Agriculture world may 2016

Volume II | Issue 5 | May 2016 | `70

ISSN 2455-8184

AGRICULTURE

W RLD The Pulse

Global Agriculture

GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia Echoing Sustainable Environment and Agriculture krishi.jagran

@krishijagran

www.krishijagran.com

AGRICULTURE WORLD The Pulse

Volume 2 Issue 5 May 2016 Total Page- 44

Global Agriculture

CONTENTS IN THIS ISSUE

Editor-in-Chief MC Dominic

Head Pre-Press Alka Gupta

Directors Shiny Emanuel MG Vasan

Graphic Designer Dharmendra Kumar Yogesh Kumar

Sr. Executive Editor Dr. KT Chandy RK Teotia

Accounts KB Indira

Assistant Editor Ruby Jain Sr. Correspondent Imran Khan Sonal Handa Correspondent Manish Chauhan Deepshikha Sameer Tiwari Aslam Rasool Khan Jyoti Sharma V.P. Int. Business D.D. Nair Gavrilova Maria Marketing Head Sanjay Kumar GM - Marketing Farha Khan Sr. Manager Marketing K J Saranya Sara Khan Marketing Manager Megha Sharma Afsana Malik Sr. Executive Marketing Chunki Bhutia Poonam Bishwakarma Rinki Pundir Laxmi Pandey Soniya Mahajan Shifali Mahajan Preeti Chauhan Kanchan Singh Hema Sharma Rajni Kumari Karishma Lehri Meena Pandey Priya Tripathi Aayesha Khan Vanita Singh Circulation Head Nishant K Taak Circulation Manager Rahul Singh Abdus Samad Sr. Executive Circulation Prashant Sharma Anku Yadav Pappu Ray Mohit Furkan Qureshi Shahzeb Ahmed

O ce Assistant Devender Kumar Jagdish Jana Prem Kumar Rajiv DD Nair VP International Business (Russia & CIS Countries) 6 Mikluho-Maklaya STR, Moscow, Russia 117198 Mob: +7903729 98 30, Tel: +7499501 99 10 Email: ddnair@krishijagran.com M Mezhukanal E-16F - 33, Hamriya Free Zone, Sharjah, UAE Mob: +971 50 2870465 Email: mezhukanal@krishijagran.com

08. GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia

For Circulation & Subscription Nishant Kr. Taak Mob: +91-9953756433 Email: circulation@krishijagran.com, subscription@krishijagran.com

12. Indian Private Industries in GM Crop Research

CONTACT US Enquiry info@krishijagran.com

INTERVIEW

Editorial editor@krishijagran.com Marketing response@krishijagran.com Printed and Published by: M. C. Dominic 60/9, 3rd Floor, Yusuf Sarai Market, Near Green Park Metro Station, New Delhi 110016.

Tel: 011-26511845, 26517923 Mobile: +91-9313301029, +91-9654193353 Email: info@krishijagran.com, editor@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.

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

EDITORIAL

Why The Hue and Cry on GM Crops?

I

ndia is deplorably deficient in oil seed production and negatively poised in its oil seed export-import ratio. In 201415 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.

M C Dominic Editor‐in‐Chief dominic@krishijagran.com

06

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

krishijagran.com

GM Technology

GM Mustard Muddled up in GM Phobia T

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.

08

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

he decision of the Minister of Environment, 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 e n t i f i c c o m m u n i t y. W h 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 decline approval for the commercialization of genetically improved crops irrespective of its being developed by public or private sector institutions. Even this 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 improved crops using biotechnological approaches. In fact the current advances in agribiotechnology have led to the developments of series of transgenic varieties of crop plants popularly referred as GM or GE crops (genetically modified or 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 antiGMO activists to stop its commercialization. Bt is one of the many GM technologies that has been developed as an insectkrishijagran.com

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

during UPA regime, GM mustard has also become a victim of political vacillations of the GEAC. In fact the regulatory body was made toothless

through this science and closing the door for powerful and emerging genome edited technologies.

