime bound approval of Bt chickpea in India.
The scientific community should make a col lect ive demand to honourable minister MOEF&CC not to budge under irrational and humongous protests by NGOs but
Dr. C.D. Mayee Founder President,
South Asia Biotechnology Centre, New Delhi;Vice President,
National Academy Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi,
Former Chairman, ASRB-ICAR, New Delhi
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
krishijagran.com10 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
crops and the traits in which the
research field trials are being
conducted or sought which may lead
to commercialization of these crops in
India in the future. However, this list
should be seen as the representative
of the research and by no means a
complete list.
As discussed above that the
success of GM crops globally has led
to research in India for those crops
with traits that are specifically
beneficial for India. The main crops
for which the research is in advanced
stages are Brinjal, Cotton, Chickpea,
Rice, Maize and Wheat. It also
includes crops like Chickpea that was
developed by a public sector but
taken forward in collaboration with
Industry. The public sector has been
involved in many other crops as well,
the most well-known example is GM
mustard, which is on verge of
commercialization. The traits in which
the above crops are modified include
insect resistance, herbicide tolerance,
T h e c r o p s d e r i v e d f r o m
biotechnology or commonly
known as GM crops are one of the
most successful launches of new
technologies in global agriculture.
This year marks the completion of 20
years of commercialization of GM
crops. The global area under GM
crops increased from just 1.9 million
hectares in 1996 to 179.7 million
hectares in 2015 (ISAAA, 2016).
The main commercial GM crops are
Canola, corn, cotton and soybean,
while recently potato and apple are
the new commercially approved GM
crops. India, with just one commercial
GM crop cotton and one commercial
trait, insect resistance is the fourth
largest country in the world which GM
crops are grown commercially. Insect
resistant cotton or Bt cotton as
more popularly known covers
approximately 95% of all cotton
grown area in India that has enabled
India to become exporter of cotton
from being a net importer few years
ago.
With this introduction, it is
clear that the GM technology has a
tremendous potential in countries like
India. India is also one of very few
developing countries, in fact, few
countries in the world, that has the
capability (both technology as well as
human resource) to develop its own
GM crops with traits that are needed
specifically for our country. Both
public research institutions and
private industry have realized the
potential and made significant
i nve s tmen t s i n to r e search i n
identifying and testing new genes for
different traits in various crops. Both
these sectors also invested heavily in
training the human resource required
to develop this highly technical,
r e sou r ce i n t en s i v e and t ime
consuming technology. However, this
article focuses only on industry efforts
to bring more crops and traits
available to farmers in India.
Table 1 summarizes the
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy Indian Private Industries
in GM Crop Research
krishijagran.com12 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
cot ton s tacked wi th herbic ide
tolerance trait is pending with
government for approval. Not only
commercialization of biotech crops,
even conducting research field trials to
generate data is proving to be very
difficult during the last five years. The
requ i remen t o f ob ta in ing No
Objection Certificate (NOCs) from
states to conduct research field work
has resulted in only handful of trials
being conducted leading to serious
delays in data generation required for
commercialization. These serious
de lay s has r e su l t ed i n many
organizations shutting down or
significantly reducing their research
programs in biotechnology, which not
only has led to significant number of
job losses but also may deter students
t a ke a ca r ee r i n ag r i c u l t u r e
biotechnology. Thus, Indian farmers
may not see some of the products
available to them that was earlier
planned. However, it is hoped that
some of the new GM crop products
m a y s e e t h e l i g h t o f
commercialization very soon.
To conclude, India has its
own unique needs which can be
supported by GM crops. We all
know that we import significant
amount of pulses and oil seeds that
cause significant drain on our
exchequer. GM chickpea or GM
mustard can help reduce our
dependency on foreign imports.
Similarly drought tolerant crops or
the crops that have increased water
use efficiency can help the farmers
grow more crops in less water. The
private industry has or is developing
several new products that are India
specific either on its own or in
collaboration with the public sector.
Insect resistant chickpea is one such
example. Indian private industry as
well as the public sector has the
expertise and capability to develop
G M c r o p s i n I n d i a . W i t h
appropriate encouragement from
the government, India can see new
GM crops commercial and be a
world leader in this technology.
Shivendra Bajaj, Ph.D.
Executive Director, ABLE AG
Table 1. Research by private sector on GM crops in India and the traits improved.
Crop Traits
Brinjal Insect resistance
Chickpea Insect resistance
Corn Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance
Cotton Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, virus resistance
Rice Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, drought tolerance,
salt tolerance, nitrogen and water use efficiency,
hybrid development, yield increase
Wheat Herbicide tolerance
hybrid vigour, salt tolerance, drought
tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency,
water use efficiency, virus resistance
and yield increase. Some of the traits
such as insect resistance in cotton are
the improvement of already existing
products. These traits are either being
developed as stand-alone or as
s tacked produc t s , w i th insec t
resistance and herbicide tolerance are
the most common examples of stacked
products. It is to be noted that although
dif ferent organizations may be
working on the same crop and trait
such as insect resistant cotton or
drought tolerant rice but the genes
involved and their mode of action are
different, which should offer farmer a
choice even with the similar products.
However, the last five years
have not been ver y good for
the industry from a regulatory and
government support point of view.
India developed insect resistant Bt
b r i n ja l i n 2010 bu t was no t
commercialized because of the
m o r a t o r i u m a g a i n s t t h e
commercialization. It is ironic that the
same Bt br injal was tes ted in
Bangladesh in their local varieties.
Bangladesh went ahead, used the
same safety data that was generated in
India and this year is the third year of
successful commercialization of Bt
Brinjal in Bangladesh. Similarly insect
resistant Bt cotton from a different
organization and insect resistant
krishijagran.com 13 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
GM
Technolo
gy
All plants are
Genetically
Modified
naturally
�
�
The Fate of Indian
GM Mustard:
The Fate of Indian
GM Mustard: country with a large number of population
Adepending on agriculture has to face a lot of
challenges about how to make the farmers aware
about latest technologies to do better farming. There are
many disputes regarding Genetically Modified crops in
the country for many years. There are different views
regarding Genetically Modified crops by different
people. Krishi Jagran team interacted with Dr. Deepak
Pental and he shared some of his experiences regarding
his long term research on GM Mustard.
Dr. Deepak Pental is a Professor of Genetics and the Ex Vice Chancellor at the University of Delhi. He is a noted researcher whose current research interests lie in development of transgenics and marker-assisted breeding of crops. Pental completed his B.Sc and M.Sc from the Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh in 1971 and 1973 respectively. And subsequently he did his Ph.D. from Rutgers University, USA in 1978. He was a Postdoctoral and University Research Fellow at the University of Nottingham from 1978-84. He returned to India to join Tata Energy Research Institute(TERI) in 1985 and in 1993 he joined the University of Delhi, South Campus as Professor of Genetics. He took charge of the post of Vice-chancellor of the University on 1 September 2005.
Dr.Deepak Pental
JOURNEY OF GM MUSTARD:
When our group was in Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), we got a few germ plasm of Eastern – European Mustard from Mr. Chiminski, a renowned breeder, which was different from Indian Mustard. He gave us another two three types of germ plasms while attending a conference in Polland. We started research on CMS technique and we succeeded partially in getting a hybrid 126-1, but that is not frost tolerant. We were sure of the fact that, if we want to grow larger acreage under mustard and double the production, we should adopt the Barnes and Barstar technique of Genetically Modified technology. The specialty of this technique is that we receive 95% purity in seeds.
It's a very common question that people usually asks me, “When we have a hybrid in mustard, why should we go for t ransgen ic mus tard?” My s imp le answer to this question is that- it can double the production. Canada is the biggest example. As we all know, it is worlds one of the b igges t p roduce r s o f Canola oi l and 100% mustard in Canada is Genetically Modified. We have already spent 70-80 crores of public money on GM Mustard research. If the government did not want to allow the commercial cultivation of GM crops, then why they have not stopped the research earlier? They know that the stopping of research is illegal and so now they are creating so many hurdles so that the farmers cannot take the advantage of this technology. We are importing Canola oil which worth crores of rupees. Government should also allow the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. To feed the rising population of our country, this technology should be adopted.
In my opinion all plants are Genetically Modified naturally. We developed the GM Mustard technology in
2002, but even after fourteen years now, government is not allowing the commercial cultivation of GM Mustard. This means our country is not going to adopt a new technology which is highly beneficial for our farmers. We have also given Bt cotton to Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur and Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, which is better than the prevailing Bt cotton in the country, but ICAR is not approving it.
Farmers require new technologies, which should be of low cost and high yielding. Government is not thinking about such kind of technologies, thus the Multi National Companies are only choice for the farmers for the latest technological advancement. Either the government should allow the implementation of private technologies or should have a tie up in Public-Private Partnership model for the benefit of our farmers. The current policies adopted by the government are not at all farmer friendly. The farmers of India are capable to produce 85,000 crore worth of GM oil, which we are importing now-a-days, provided the government should permit to grow GM mustard in India.
The most important question is Why the Government is not allowing the commercial cultivation of GM Mustard and who is behind this conspiracy? The farmers must know these facts. Interview by:
Sameer Tiwari & Aslam Rasool Khan.
Inte
rvie
w
krishijagran.com14 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
ots of discussions are taking Lplace all over the world on GM
foods or Genetically Modified
crops. Those who are in favor of
this technology believe that
Genetically Modified crops can be
a great boon for the second green
revolution in India, whereas those
who are opposing them claim that
this technology will hamper the
growth of agriculture and is
disastrous to human beings. Now
the question arise that why
Government of India is investing a
lot of funds in Agricul ture-
Biotechnology research? We are
importing Rs 85000 crore worth
GM oil, but we are not allowing
cultivation GM Mustard in the
country. What are the reasons? Is it
being done deliberately to favor
some specific corporate houses?
The Price control on Bt Cotton
seeds through state and central
government orders are the latest
example of India's schizophrenic
approach to innovation in the Agri-
biotechnology field. On the one
hand, India is asking foreign
companies to innovate in India and
on the o ther hand we are
preventing to bring GM Mustard
technology to the farmers. The
p r i c e c on t r o l o n Bo l l ga rd
technology seeds is affecting
credibility in protecting IPR and
most of the global seed companies
are feeling hesitant in bringing
their latest technologies in India.