Prolonging the resistance of cotton to

krishijagran.com

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

GM mustard can ďŹ ll 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.

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 close monitoring of the crop cultivation.

Not only the Indian private sector but also the public institutions are engaged in research in agribiotechnology 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. Swaminathan S Ankalesari Aiyar a well known, senior journalist very rightly said that the “activists seek by hook or crook to delay genetically modified crops, using courts and rented mobs financed partly by dollar inflows�.

When China is acquiring the global giant Swiss biotech company

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

09

GM Technology

resistant trait. The classical example is Bt cotton which contains genes from the naturally occurring soil 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 monopoly of multinational companies proves totally erroneous and untenable. It is increasingly becoming clear that like Bt brinjal

GM Technology 10

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 v e g e t a b l e o i l s . We a r e a l s o celebrating 2016 as the International Year of Pulses. Does this mean that countries like Canada, USA, Australia and China which are regular exporter of pulses and edible oil to India should grow more of it for Indian consumers instead we developing technologies for 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

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

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-privatepartnership between Assam 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 of Secretaries on agriculture rightly recommended the development and time bound approval of Bt chickpea in India.

The scientific community should make a collective demand to honourable minister MOEF&CC not to budge under irrational and humongous protests by NGOs but

pay attention to scientific logic, reasoning and evidences presented in multi years scientific trials and data submitted by Delhi University and then evaluated rigorously 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 scientists shall 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.

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

krishijagran.com

GM Technology

Indian Private Industries in GM Crop Research

T

he crops derived from 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

12

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 investments into research in 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, resource intensive and time consuming technology. However, this article focuses only on industry efforts to bring more crops and traits available to farmers in India.

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

Table 1 summarizes the

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, krishijagran.com

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 stacked products, with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance are the most common examples of stacked products. It is to be noted that although different 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.

Crop Brinjal Chickpea Corn Cotton Rice

Wheat

Traits Insect resistance Insect resistance Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, virus resistance Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, drought tolerance, salt tolerance, nitrogen and water use efďŹ ciency, hybrid development, yield increase Herbicide tolerance

cotton stacked with herbicide 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 requirement of obtaining 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 delays has resulted in 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 take a career in agriculture 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 may see the light of 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 GM crops in India. With 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 krishijagran.com

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

13

GM Technology

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 brinjal in 2010 but was not commercialized because of the moratorium against the commercialization. It is ironic that the same Bt brinjal was tested 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

Table 1. Research by private sector on GM crops in India and the traits improved.

The Fate of Indian GM Mustard:

A

Interview

country with a large number of population depending 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.

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 transgenic mustard?” My simple All plants are answer to this question is Genetically that- it can double the production. Canada is the Modified biggest example. As we all know, it is worlds one of the naturally biggest producers of Canola oil 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

14

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

Dr.Deepak Pental 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 Vicechancellor of the University on 1 September 2005.

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. krishijagran.com

GM or No GM, India has to Decide

GM Technology

L

ots of discussions are taking place 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 AgricultureBiotechnology 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 Agribiotechnology field. On the one hand, India is asking foreign companies to innovate in India and on the other hand we are preventing to bring GM Mustard technology to the farmers. The price control on Bollgard 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.

16

For the last ten years no Biotechnology GM technologies is also creating or Genetically Modified technology u n e m p l o y m e n t f o r t h e A g r i was approved by the Government for biotechnologist and the students those example, Bt Brinjal and GM Mustard. who are doing MSc or PhD in Because of this reason many of the biotechnology and are in dilemma.