For the last ten years no Biotechnology
or Genetically Modified technology
was approved by the Government for
example, Bt Brinjal and GM Mustard.
Because of this reason many of the
Agr icu l tu re B io techno logy- led
enterprises have stopped their
research programs in India. The
budget for ICAR was around 0.8
billion in 2014-15 but Monsanto alone
spent 1.7 billion on R&D in 2014. This
shows that the
q u a l i t a t i v e
s e e d s w i l l
come from the
global private
p l a y e r s . I f
Monsanto will
q u i t I n d i a ,
B o l l g a r d - I I I
may not come
in India and
Bollgard–II will
f i n i s h i t s
potency within
the next 3-5 years. If so, the cotton
revolution will be dumped forever and
who will be the loser?.....The farmers of
India.
If the present government is
under the pressure of some vested
interests, not to allow the Multinational
National Companies for technology
transfer then why the clearance for GM
Mustard is not given, which is a public
sector product developed by Delhi
University with the support from
National Dairy Development Board
(NDDB). The delay in clearance for
GM technologies is also creating
u n e m p l o y m e n t f o r t h e A g r i -
biotechnologist and the students those
who are doing MSc or PhD in
biotechnology and are in dilemma.
The Government of India has to
decide that whether the cultivation of
GM foods is required or we will be
bound to import GM foods from Brazil,
Argentina, Canada, Austral ia,
Malaysia or Indonesia to ensure our
food security.
Government has imposed
the trails of 15 GM crops due to
t he oppos i t i on made by
'Swadeshi Jagran Manch'.
Ministry of environment has told
in this regard that the decision to
conduct the field trails is of the
Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee (GEAC) and not of
the government. The GEAC
c o m p r i s e s o f s e v e r a l
departments of Government of
India. GEAC however has
approved Bt Brinjal, then why
Government of India is not allowing
the commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal
and same is in the case of GM
Mustard. We should learn about the
success of this technology in the form of
Bt Cotton. Because of the allotment of Bt
Cotton cultivation in our country, we
are one of the largest producers of
cotton and today we are exporting
cotton rather than importing which we
were doing before the introduction of
Bt Cotton.
�
�
The Government of India has to
decide that whether the
cultivation of GM foods is required
or we will be bound to import
GM foods
GM or No GM, India has to Decide
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
krishijagran.com16 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
krishijagran.com 17 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
If the Government of India is satisfied with the fact that GM crops should be cultivated, then it should ask the ICAR and
the State Agriculture Universities to develop and produce the GM seeds and deliver it to the farmers.
Recently, eminent agriculture scientist Dr. M. S. Swaminathan made a strong case against the moratorium and in favor
of a smooth approval process towards field trails of GM crops, saying “they are absolutely essential to assess risks and
benefits” and he also suggested that the ICAR should organize an All India coordinated project for field testing of GM crops
at university farms.
According to Prakash Javdekar, Union Minister of Environment,
“The GM crops are important to increase the productivity. I think
that we should not stop the science to work. That is why
Government of India is permitting the trails in a controlled
environment. But it also depends on the state government whether
they permit to grow or not.”
According to Professor Deepak
Pental, Professor of Genetics and
Ex Vice Chancellor of Delhi
University, “Every plant is
genetically modified and the
increase in production is due to
the high yielding varieties
developed through hybridization
or by genetically modification. It
is a fact that government is feared
of NGO's and social activists for
not allowing commercial
cultivation of GM crops. Why the
Government of India is tempering
such a wonderful technology?”
“Traditional agriculture
technologies have limitations and
these technologies are unable to
solve the complex problems. Only
the GM technology is able to do
that. It is a matter of shame for
Government of India that so
called scientist and activists are
opposing the tremendous, regular
and continues efforts made by
eminent scientist to develop the GM technology. If there is
a permission to sell canola oils of multinational companies
in the Indian market, then why there is an objection to
grow GM crops by Indian farmers? This is a dishonest
behavior of the Government of India towards the
farmers,” said P. Chengal Reddy, Secretary General,
Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (CIFA).
Bhupinder Singh Mann,
President, Kisan Coordination
Committee (KCC), said that “If
Government of India will allow
the commercial cultivation of GM
Mustard, then it will repeat the
story of success of Bt Cotton.
Now Government of India has to think about the
positivity of GM technology. There is no record of human
or animal poisoning by GM food since their introduction
anywhere in the world. Bt Brinjal is successfully grown in
Bangladesh and the American and Australian continent
countries are growing a large number of crops which has
been developed through GM technology. Biotechnology
in agriculture is the need of hour as we are facing
problems such as shortage of irrigation and saline soil. A
large number of improved varieties has been developed
in many crops through GM technology and are cultivated
worldwide despite biotic and abiotic stresses. Now if
India has to enter second green revolution, then we have
to adopt the GM technology for better productivity and
lesser quantity of pesticides usage. To be self-sufficient in
oil seeds, corn, and soybean the GM technology based
seeds are needed. Either the government should take the
responsibility for development of these seeds or the
private companies should be allowed for the development
of GM technology based seeds under safety norms.“GM
or No GM, India Has to Decide.”
Aslam R. Khan Sameer TiwariKrishi Jagran
GM
Technolo
gy
Twenty Successful Years Of Gm Crops
krishijagran.com 07 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
developing nations. Annually, up to 18
million farmers, 90 percent of whom
were small, resource-poor growers in
developing countries, benefited from
planting biotech crops from 1996 to
2015.
“China is just one example of
biotechnology's benefits for farmers in
developing countries. Between 1997
and 2014, biotech cotton varieties
brought an estimated $17.5 billion
worth of benefits to Chinese cotton
farmers, and they realized $1.3 billion
in 2014 alone,” were the words Randy
Hautea, Coordinator of ISAAA
Global,.
In 2015, India became the
leading cotton producer in the world
with much of its growth attributed to
biotech Bt cotton. India is the largest
biotech cotton country in the world
with 11.6 million hectares planted in
2015 by 7.7 million small farmers. In
2014 and 2015, an impressive 95
percent of India's cotton crop was
planted with biotech seed; China's
adoption in 2015 was 96 percent.
n t e rna t iona l Se r v i ce fo r t he IA c q u i s i t i o n o f A g r i - B i o t e c h
Appl icat ions ( ISAAA) re leased
its annual report detailing the adoption
rate of biotech crops, on its th“20
A n n i v e r s a r y o f t h e G l o b a l
Commercialization of Biotech Crops
(1996-2015) and Biotech Crop
Highlights in 2015,” showcasing the
global increase in biotech hectarage
from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to
179.7 million hectares in 2015. This
100-fold increase in just 20 years
makes biotechnology the fastest
adopted crop technology in recent
times, reflecting farmer-satisfaction
with biotech crops.
Since 1996, 2 billon hectares
of arable land – a massive area more
than twice the landmass of China or the
United States – have been planted with
biotech crops. Additionally, it is
estimated that farmers in up to 28
countries have reaped more than
US$150 billion in benefits from biotech
crops since 1996. This has helped to
alleviate poverty of about 16.5 million
small farmers and their families
annually totaling about 65 million
people who are the poorest in the
world.
“More farmers are planting
biotech crops in developing countries
precisely because biotech crops are a
rigorously-tested option for improving
their crop yields,” said Clive James,
founder and emeritus chair of ISAAA,
who has authored the ISAAA report for
the past two decades. He concludes,
“Despite claims from opponents that
biotechnology only benefits farmers in
industrialized countries, the continued
adop t ion o f t he GM crops in
developing countries disproves that”.
For the fourth consecutive
year, developing countries planted
more biotech crops (14.5 million
he c t a r e s ) t han i ndu s t r i a l i z ed
countries. In 2015, Latin American,
Asian and African farmers grew
biotech crops on 54 percent of global
biotech hectarage (97.1 million
hectares of 179.7 million biotech
hectares) and of the 28 countries that
planted biotech crops, 20 were
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
“ F a r m e r s , w h o a r e
traditionally risk-averse, recognize the
value of biotech crops, which offer
benefits to farmers and consumers
alike, including drought tolerance,
insect and disease resistance, herbicide
tolerance, and increased nutrition and
food qua l i t y, ” Hau tea added .
“Moreover, biotech crops contribute to
more sustainable crop production
sys tems tha t address concerns
regarding climate change and global
food security.”
Following a remarkable run of
19 years of consecutive growth from
1996 to 2014, including 12 years of
double-digit growth, the global
hectarage of biotech crops peaked at
181.5 million hectares in 2014, it was
only 179.7 million hectares in 2015,
equivalent to one per cent decrease.
This change is principally due to an
overa l l decrease in to ta l c rop
hectarage, associated with low prices
for commodity crops in 2015. ISAAA
anticipates that total crop hectarage will
increase when crop prices improve. For
example, Canada has projected that
canola hectarage in 2016 will revert to
the higher level of 2014. Other factors
affecting biotech hectarage in 2015
include the devastating drought in South
Africa, which led to a massive 23
percent decrease of 7,00,000 hectares
in intended plantings in 2015. The
drought in eastern and southern Africa
in 2015-2016 puts up to 15 to 20
million poor people at risk for food
insecurity and compels South Africa,
usually a maize exporter, to rely on
maize imports.
Additional highlights from ISAAA's
2015 report include:
· New biotech crops were approved
and/or commercialized in several
countries including the United States,
Brazi l , Argentina, Canada and
Myanmar.
· The United States saw a number of
firsts including the commercialization of
new products such as:
Innate™ Generation 1 potatoes,
with lower levels of acrylamide, a
potential carcinogen, and resistance to TM
bruising. Innate Generation 2,
approved in 2015, also has late blight
resistance. It is noteworthy that the
potato is the fourth most important food
crop in the world.
Arctic® Apples that do not brown
when sliced.
The first non-transgenic genome-
edited crop to be commercialized
globally, SU Canola™, was planted in
the United States.
The first-time approval of a GM
animal food product, GM salmon, for
human consumption.
· Biotech crops with multiple traits,
often called “stacked traits,” were
planted on 58.5 million hectares,
representing 33 percent of all biotech
hectares planted and a 14 percent
year-over-year increase.
· Vietnam planted a stacked-trait
biotech Bt and herbicide-tolerant
maize as its first biotech crop.
· Biotech Drought Gard™ maize,
first planted in the United States in
2013, increased 15-fold from
50,000 hectares in 2013 to 8,10,000
hectares reflecting high farmer
acceptance.
· Sudan increased Bt cotton
hectarage by 30 percent to 1,20,000
hectares, while various factors
precluded a higher hectarage in
Burkina Faso.
· Eight African countries field-
tested, pro-poor, priority African
crops, the penultimate step prior to
approval.
Looking ahead to the future of
biotechnology in agriculture, ISAAA
has identified three key opportunities
to realize continued growth in
adoption of biotech crops, which are
as follows:
· High rates of adoption (90
percent to 100 percent) in current
major biotech markets leave little
room for expansion. However, there is
a significant potential in other “new”
countries for selected products, such
as biotech maize, which has a
potential of approximately 100
million more hectares globally, 60
million hectares in Asia, of which 35
million is in China alone, plus 35
million hectares in Africa.
· More than 85 potential new
products in the pipeline are now
krishijagran.com 19 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
GM
Technolo
gy
being field-tested; including a biotech
drought tolerant maize from the WEMA
project (Water Efficient Maize for
Africa) expected to be released in
Africa in 2017, Golden Rice in Asia,
and fortified bananas and pest-resistant
cowpea in Africa.
· CRISPR (Clustered Regularly
Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats)
a new power ful genome-edi ted
technology has significant comparative
advantages over conventional and GM
crops in four domains: precision, speed,
cost and regulation. When combined
with other advances in crop sciences,
CRISPR could increase crop productivity
in a “sustainable intensification” mode
on the 1.5 billion hectares of global
arable land, and make a vi tal
contribution to global food security.
Top ten facts
FACT # 1. 2015 marked the
2 0 t h y e a r o f t h e s u c c e s s f u l
commercialization of biotech crops.
An unp receden t ed cumu la t i v e
hectarage of 2 billion hectares of
biotech crops, equivalent to twice the
total land mass of the US (937 million
hectares), were successfully cultivated
globally in up to 28 countries annually,
in the 20-year period 1996 to 2015;
farmer benefits for 1996 to 2015 were
conservatively estimated at over
US$150 billion. Up to 18 million risk-
averse farmers benefitted annually, of
whom, remarkably, 90% were small,
resource-poor farmers in developing
countries.
FACT # 2. Progressive adoption
in the first 20 years. Following a
remarkable run of 19 years of
consecutive yearly growth from 1996 to
2014, the annual global hectarage of
biotech crops peaked at
181.5 million in 2014,
compared with 179.7 million
hectares in 2015, equivalent
to a net marginal year-to-
year decrease of 1.0%
between 2014 and 2015.
Some countries increased
their total plantings, whilst
o t h e r s r e d u c e d t h e i r
hectarage principally due to
the current low prices of
commodity crops; these
hectarage decreases are
likely to revert to higher
hectarage levels when crop
prices improve. The global
hectarage of biotech crops increased
100-fold from 1.7 million hectares in
1996 to 179.7 million hectares in
2015, making biotech crops the fastest
adopted crop technology in recent
times.
FACT # 3., Developing countries
planted more biotech crops for the 4th
consecutive year. In 2015, Latin
American, Asian and African farmers
collectively grew 97.1 million hectares
or 54% of the global are of 179.7
million hectares (versus 53% in 2014)
compared with industrial countries at
82.6 million hectares or 46% (versus
47% in 2014); this trend is likely to
continue. Of the 28 countries planting
biotech crops in 2015 are the 20 were
developing while 8 are industrial.
FACT # 4. Stacked traits occupied
33% of the global amounting 179.7
million hectares. Stacked traits are
favored by farmers for all 3 major
biotech crops. Stacked traits increased
from 51.4 million hectares in 2014 to
58.5 million hectares in 2015, an
increase of 7.1 million hectares
equivalent to a 14% increase. 14
countries planted stacked biotech crops
with two or more traits in 2015, of
which 11 were developing countries.
Vietnam planted stacked type biotech
Bt/HT maize as its first biotech crop in
2015.
FACT # 5. Selected highlights in
developing countries in 2015. Latin
America had the largest hectarage, led
by Brazil, followed by Argentina. In
Asia, Vietnam planted for the first time,
and Bangladesh's pol i t i ca l wi l l
advanced planting of Bt egg plant and
identified Golden Rice, biotech potato
and cotton as future biotech targets. The
Philippines has grown biotech maize
successfully for 13 years, and is
appealing a recent Supreme Court
decision on biotech crops, whilst
Indonesia is close to approving a home-
grown drought-tolerant sugarcane.
China continues to benefit significantly
from Bt cotton (US$18 billion for 1997
to 2014), and notably ChemChina
recent ly bid US$43 bi l l ion for
Syngenta. In 2015, India became the
number one cotton producer in the
world, to which Bt cotton made a
significant contribution during the
period 2002 to 2014 are estimated at
US$18 billion. Africa progressed
despite a devastating drought in South
Africa resulting in a decrease in
intended plantings of 7,00,000
hectares in 2015, a massive 23%
decrease. This underscores yet again
the life-threatening importance of
drought in Africa, where fortunately, the
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
krishijagran.com20 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
WEMA biotech drought-tolerant maize
is on track for release in 2017. Sudan
increased Bt cotton hectarage by 30%
to 1,20,000 hectares in 2015, whilst
various factors precluded a higher
hectarage in Burkina Faso. In 2015
eight African countries field-tested,
pro-poor, priority African crops, the
penultimate step prior to approval.
FACT # 6. Major developments in
the US in 2015. Progress
on many fronts including:
s e v e r a l “ f i r s t s ” i n
a p p r o v a l s a n d
commercialization's of
“new” GM crops, such as
Innate™ potatoes and
A r c t i c ® A p p l e s ;
commercialization of the
f i r s t non - t r an sgen i c
genome-edited crop, SU
Cano la™; f i r s t t ime
approval of a GM animal
f o o d p r o d u c t , G M
s a l m o n , f o r h u m a n
consumption; and increasing R&D use
of the powerful genome editing
technology, named CRISPR -adoption
of first biotech drought tolerant maize
(see below). Dow and DuPont merged
to form DowDuPont.
FACT # 7. High adoption of
the first biotech drought-tolerant
maize planted in the US. Biotech
DroughtGard™ maize, first planted in
the US in 2013, increased 15-fold from
50,000 hectares in 2013 to 810,000
hectares in 2015 reflecting high farmer
acceptance. The same event has been
dona ted to the pub l i c -pr i va te
partnership WEMA (Water Efficient
Maize for Africa), aimed at the timely
delivery of a biotech drought tolerant
maize to selected countries in Africa by
2017.
FACT # 8. Status of biotech crops
in the EU. The same five EU countries
continued to plant 1,16,870 hectares
of Bt maize, down by 18% from 2014.
Hectares decreased in all countries due
to several factors including, less maize
planted, disincentives for farmers with
onerous reporting.
FACT # 9. Benefits offered by
biotech crops. A global meta-analysis
of 147 studies for the last 20 years
reported that “on average, GM
technology adoption has reduced
chemical pesticide use by 37%,
increased crop yields by 22%, and
increased farmer profits by 68%”
(Qaim et al, 2014). These findings
corroborate results from other annual
global studies (Brookes et al, 2015).
From 1996 to 2014, biotech crops
con t r ibu t ed to Food Secu r i t y,
S u s t a i n a b i l i t y a n d t h e
Environment/Climate Change by:
increasing crop production valued at
US$150 billion; providing a better
environment, by saving 584 million kg
a.i. of pesticides; in 2014 alone,
reducing CO emissions by 27 billion 2
kg, equivalent to taking 12 million cars
off the road for one year; conserving
biodiversity by saving 152 million
hectares of land from 1996-2014; and
helped alleviate poverty of 16.5 million
small farmers and their families totaling
up to 65 million people who are the
poorest in the world . Biotech crops are
essential but are not a panacea –
adherence to good farming practices
such as rotations and resistance
management, are a must for biotech
crops as they are for conventional
crops.
FACT # 10. Future Prospects.
Three domains merit consideration.
First, high rates of adoption (90% to
100%) in current major biotech markets
leave little room for expansion;
however, there is a significant potential
in other “new” countries for selected
products, such as biotech maize, which
has a potential of at least 100 million
hectares globally, 60 million ha in Asia
(35 million ha in China alone), and 35
million ha in Africa. Secondly, there are
more than 85 potential new products
in the pipeline now being field-tested,
the penultimate step to approval.
They include the WEMA-derived
biotech drought tolerant maize
expected to be released in Africa in
2017, Golden Rice in Asia, and
fortified bananas and pest resistant
cowpea look promising in Africa.
Ins t i tu t iona l ly, publ ic -pr iva te
partnerships (PPP) have been
successful in developing and
delivering approved products
to farmers. Thirdly, the advent
of genome-edited crops may
b e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t
development identified by
today's scientific community. A
r e c e n t a n d p r o m i s i n g
application is the powerful
technology, named CRISPR.
Many well-informed observers
are of the view that genome
editing offers a timely and
powe r f u l un i que s e t o f
significant comparative advantages
over conventional and GM crops in
four domains: precision, speed, cost
and regulation. Unlike the onerous
regulation that currently applies to
t rans -gen ic s , genome-ed i t ed
products logically lend themselves for
science-based, fit-for-purpose,
proportionate, and non-onerous
regulation. A forward-looking
strategy has been proposed (Flavell,
2015) featuring the troika of trans-
genes, genome editing and microbes
(the use of plant micro-biomes as a
new source of additional genes to
modify plant traits) to increase crop
productivity, in a “sustainable
intensification” mode, which in turn
can viably contribute to the noble
and paramount goals of food
security and the alleviation of hunger
and poverty.
krishijagran.com 21 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
Clive James Emeritus Chairman and Founder, ISAAA
GM
Technolo
gy
AAYESHA KHAN9891889588
aayesha@krishijagrn.com
8
ßÔÁ¿ø¸ æ±á. í
18
Status of Bt Brinjal
in India
The Bt brinjal is a transgenic brinjal created by inserting
a crystal protein gene (Cry1Ac) from the soil bacterium
Bacillus thuringiensis into the genome of various brinjal
cultivars. These Brinjal plants are found to
b e r e s i s t a n c e a g a i n s t
lepidopteran insects like
the Brinjal Fruit and
S h o o t B o r e r
L e u c i n o d e s
orbonalisand Fruit
Borer Helicoverpa
armigera.
I m p o r t a n c e o f
Brinjal in INDIA :
Brinjal is a low
calories and fats
containing vegetable
and contains mostly
water, some protein, fibre
and carbohydrates. It is also an e x c
ellent source of minerals and vitamins and is rich in water
soluble sugars and amide proteins among other nutrients.
The brinjal is a popular component of the Indian diet across
the country. It is an important ingredient in Ayurvedic
medicine and is of special value in the treatment of diabetes
and liver problems.
Need to produce Bt brinjal:
Brinjal is an important food crop for India, and the
potential commercialization of a genetically modified
variety provides support and criticism. Brinjal is a major
food crop in India but its yield is found to be low as
compared to its need because the fruit and shoot borer
infestation the fruit and shoot borer infestation found to be a
major constraint to yield. Field trials conducted on
research-managed farms carried out by Mahyco and the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research suggested a 42%
pesticide reduction and a doubling of the yield was
possible by producing Bt Brinjal.
Production of Bt Brinjal by Genetic modification:
Bt brinjal is produced by the technique of genetic
engineering in which transfer of a selected fragment of
DNA capable of performing new functions from one
organism to another takes place. Genetic Modification
(GM), Genetic Manipulation and Genetic Engineering
(GE) all refer to the same thing. It is also known as
recombinant DNA technology.
Bt Brinjal is the first Genetically Modified food crop in
India that has reached the approval stage for
commercialization. Bt Brinjal has been developed by
inserting a gene cry1Ac from a soil bacterium called
Bacillus thuringiensis through an Agrobacterium-mediated
gene transfer. It is a genetically modified brinjal developed
by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company Ltd. (Mahyco),
a leading Indian seed company. Bt brinjal contains three
foreign genes which have been inserted namely:
1. The cry1Ac gene which encodes an insecticidal
protein Cry1Ac, is derived from common soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subsp. kurstaki
to produce the insecticidal protein. The cry1Ac
gene is driven by a viral promoter, the cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter.
2. The nptII gene for an antibiotic resistance marker,
Field trials
conducted on research-
managed farms carried out
by Mahyco and the Indian
Council of Agricultural
Research suggested a 42%
pesticide reduction and a
doubling of the yield was
possible by producing Bt
Brinjal.
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
krishijagran.com24 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
neomycin phosphotransferase-II
3. The aad gene for another marker 3” (9) O-
aminoglycoside adenyl transferase.
Work of cry protein to give resistance:
When fruit and shoot borer larvae feed on Bt brinjal
plants, they ingest the Bt protein Cry1Ac along with plant
tissue. In the insect gut, which is alkaline with a pH >9.5,
the protein is soluble and activated by gut proteases. The
Bt protein binds to specific receptor proteins present in the
insect membrane, resulting in pore formation in the
membranes. This leads to disruption of digestive
processes, paralysis, and subsequent death of the fruit
and shoot borer larvae. The cry1Ac gene along with two
other supporting genes namely nptII and aad genes are
put together in such a way that they work in tandem to
produce insecticidal protein that is toxic to the targeted
insect, in this case the fruit and shoot borer.
Bt Brinjal production History in India
In year 2000-2002 Transformation and greenhouse
breeding to study growth, development and efficacy of Bt
brinjal had started in India.and many field trials has been
started to know germination, aggressiveness and
weediness, biochemical, toxicity and allergenicity in
2002-2004. Then to start large scale field trials for the
production of Bt brinjal Mahyco submits bio-safety data
to Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in
2006 and it is approved by GEAC in 2007.As per GEAC
direction, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research [IIVR]
takes up the responsibility of large scale trails of Mahyco's
Bt Brinjal trials at 10 research institutions across the
country in 2007 and 11 in 2008 . In 2009 Oct.15th
Responding to strong views expressed both for and
against the release of the Bt Brinjal, the Minister of State
for Environment and Forests (I/C) (to whom the GEAC
reports) announces a nationwide consultation in January
and February of 2010 pending a final decision on this
issue.
Controversy of Bt brinjal in India:
Bt Brinjal has generated much debate in India. It has
many advantages as the promoters say that Bt Brinjal will
be beneficial to small farmers because it is insect resistant,
increases yields, is more cost-effective and will have
minimal environmental impact. But their are many
disadvantages related to the production and use of Bt
brinjal Bt Brinjal relate to its possible adverse impact on
human health and bio-safety, livelihoods and biodiversity.
Importantly, the spread of the GE Bt gene could result in
the brinjal becoming an aggressive and problematic
weed, the Greenpeace report suggests, while impressing
upon the governments the need to employ the
precautionary principle and not permit any authorization
of the outdoor cultivation of GE Bt brinjal, including field
trials. The cultivation of GE Bt brinjal is proposed in some
countries across Asia, including India, where there is
currently a moratorium on commercialization, and the
Philippines, where field trials are going on.
When Bt Brinjal was sought to be introduced in the
market a few years ago, it led to a controversy. However,
on February 9, 2010, the ministry of environment and
forests imposed a moratorium on Bt Brinjal. In the absence
of scientific consensus and opposition from state
governments and others, the ministry decided to impose a
moratorium on the commercialization of Bt Brinjal until all
concerns expressed by the public, NGOs, scientists and
the state government were addressed adequately.
Clearance of Bt Brinjal as a commercial crop by genetic
engineering approval committee(GEAC) in October
2009 and then its ban by government of India in
February 2010, and it become a point of debate whether
Bt Brinjal should be commercialize or not. However the
Minister of State (I/C) for Environment and Forests,
responding to strong views raised both for and against the
introduction of the Bt Brinjal, has called for public
consultations across the country before taking a final
decision on this issue.
Miss Rashmi Verma,
PhD research Scholar,
Graphic Era University Dehradun.
GM
Technolo
gy
krishijagran.com 25 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
GENETIC TRANSFORMATION IN INSECTS
ene t i c s and mo lecu la r
Gb i o l o g y h a v e b e c o m e
dominating forces within
biology. This trend has been clear over 1the last 2 / decades, but the near 2
completion of the human genome
project and the recent growth of
biotechnology-based industries
illustrate just how far these disciplines
have come. The advances we have
witnessed, to a large extent, have
been t e chno logy based . The
polymerase chain reaction and
advances in DNA-sequencing
technology and in comput ing
capabilities, to name just a few, have
fueled growth in molecular biology
and given rise to the new fields of
genomics and bioinformat ics .
Genomics is the wholesale descriptive
analysis of an organism's genome,
including DNA sequence and gene
e x p r e s s i o n i n f o r m a t i o n .
Bioinformatics involves the study of
biological information (primarily
DNA and protein sequence) using
computational tools to manipulate,
analyze, and store genomic data with
the aim of solving problems in biology.
Efforts in insect genomics have been
most intense and successful with the
vinegar fly Drosophila melanogaster;
however, genomics has gone beyond
this model system to include other
insects of medical and agricultural
significance. These data will provide
the raw materials for the exploration
of important questions in insect
biology and for the harnessing of
genes to solve insect-based problems
in agriculture and human health.
Critical to these efforts will be
technologies that permit hypotheses
a r i s i n g f r o m g e n o m i c s a n d
bioinformatics programs to be tested
in v ivo. Gene
introduction or
“ g e n e t i c -
transformation”
technologies that
permit genes of
any origin to be
introduced into
insec ts , e i ther
temporari ly or
permanently, will
play a crit ical
r o l e i n g e n e
f u n c t i o n
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
a n d t e s t i n g .
G e n e
transformation will also enable us to
manipulate insect genotypes and
potentially to devise chemical-free
methods for controlling pest insect
populations and/or the pest status of
an insect.
Efforts to develop genetic-
transformation technology for insects
span 3 decades, and the history of
these efforts has been reviewed
adequately by others. Hopes of
systematically producing transgenic
insects did not appear credible until
the P-transposable element-based
s y s t e m w a s d e v i s e d f o r D .
melanogaster almost 20 years ago.
Unfortunately the P-transposable
element, while highly successful in
Drosophila, ultimately proved to be
useless for those wishing to genetically
transform non-drosophilid insects.
The search for alternative strategies
has been extremely fruitful and, in the
past 5 years, we have witnessed the
realization of the long-sought goal of
genetically transforming insects of
medical and agricultural importance.
During this same time, the application
of this technology to the improvement
of existing genetic control efforts, such
as the sterile-insect technique and the
genetic manipulation of insect
vectorial capacity, has proven to be
valid in principle. It might appear that
we are now moving beyond the
technology development phase of the
insect transformation problem and
i n t o a t e c h n o l o g y
application phase. This
article briefly reviews the
p r o g r e s s t h a t h a s
o c c u r r e d i n n o n -
drosophilid transgenic
technology and critically
assesses whether these
developments, in their
c u r r e n t s t a t e , a r e
sufficient to meet the
demands of the research
p r o g r a m s t h a t t h i s
t e c h n o l o g y w a s
developed to serve. Some
of these programs, for
example the spreading of
benef ic ia l t ransgenes through
m o s q u i t o p o p u l a t i o n s , w e r e
conceived >10 years ago and still
serve as a driving force for the
c o n t i n u e d d e v e l o p m e n t a n d
refinement of this technology. We
acknowledge the significant level of
progress that has been made recently
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
Gene introduction or “genetic-
transformation” technologies
that permit genes of any origin
to be introduced into insects,
either temporarily or
permanently, will play a critical
role in gene function
identification and testing.
Gene transformation will also
enable us to manipulate insect
genotypes and potentially to
devise chemical-free methods
for controlling pest insect
populations and/or the pest
status of an insect.
�
�
krishijagran.com26 AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016
but conclude that current technologies
are still unwieldy to apply and require
further development. In addition,
successful application of these
technologies will require not only
continued scientific development but
also the development of a coherent,
functional regulatory framework that
specifically addresses the unique
aspects of producing beneficial
genetically engineered insects and
ultimately releasing them into the
environment.Four transposable
elements representing four different
families of eukaryotic transposable
elements can be used to genetically
transform non-drosophilid insects.
These are the Minos element from
Drosophila hydei, the Hermes element
from the house fly Musca domestica,
the Mos1 element from Drosophila
mauritiana, and the piggyBac element
from the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia
ni. A list of insect species that have
been transformed using these four
elements is presented in.
The Hermes Element
The Hermes element from M.
domestica is a member of the hAT
family of transposable elements.
Hermes was i so la ted a f t e r a
demonstration that the related hobo
element could excise from plasmids
injected into house fly embryos in the
absence of hobo transposase,
indicating the presence of an
endogenous hobo-like transposase.
Hermes is 2749 base pairs (bp) in
length, contains 17-bp inverted
terminal repeats, and encodes a
transposase protein that is 70 kDa in
s i z e . T h e hobo a nd He r me s
transposases are 55% identical and
70% similar at the amino acid level,
and their inverted terminal repeats are
identical over 10 and 11 out of 12
nucleotides, respectively. The hobo
and Hermes are capable of cross-
mobilization as measured by plasmid-
based and chromosome-based
excision assays performed in D.
melanogaster.
Hermes elements have been
found in house fly populations
throughout the world. Cathcart et al (L
Cathcart, ES Frafsur, PW Atkinson, &
DA O'Broch ta , submi t t ed for
publication) examined 14 populations
of house flies from four continents and
found full-length Hermes elements in
all of them. Deleted forms of Hermes
were also present in all populations.
This distribution was unlike the
distribution of P and hobo elements in
n a t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n s o f D .
melanogaster, in which there are
typically large numbers of internally
deleted elements and very few, if any,
full-length autonomous elements. To
date no house fly populations devoid
of Hermes elements have been found.
Hermes has been used to
generate stable transgenic lines from
six insect species. Hermes-mediated
transformation of D. melanogaster
can be as high as 60% but is routinely
around 30% - 40%. Hermes is thus as
efficient as the P element in producing
D . m e l a n o g a s t e r
transformants.Hermes has also been
used to generate transgenic lines of
Ae. aegypti, Ceratitis capitata (K
Michel, AC Pinkerton, AS Stamenova,
G Franz, AS Robinson et al, submitted
f o r p u b l i c a t i o n ) , S t o m o x y s
calcitrans(MJ Lehane, PW Atkinson, &
DA O'Broch ta , submi t t ed for
publication),Tribolium castaneum,
and Culex quinquefasciatus (ML
Allen, CS LeVesque, DA O'Brochta, &
P W A t k i n s o n , s u b m i t t e d f o r
publication).
Two types of chromosomal
in tegra t ion even ts have been
observed after the microinjection of
Hermes-containing plasmid DNA into
developing insect embryos: (a) events
arising from the transposition of only
t he Hermes e l emen t and t he
sequences it contains into the genome
and (b) events arising from the
insertion of the Hermes element and
plasmid DNA into the genome.
Hermes-mediated transformation of
D. melanogaster, C. capitata, and S.
calcitrans results in the integration of
only the Hermes element and any
additional sequences located within it;
MJ Lehane, PW Atkinson, & DA
O'Brochta, submitted for publication;
K M iche l , AC P inke r t on , AS
Stamenova, G Franz, AS Robinson et
al, submitted for publication). The
integrated sequences are delimited by
the terminal nucleotides of the Hermes
element, and 8-bp duplications are
created at the target site. Their
sequences conform to the consensus
sequence of target site duplications
created by the transposition of insect
hATelements. The integration of
Hermes elements into these three
TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS AS GENE VECTORS IN NON-DROSOPHILID INSECTS
GM
Technolo
gy
krishijagran.com 27 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
species is therefore what is predicted
for class II insect transposable
elements and is expected from
Hermes interplasmid transposition
assays performed in these species.
Hermes-mediated transformation of
the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and
Cx.quinquefasciatus results in
integration of both the Hermes
element and flanking and plasmid
sequences; ML Allen, CS LeVesque,
DA O'Brochta, & PW Atkinson,
submitted for publication). In A.
aegypti these events are Hermes
transposase mediated because
transformation does not occur in
the absence of coinjected helper
plasmid containing theHermes
transposase gene. Equivalent
experiments have not been
p e r f o r m e d i n C x .
quinquefasciatus; however, the
similarity in both the structure of
the integrations and the frequency
of transformation suggests that
these too are dependent on the
presence of Hermes transposase.
The structures of cinnabar-
containing Hermes elements in A.
aegypt i were examined by
Jasinskiene et al. Breakpoints were
found in plasmid DNA flanking M.
domestica DNA and in the Hermes
element itself. However, given that
these transgenic lines would not be
maintained as homozygous lines, the
ro le tha t recombina t ion has
s u b s e q u e n t l y p l a y e d i n t h e
rearrangement of these transgenes
remains unknown. A. aegypti
transgenics generated with Hermes
elements containing the Enhanced
Green Fluorescent Protein (EGFP)
gene perhaps provide a more
accurate picture of the original
integration event because this
m a r k e r, c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e
robustness of the wild-type strain in
which it has been maintained,
enabled homozygous lines to be
established within a few generations.
Although the precise breakpoints are
yet to be determined, it is clear from
EGFP-containing transgenic lines of
b o t h A . a e g y p t i a n d C x .
quinquefasciatus that at least two
copies of the Hermes, element are
present and these flank a complete
and intact copy of the pUC plasmid
DNA that, with Hermes, composed
the original plasmid vector. This
arrangement of integrated plasmid
plus transposable elements thus
appears similar to that reported for
the tandem arrays of P element and
pUC plasmid DNA reported by Rubin
& Spradling
Hermes is proving to be an
effective gene transfer vector in a
range of insect species. Even in
mosquitoes, where the mechanism of
the integration event remains to be
determined, Hermes-mediated
transformation has enabled the
introduction and in vivo testing of
promoters that could subsequently be
used to control the tissue-specific
expression of genes that may confer
disease resistance.
The Mos1 and Himar1 Elements
The wide distribution of
mariner elements in insects has
ju s t i f iab ly fue led in t e re s t i n
developing these elements as robust
gene transfer vectors. The abundance
of mariner elements in insect
genomes has, however, made it
extremely difficult to isolate the few
forms of this element that may encode
a functional transposase. To date only
one naturally occurring mariner
element, the Mos1 element from D.
mauritiana, has been isolated from
insects. A second element, Himar, is a
reconstructed element based on the
sequence of various copies ofmariner
elements isolated from the horn fly,
Haematobia irritans. Himar is mobile
in D. melanogaster but to date has
proven unsuccessful as a gene vector
in this species.
The Mos1 element can
transform D. melanogaster and Ae.
aegypti. It is also the mariner element
that has transformed Leishmania,
zebrafish, and chickens. Coates et al
developed interplasmid transposition
assays to demonstrate that Mos1
could accurately transpose in at least
three species of non-drosophilid
insects: Ae. aegypti, Lucilia cuprina,
a n d B a c t r o c e r a t r y o n i a n d
s u b s e q u e n t l y u s e d M o s 1 t o
genetically transform Ae. aegypti.
More recently, Mos1 has been shown
to excise and transpose precisely in
cell lines of Bombyx mori. Mos1 can
therefore clearly function in this
s p e c i e s ; h o w e v e r, i n t h e i r
experiments aimed at transforming B.
mori, Tamura et al found that neither
Mos1 no r Hermes p roduced
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
krishijagran.com28 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
two transposases is that Himar1 has
t h e g r e a t e s t a c t i v i t y a t a
concentration of ∼10 nm, whereas
the corresponding value for Mos1 is
100 nm. Whether this difference
reflects a true difference in these
proteins or is a consequence of how
they were purified remains unknown.
I n D . m e l a n o g a s t e r
transformants, in transpositions
a r i s i n g f r o m i n t e r p l a s m i d
transposition assays performed in B.
tryoni, L. cuprina, andAe. aegypti,
and in transpositions performed in
vitro, the Mos1 sequences that are
integrated are delimited by the
t e r m i n a l n u c l e o t i d e s o f t h e
Mos1element. In Ae. aegypti
transgenics, most (three of four) of the
transformed lines contain Mos1
elements that have been integrated in
the same manner; however, one of
the lines contain Mos1 elements
together with flanking plasmid DNA
sequences. When Mos1transposase
protein was used instead of helper
p lasmid, only these types of
integration events were recovered
[seven of seven transgenic lines
generated]. These integrations
appear similar to those seen for the
Hermes element in Ae. aegypti and
Cx. quinquefasciatus and, as for
Hermes, may indicate that in this
species suboptimal expression or
processing of the transposase may
force transpositional recombination
into a mode other than cut-and-paste
transposition.
The piggyBac Element
The piggyBac element was
isolated on the basis of its mobility,
and so, perhaps not surprisingly, it
has subsequently been developed
into an efficient gene vector in insects.
piggyBac was identified as an
insertion sequence that caused a
plaque morphology mutation in
G a l l e r i m e l o n e l l e a
nucleopolyhedrosis virus that was
being passaged through cells of the
trangenic individuals.
H i m a r 1 h a s b e e n
genetically modified both to improve
our understanding of the molecular
basis of its movement and to isolate
hyperactive forms of this element.
Lampe et al used a bacterial-based
assay that enabled hyperactive forms
of Himar1 to be identified on the
basis of phenotypic changes that
occurred to Escherichia coli colonies
containing these modified forms of
the transposase. This assay was
based on the successful assays
established for E. coli element Tn5,
and Lampe et al isolated two Himar1
mutants that displayed increased
levels of transposition in E. coli.
Neither of these, however, showed an
increase in transpositional activity in
Drosophila. Nevertheless this type of
strategy will no doubt lead to new
forms of Himar1, and some of these
forms will most likely also have hyper
mobility properties in insects.
The Himar1 and Mos1
t ransposases have both been
successfully purified from E. coli
strains expressing these respective
genes, and this has permitted an
analysis of the physical requirements
that each has for transposition.
Neither the Himar1 nor Mos1
transposases have requirements for
host-encoded factors. As for other
members o f the mariner/Tc1
superfamily of elements, Mos1 and
Himar1 are inserted only at TA
dinucleotide sequences where they
create 2-bp target site duplications.
Studies performed in vitro for both
elements have revealed that this
insertional specificity is dependent on
the presence of magnesium and is
reduced when manganese i s
substituted for magnesium. The
phy s i ca l p rope r t i e s o f bo t h
transposases are similar, and both
d i s p l a y i n c r e a s e d r a t e s o f
t ransposi t ion wi th increasing
transposase concentration. The most
significant difference between the
cabbage looper T. ni. piggyBac is 2.5
kb in size and possesses 13-bp
inverted terminal repeats. It contains
a 2.1-kb long open reading frame
that encodes a transposase with little
or no structural similarity to other
eukar yot ic t ransposases. The
piggyBac element inserts at TTAA
sequences in the genome and, upon
insertion, generates a duplication of
this sequence. Unlike any other
insect-transposable element so far
characterized, piggyBac is excised
absolutely precisely from the donor
site, resulting in no evidence of it
remaining at the empty donor site
after excision. No specific host
factors required for piggyBac
mobility have yet been identified;
however, the piggyBac inverted
terminal repeats do interact with
proteins present in cell nuclear
extracts prepared from Trichoplusia
and Spodoptera cell lines. The
identity of the proteins together with
whe ther they are abso lu te l y
necessary for piggyBac transposition
is unknown.
piggyBac can genetically
transform a range of insect species,
and, as this transposable element
enjoys wider use, this list can be
expected to grow. D. melanogaster,
C. capitata, Bactrocera dorsalis (AM
Handler, unpublished observations),
Anastrepha suspensa (AM Handler,
unpublished observations), M.
domestica (M Hediger, M Niessen,
EA Wimmer, A Dubendorfer & D
Bopp, submitted for publication), Ae.
aegypti(MJ Fraser, unpublished
observations), Anopheles albimanus
( A M H a n d l e r, u n p u b l i s h e d
observations), T. castaneum, B. mori,
and P. gossypiella have all been
transformed with the piggyBac
element. In all cases, integration has
b e e n b y t r a n s p o s i t i o n a l
GM
Technolo
gy
krishijagran.com 29 AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016
Prashant K. Natikar, D. N. Kambrekar and R. A. Balikai Department of Agricultural Entomology University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad -580 005 Karnataka Email: Shanthunatikar@gmail.com
recombination of the piggyBac element. Transformation frequencies are ∼10%, although an extremely high value of 60% was
observed for Tribolium transformation. The many transformed lines so far generated are stable in the absence of piggyBac
transposase.
The Minos Element
The Minos element from D. hydei is a member of the Tc1 family of transposable elements. It is approximately 1.8 kb in
size, possesses 255-bp inverted terminal repeats, and contains two long open reading frames separated by a 60-bp intron.
As for other elements in this family, Minos inserts at TA residues and creates 2-bp target site duplications. Minos can transform
C. capitata and D. melanogaster at frequencies similar to those observed for the piggyBac and Hermeselements in these
species. Most recently, Minos has been shown to be capable of transposition in several different An. gambiae cell lines as well
as in developing Anopheles stephensi embryos. Successful transformation of An. stephensi, using a Minos element containing
the EGFP genetic marker, has been reported. Interestingly, two types of integration events were observed for Minos when it
was transfected into anopheline cell lines. One type of integration event involved the Minoselement and flanking sequences
and so is similar to what has been observed for some Mos1 and Hermes integrations in mosquito genomes. The second type of
integration event occurred through the cut-and-paste transposition of the Minos element into the anopheline genome and
created TA target site duplications associated with this type of transposition. The reason for this difference in integration mode
is unknown, although Catteruccia et al speculated that the cut-and-paste mode of transposition was perhaps more likely to
occur with increasing transposase concentration.
Bayer Offers
$62 billion to
acquire Monsanto
erman pesticide and crop seed company Bayer said that it had offered G$62 billion in cash to acquire Monsanto in a deal that would combine
two of the world's biggest companies in the businesses of crop seeds and
pesticides. Bayer informed that it would make the proposal details public
after investor inquiries and market speculations about the deal.
The transaction, if confirmed, would create an industry giant whose
products include antibiotics, genetically modified crops and pesticides and
would have a combined annual revenue of more than $67 billion. Both the
companies conformed that Bayer had approached Monsanto about a
potential tie-up and Monsanto then said that the proposal was being
reviewed by its board of directors. The combined company's pesticides and
crop science would be based in Monheim, Germany and seeds business and
North American headquarters would be in St. Louis, United States.
Central Government rolls back :Bt Cotton Royalty decision
he Government of India took back the notification issued on Troyalty limit on GM trades. This shows that the Government is
under the pressure of biotech companies. Now the decision will be
taken only after discussion with the stake holders. Government
also has invited suggestion from farmers, scientists and industries.
State Agriculture Minister, Mr. Baliyan said that “The
notification has been taken back, but we are not rolling back. All
the stake holders should submit their suggestions within 90 days.”
The biotech industry and Agriculture-scientist criticized
the royalty decision taken by the government and said that this will
affect the foreign investments in the field of Agri researches.
GM
Tec
hnolo
gy
krishijagran.com30 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
s we all know the quality of land
Avaries from holdings to holdings and even in the same holding between
plots. This is due to the variations in the various parameters of the soil such as soil depth, soil texture, permeability, moisture content, drainage, soil fertility, organic matter, topography etc. Hence the capability of the land to produce crops too varies vary much. No doubt the ordinary farmers do make out the difference between different types of lands in terms of its quality and capability. However a scientific approach will strengthen the native knowledge or the common man's understanding of the land capability classification. With this intention only this article is written providing all the most commonly accepted details of the eight classes of land and their colour coding. In the soil map each class of soil is depicted by a different colour. At the beginning of the description of each class the colour specific to that class will also be mentioned. The classification is based on certain parameters such as (1) effective depth of the soil, (2) texture of the surface soil, (3) permeability of sub-soil, (4) permeability of the substratum, (5) thickness of the surface soil, (6) available moisture capacity, (7) chemical reaction, (8) natural soil drainage, (9) inherent fertility, (10) organic matter content, (11) slope, (12) wetness, (13) salinity and (14) frequency of overflow.
Broadly, there are three stages within which the actual position of each parameter exists with reference to a particular soil. They are highly negative, optimum or middle and highly optimum. For example the depth of the soil can be expressed as very shallow (negative), Medium or optimum depth and very deep (positive). In most of the classes under description there are some remedial measures are also mentioned. However, the reader is cautioned that the remedial measures mentioned are by no means exhaustive. In each of these parameters there are a number of variations. For example the depth of the soil may be very shallow, shallow, moderately deep and very deep.
Colour Coding of Land Classes
Land Capability Classification
Three fundamental questions are asked when one begin to
classify the land. (1) Is the land fit for producing crops? (2)
Can the land be cultivated without causing permanent
damage to the soil? (3) Is permanent vegetation the only
available land use? As an answer to these questions all lands
classified into two categories: land suitable for cultivation
and land not suitable for cultivation. Each of these broader
group is further classified into four groups making the total
number of classification into eight classes. They are
explained in detail here.
1. Class I Land (Green colour)
Class I land is the best type of land available for
agricultural purposes. It is ideally suited for all types of tillage
operations performed with normal farming techniques. The
main characteristics of this class of land are listed as follows.
It is a well leveled or nearly leveled land; usually the
slope is less than 5 degree or less than 8.5% slope.
The soil in this class is deep, medium textured, moderately
permeable with a fairly excellent water holding capacity.
The soil is easily workable, fertile and productive.
The soil in this class is not subjected to abnormal levels of
wind and/or water erosion.
The drainage is fairly good with no conditions that
encourage damaging overflows.
The soil in the class 1 land is well supplied with all the plant
nutrients or highly responsive to the fertilizer application.
It is suited to a wide range of plants cultivated as well as
non-cultivated.
The land in this class is suitable for intensive cropping with
no permanent damage to the land such as the production
of maize inter-tilled crops.
Even in lands which are irrigated unnecessarily this
class of land may also be recognized. It means that the
production of crops would not go down under unirrigated
conditions. However, same class I irrigated land may require
the following initial conditioning.
It may have to be leveled.
Leaching may have to be done to remove the harmful salts
from the soil.
The seasonal water table may have to be lowered from
time to time.
Colo
ur
Codin
g o
f La
nd
krishijagran.com32 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
the cultivator in the following ways.
The choice of crops may be limited.
Some of the management practices may not be
possible.
It may not be possible to take all crop rotations and
apply all the tillage practices in this class of land.
The limitations of class II land can be corrected in the
following ways.
following soil conserving and soil binding rotations.
installation at' water flow control devices and structures
at the required places.
adopting some special
tillage methods such as
deep ploughing, ridging
etc.
b y t e r r a c i n g , s t r i p
c r opp i ng and c r op
rotations which alternates
legume with cerals.
adopting the technique
of stubble mulching,
fertilizing, mcmuring,
liming etc.
In very dry and less
r a i n f a l l a r e a s s o m e
measures to prevent wind
erosion on class II land are to
e s tab l i shed . They a re
contour farming, s t r ip
cropping, stubble mulching,
rough tillage on the contour
lines.
It is better to adopt a
set of cultural operations
which will provide mutual
support to remove a few limitations that may restrict the use
of the class II land. However, the exact combination of
practices to be adopted will depend upon the limitations
arising from the special characters of the soil, prevailing
climatic conditions and systems of farming which will for
obvious reasons tend to differ from locality to locality. In
some cases the class II land can be made to perform equal
to the class I land.
Class III Land (Red colour)
The land under this class is considered moderately
good land that could be cultivated on a regular basis
under a good crop rotation with regular intensive remedial
measures. The main characters of class III land are
enumerated here.
The land under this category has a slope varying from
moderate to steep, usually from 15- 30 degree or 26.8
to 57.7 per cent.
It is highly susceptible to abnormal levels of wind and or
water erosion.
The soil depth is shallow.
If any of these limitations is likely to occur again and
again and need periodic attention, then that land is subject to
continuous restrictions and hence it is not classified under
class I.
Class I land may also be depicted in areas that can be
artificially drained. In this case, the soil permeability varies
from moderate to rapid, however, there may be cases where
a particular type of land meets all the other requirements of
class I land even though the natural drainage needs to be
augmented. In this case, the limitations imposed by lack of
drainage do not have a major bearing on crop production
and these Iands continue to be
regarded as class I land with the
lack of drainage being mentioned
as a toot note.
To maintain a Class I land in its
own class the following treatments
may be required.
regular application of manures
and fertilizers.
-growing of green manure
c r o p s a n d c o v e r c r o p s
periodically and incorporate
into the soil.
recycling of crop residues back
into the soil directly or indirectly.
f o l l ow i ng s u i t ab l e c r op
r o t a t i o n s i n w h i c h s o i l
exhausting crops are followed
by soil enriching crops.
protecting from the wind and
water erosion.
deep ploughing once in two
years to break the hard pan and
also to over turn the soil.
maintaining the soil pH at the neutral level.
2. Class II Land (Yellow colour)
The class lI land is a reasonably good land that can be
readily cultivated after adopting certain improved practices.
The major properties of class lI land are the following.
The slope of the land in this class varies from gentle to
moderate; usually varying from 5 to 10 degree or 8.5 to
18 per cent.
The depth of the soil ranges from moderate to deep.
The soil is moderately permeable but occasionally wet
with a normal water holding capacity. Over flow may
occur occasionally.
It may be subject to unexpected wind and or water
erosion.
Cultivation of 2 to 3 crops in a year is possible after the
adoption of certain soil and water conservation measures
like bunding, broad bench terracing, plotting etc.
Each of these limitations requires the attention from the
cultivator of the land and some remedial measures ought
to he applied. At times, these limitations create problem to
Colo
ur C
odin
g o
f Land
krishijagran.com 33 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
The soil texture may be sandy, very sandy or gravelly.
Obviously it has a low water holding capacity and a
low inherent fertility status.
The land usually has a hard pan clay/ pan kankar pan
below the upper layers.
This reduces the permeability of the subsoil slow or
very slow.
Under this class of land moderate to high overflow and
moderate to extreme wetness may occur occasionally.
This category of land is more limited in use than the
class II land. This difference is primarily due to its natural
condition. The above listed limitations restrict the use of
this land for cultivation. These include the choice of crops
that can be raised, timing of tilling and planting
operations and the number of crops that may be raised in
one year.
The following are some of the remedial measures that
may be adopted on this type of land.
Adopt adequate agronomic soil conservation
measures based on well selected crop rotation that to
reduces soil loss by means of erosion and soil moisture
loss by evaporation.
Minimize the loss of plant nutrients by controlling the
leaching which occurs during the flooded irrigation or
during heavy rainy season.
Maintain a good soil structure so as to increase its
water holding capacity. This is achieved by
maintaining a high level of organic matter in the soil.
Maintain a good supply of the nitrogen to the soil by
incorporating nitrogenous organic and inorganic
manures and fertilizers. Leguminous green manures
and oilcakes are the common source of nitrogenous
organic manures.
Create conditions for a higher yield of crops grown on
this class of land by adopting most suited agronomic
practices.
Crop rotations used in the land may be longer than
those used on class II type and must include longer
periods under forage and sod crops so as to prevent
an excessive soil loss.
A good drainage system together with a rotation
including deep rooted legumes is to be maintained on
nearly level ! land of this class having a heavy, slowly
permeable soil.
Organic matter may have to be added to the soil in
order to maintain the soil structure and to prevent the
formation of puddles thereby resulting in lower levels
of permeability. In such cases, the tiller should take
care not to work the soil when it is either too dry or too
wet. In some cases, the use of class ill land is restricted
by a high water table, low permeability and risk of salt
accumulations.
Terracing, bunding, gully plugging and other soil
conservation measures will have to be implemented.
Other remedial measures to deal with the limitations of
class ill land are: annual grade ditches, buffer strips,
application of organic manures etc. Besides these in all
the water outlets protective measures are to be taken
(small water checks which will catch the silt) in order to
save the soil that may be flowing with the run off.
Class IV Land (Blue colour)
Soil under this land class is fit for cultivation but is
restricted by a Plumber of factors. Hence it requires careful
management. The conservation practices are more rigorous
for this class compared to the class III land soil. The main
features of this class of land are the following.
The slope is steep and varies from moderate to very steep;
usually from 30 to 45 degree or 57.7 to 100 per cent.
The soil conditions are not very conducive for raising
more than an occasional crop after 2-3 years.
The soil is subjected to severe erosion by water or wind as
the structure and texture of the soil is more prone to
erosion or may be suffering the effect of past severe
erosion.
The depth of the soil may shallow to very shallow and the
organic matter content may be low.
The land may be subject to overflows and occasional
conditions of wetness and water logging.
A hard clay or hard (kankar) pan may occur beneath the
upper layers of the soil.
Severe salinity problems may be present in the soil under
this class.
Some of the class IV lands occurring in the humid regions
are suitable for occasional cultivation. However considerable
care and expertise is needed for bringing class IV land under
cultivation. The farmers can raise a long rotation trop on class
IV land which must be followed by a 2 to 3 year period in
which only forage grasses are raised. Poorly drained class IV
land which is almost level is not fit for raising inter-tilled crops
as the time required for the soil to dry up during spring is
fairly long. Even though such lands are not prone to severe
erosion, they cannot be cultivated because of their low
productivity. The choice of crops that may be raised on this
land is also limited. Most of the lands that belongs to the class
IV are fit for raising only few limited crops.
Under humid conditions, some of the class IV lands are
.shallow to moderate in depth, having a moderate top steep
slope low fertility and highly sandy, moderately saline in
nature. Long rotations, including raising grasses and soil
legumes are difficult to adopt under semiarid and arid
conditions.
Grasses and legumes take considerable time to establish
themselves in class IV lands. These are generally at highly
irregular intervals whenever these stands are raised, it must
be ensured that the land remains under their protection long
enough for restoring the structure and fertility to its original
level.
On the other hand, class IV land may be the best
available land in arid conditions. Under these conditions, all
forms of cultivation is subject to very severe limitations caused
Colo
ur
Codin
g o
f La
nd
krishijagran.com34 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
by wind erosion. In such cases, there is no need to adopt
special and intensive cropping patterns and practices at
the time of cultivation for conserving the soil moisture and
minimizing soil erosion.
Very often, under semiarid conditions, class IV land
may be able to produce high yields of adaptable crops in
years of above average rainfall. However, low yields are
produced in years receiving average or less than average
rainfall. The land has to be protected against soil erosion
in lean and dry years.
Some of the special measures that have to be adopted
to tackle with the extreme conditions found on class IV
land are: special cropping practice, protective measures
against wind and water erosion, measures to conserve
moisture etc.
Besides these few additional measures are also
advised. They are: raising protective plants in tracts
highly prone to erosion to bind the soil together, a
perennial cover of vegetation has to be maintained on
class IV land under conditions of prolonged drought so as
to rebuild and restock the soil and improve its structure
and fertility.
In humid and semi-humid regions, where high
intensity storms are common, it is advisable to maintain
class IV lands under a forest cover. Unless land are
required for serving as a pasture and / or grazing
ground, it is not advisable to clear such areas which are
at present having a permanent tree cover.
Class V Land (Dark green)
This is the best land in the second group which
includes all lands that are not suitable for cultivation. Even
though this land cannot be cultivated it is ideally suited for
keeping under a perennial cover of vegetation i.e. as a
rangeland and for maintaining under a forest cover.
There are few or no limitations for its use as a forest or
rangeland.
The following factors are responsible for limiting the
use of class V land cultivation.
Slope varies from moderate to very steep usually
above 300 or 57.7 per cent.
The soil depth ranges from moderate to shallow. Bare
rock may occur in certain patches.
The land may be subjected to severe wind and / or
water erosion.
The soil is poor in nutrients; has a low permeability,
water holding capacity and may be affected by
extreme dryness, wetness and stoniness.
This class of land cannot be used for seasonally
cultivated crops. They are ideal for pastures or for
forestry purposes as it can support a good cover of grass
and for trees without severe limitations. However, the
following treatments may be required.
Regular controlled burning is required to bring about
a good growth of grass and saplings of tree species. !
Readjustment of the number of animals depending on
this land so that it supports only the optimum number
(optimum carrying capacity).
Grazing needs to be regulated in areas where the land
has been temporarily depleted due to over grazing in the
past several years. This will help to replenish the growth of
grass and prevent the occurrence of irreparable damage.
Swampy areas have to be drained by providing artificial
channels or improving natural waterways or providing
diversions to the flowing water.
Surplus water from the nearby irrigated cultivable lands
may be used for the irrigation of class V land.
Class VI Land (Orange)
This another class of land that is not suitable for
cultivation but only for pastures, wild life and forest cover. It is
subject to the following moderate limitations as far as its use
for grazing and or forestry is concerned.
The land is steeply sloped with an average slope of over
45° or 100 per cent.
The soil is poor in organic matter, shallow and either too
wet or dry.
The land is subject to severe wind and/ or water erosion.
The soil has very low moisture holding capacity.
It may be affected by severe climatic conditions.
The soil may affected by severe salinity or alkalinity
conditions.
Some categories of class VI land may be tilled just
enough to establish good pastures whereas others may safely
be used for raising forest crops.
A number of corrective measures are adopted for
making class VI land suitable for grazing and for forestry.
Control grazing in a way that it matches with the carrying
capacity of the land. In other words only optimum number
of animals are maintained.
Deferred and rotational grazing should be practiced in
order to help in the establishment of grass regeneration.
Fencing or other protective measures should be adopted
to prevent the entry of man and animals particularly into
the severely degraded areas.
The movement of grazing and browsing animals should
be controlled in such a way that a particular area is not
affected by erosion due to constant movement of the
cattle.
Other soil conservation measures that may be adopted for
the treatment, of class VI land are: gully plugging,
construction of check dams, diversion of water along safe
channels, planting up degraded areas, contour furrows,
water spreading and bunding structures etc.
Class VI land is also capable of producing
fodder/forage under moderate limitations. Strict restrictions
on the land use are required in case the vegetative cover has
been severely depleted due 10 biotic interference in the past.
These measures will enable the vegetation to regain its
original vigour and growth.
Class VII Land (Brown colour)
This type of land is not fit for cultivation. It is subject to
Colo
ur
Codin
g o
f La
nd
krishijagran.com36 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
severe restrictions or severe hazards for its use as a grazing
and/ or forest land. The important characteristics of this type
of land are as follows.
The land is very steeply sloping with an average slope of
over 60 degrees.
It is subject 10 severe wind and / or water erosion.
The soil is poor in humus, stony, shallow and rough
infiltration capacity is low.
The land is subject to extreme dryness or wetness.
However, class VII land may be used for grazing and/ or
forestry if certain corrective measures are adopted. Severe
erosion causes much more damage to this type of land as
compared to class VI land.
The following are of the measures which may be adopted
for using this land as a pasture and or forest without any
permanent damage to it.
construct contour furrows, ridges and terraces where
slope conditions are favourable.
completely close the area to grazing and grass and other
fodder collecting.
avoid even the silvicultural (forestry) fellings in such areas.
plant soil binding tree species and tufts of grass in this type
of land
Class VIII Land (Purple colour)
This is the most unfavourable type of land. It is not
suitable either for cultivation, grazing or forestry. This
class of land is fit for being maintained as a wildlife
conservation area and for watershed protection and
recreation. Some types of land are included in this class.
They are:
marshes and swamps which are extremely wet for most
parts of the year.
extremely dry land found under typical desert
conditions.
bed lands comprising of deep gullies and severely
eroded ravines.
very steep slopes found in the high mountains; rough
extremely stony with poorly drained slopes
shallow soils or land with almost no soil cover.
Class VIII land is often found in small patches along
river beds, roadsides and ditch banks. This class of land
accounts for the largest proportion of soil that is wasted
annually into the rivers and streams all round the world. It
needs a combination of soil conservation, land
management and forestry measures. These steps aim to
prevent the further degradation of class VIII land and to
gradually improve their conditions so as to bring them to
conditions resembling those found in class VIII.
Some of the measures adopted for treating class VIII
land include:
Colo
ur C
odin
g o
f Land
krishijagran.com 37 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
complete fencing so as to prevent the entry of man and
animals.
plugging all major gullies of the tract
planting tuft of grasses and hardy tree and / or shrub
species.
Effect of climate
The land use classification described so far only takes
in to consideration the parameters mentioned in the
introduction. However the land use classification will vary
between two identical lands but with different climatic
conditions prevailing in each area. Thus an area which is
normally classified under class I based on the soil
characteristics and topography may be classified under
class IV if it lies in the semi-arid and arid areas. The effect
of the climate may summarised as follows.
If the climate is humid with well distributed rainfall
land may be classified under class I. Humid climate with
occasional rainfall or dry spells the land may classified
under class II. In subhumid areas where the crops are
affected by droughts may come under the classes II or III.
Lands in semi-arid areas are classified under classes III
and IV.
Land use plan
At the field level for every land holding a land use
plan is highly recommended. It is done through the survey
of land on the basis of the above land use classification.
After the survey land use mapping is made on basis of the
local conditions. In the map land area coming under different
land use classes will be depicted by their respective colours
and corresponding classes are noted in all the plots. The local
population may be associated with the final demarcation of
the land capability classes so that there may greater
participation from them during the implementation. The land
capability plan shows the land use capability of different
parts of a particular area.
Along with positive points the land use plan brings out
the problems concerning the ideal use of the land on a
sustained basis. These may include soil erosion, gully
formation, grazing and natural regeneration of the desired
species. A particular land is affected by a large number of
variables and it is difficult to pin point which degrading
factor, if checked, will restore the land to its original
condition.
The land use plan helps us to decide as to which part of
the land is to be put to what use? Before launching any land
use programme a detailed land use plan is drawn up by
teams working in the field. The complete plan also shows
what types of crops can be grown in what types land '? In
short the land use plan will answer the questions: where to
grow'?, what to grow'? and how to grow'? Table 1 gives a
recommended land use pattern for the users.
Table 1: A modified land use as per slope of the land is recommended*
No.Vertical/ Horizontal
(ft/mt)Percentage of slope %
(V/Hx100)Degree of slope Type of land use
4 1:1 to 3 33.30 15.00 Always under perennial natural forests
6 1:4 to 5 20.00 09.00 Planted forests for commercial purpose
10 1:6 to 9 11.10 05.00 Fruit trees, plantation crops, fuel wood trees
11 1:10 to19 10.00 04.50 Terraced cultivation of rain fed seasonal crops,
13 1:20 to 100 05.00 02.25 Terraced Irrigated, seasonal and biannuals
21 1:>100 <01 <0.45 Wet land crops Ponds, aqua-culture, etc.
22 Low lying land Rain water storage, ponds, lakes
Conclusion
The land use classification provided in this booklet
will help the people first of all to have a deeper
understanding of the difference between various types of
lands and various plots within the same land. Secondly it
also will show them clearly that preparation of a land use
map is essential for the proper utilization of the land for a
long term and sustainable production.
In our country practically no one really cares to
prepare a long term plan for the agricultural farm. Hence
most of the land holdings are cultivated in a half-hazard
way without taking into consideration the soil and water
conservation requirements on that farm holding, In the
long run such lands which may have been class I land get
deteriorated and become totally useless for agricultural
purposes.
It is high time that we educate the people in the
technique of land use classification and build up a habit
among them of preparing a land use plan. That is one of the
requirements for the improvement and maintenance of our
land re- sources especially the agricultural land.
Dr. K.T. Chandy Senior Execu�ve Editor
Krishi Jagran
Colo
ur
Codin
g o
f La
nd
krishijagran.com38 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
krishijagran.com40 AGRICULTURE WORLD MAY 2016|
5000 FARMERS IN
BANGLADESH WILL BE
PROVIDED WITH Bt
BRINJAL SEEDS
New
s
As a part of the Government's plan to scale up
cultiva-tion of biotech crops in the country, more than
5,000 farmers in Bangladesh would be provided with
genetically modified Bt brinjal seeds in the coming winter
season. Government and Agro- research institutions in the
country are busy in fast-tracking the field trails of three
more biotech crops - late blight resistant potato, Bt cotton
and vitamin-A rich Golden Rice.
Dilafroza Khanam, CSO and Head of the
Biotechnology Division, said that apart from four Bt brinjal
varieties released in 2013, they are planning for three
more GM brinjal varieties and are now in the pipeline for
regulatory approval. She also added that the field trials on
biotech potato, cotton and rice are also at the advanced
Matia Chowdhury
stages.
The country also doubled the acreage of Bt brinjal
acreage from 12 hectares in 2014 to 25 hectares in 2015.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
biotech Applications (ISAAA), credited the success to
Bangladesh's political will, particularly from Agriculture
Minister Matia Chowdhury.
In a recent speech, Matia Chowdhury,
Agriculture minister said that the biotechnological
interventions in agriculture happened for development of
many stress-tolerant and disease and pest-resistant crop
varieties. She also criticized the propagandas that
misinforms and misguides public about the benefits of
frontier sciences in agriculture.
No Evidence of Adverse Human Health
Effects by Consuming GM Foods
One of the United States' premier scientific bodies says it has found no evidence
of adverse human health effects after 20 years of genetically modified crop adoption.In a
400-page report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine says its
review of nearly 900 studies and years of disease data showed no increase in health risks
due to the consumption of genetically modified food. Also in the report, the group noted
disagreements among expert scientific bodies over whether Glyphosate, a herbicide
paired with crops engineered to be resistant to it, has the potential to cause cancer. It also
pointed out that the use of GMOs has led to increase in weed and pest resistance and
called for incentives and regulations to push farmers toward practices that delayed the
evolution of resistance in weeds and pests.
Genetically modified crops were widely adopted in U.S. agriculture in the 1990s, mainly by incorporating genes resistant to
pests and herbicides. Creve Coeur-based Monsanto was one of the early developers of genetically modified crops, engineering
soybeans and then corn to be resistant to Glyphosate. But as their use has grown, concerns over their safety have persisted, leading
some food manufacturers and restaurants to disclose their use or tout products free of GMOs.
Vermont will begin requiring labeling of genetically modified food this summer, and other states have tried to enact similar laws.
Monsanto and other big agriculture and food companies have fought the efforts, arguing labeling food would confuse consumers and
lead to a patchwork of state regulations.
The National Academies reviewed disease registries in the U.S. and Canada, where GMOs have been a regular part of the
diet since the 1990s, and the United Kingdom and Western Europe, where GMOs are not widely consumed. It found no difference in the
increase or decrease of specific health problems after the introduction of GMO foods and the associated increase in Glyphosate.
The report did say there is “ongoing debate about potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans.” While a report in March 2015
from the International Agency for Research on Cancer listed the herbicide as “probably” carcinogenic to humans, other regulatory
agencies have not found a link to cancer.
“We hear quite a few claims that we need genetically engineered crops to feed the world, and by using genetic engineering
we can increase the rate by which we improve crop yield,” said the study committee's chair, North Carolina State University entomology
professor Fred Gould. “With the advent of (GMO) crops, we're not seeing that all of a sudden we're increasing the rate of increase.”
Published on 25th & Posted on 27th - 28th of Every Month RNI No.-DELENG/2015/65174 Postal Reg. No. DL-SW-1/4191/16-18
top related