Agriculture Biotechnology-led The Government of India has to enterprises have stopped their decide that whether the cultivation of research programs in India. The GM foods is required or we will be budget for ICAR was around 0.8 bound to import GM foods from Brazil, billion in 2014-15 but Monsanto alone Argentina, Canada, Australia, spent 1.7 billion on R&D in 2014. This Malaysia or Indonesia to ensure our shows that the food security. qualitative Government has imposed The Government seeds will the trails of 15 GM crops due to of India has to come from the the opposition made by decide that global private 'Swadeshi Jagran Manch'. players. If Ministry of environment has told whether the Monsanto will in this regard that the decision to cultivation of GM quit India, conduct the field trails is of the foods is required Bollgard-III Genetic Engineering Approval or we will be may not come Committee (GEAC) and not of bound to import in India and the government. The GEAC GM foods Bollgard–II will comprises of several finish its departments of Government of potency within India. GEAC however has the next 3-5 years. If so, the cotton approved Bt Brinjal, then why revolution will be dumped forever and Government of India is not allowing who will be the loser?.....The farmers of the commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal India. and same is in the case of GM If the present government is Mustard. We should learn about the under the pressure of some vested success of this technology in the form of interests, not to allow the Multinational Bt Cotton. Because of the allotment of Bt National Companies for technology Cotton cultivation in our country, we transfer then why the clearance for GM are one of the largest producers of Mustard is not given, which is a public cotton and today we are exporting sector product developed by Delhi cotton rather than importing which we University with the support from were doing before the introduction of National Dairy Development Board Bt Cotton.

(NDDB). The delay in clearance for

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

krishijagran.com

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.”

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.

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 “Traditional agriculture problems such as shortage of irrigation and saline soil. A technologies have limitations and large number of improved varieties has been developed these technologies are unable to in many crops through GM technology and are cultivated solve the complex problems. Only worldwide despite biotic and abiotic stresses. Now if the GM technology is able to do India has to enter second green revolution, then we have that. It is a matter of shame for to adopt the GM technology for better productivity and Government of India that so lesser quantity of pesticides usage. To be self-sufficient in called scientist and activists are oil seeds, corn, and soybean the GM technology based opposing the tremendous, regular seeds are needed. Either the government should take the and continues efforts made by responsibility for development of these seeds or the eminent scientist to develop the GM technology. If there is private companies should be allowed for the development a permission to sell canola oils of multinational companies of GM technology based seeds under safety norms.“GM in the Indian market, then why there is an objection to or No GM, India Has to Decide.” 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, Sameer Tiwari Aslam R. Khan Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (CIFA).

Krishi Jagran

krishijagran.com

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

17

GM Technology

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?”

Twenty Successful Years Of Gm Crops

GM Technology

I

nternational Ser vice for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) released its annual report detailing the adoption rate of biotech crops, on its “20 th Anniversary of the Global 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

krishijagran.com

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 adoption of the GM crops in developing countries disproves that”.

For the fourth consecutive year, developing countries planted more biotech crops (14.5 million hectares) than industrialized 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

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.

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

07

krishijagran.com

2015 report include: · New biotech crops were approved and/or commercialized in several countries including the United States, Brazil, 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 genomeedited 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

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

19

GM Technology

“Farmers, who are 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 f o o d q u a l i t y, ” H a u t e a a d d e d .

“Moreover, biotech crops contribute to more sustainable crop production systems that 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 overall decrease in total crop 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

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 fieldtested, 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

GM Technology

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-edited 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 intensificationâ€? mode on the 1.5 billion hectares of global arable land, and make a vital contribution to global food security.

Top ten facts FACT # 1. 2015 marked the 20th year of the successful commercialization of biotech crops.

An unprecedented cumulative 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,

biotech crops peaked at 181.5 million in 2014, compared with 179.7 million hectares in 2015, equivalent to a net marginal year-toyear decrease of 1.0% between 2014 and 2015.

Some countries increased their total plantings, whilst others reduced their 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)

in the 20-year period 1996 to 2015; farmer benefits for 1996 to 2015 were conser vatively estimated at over US$150 billion. Up to 18 million riskaverse 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

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

20

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

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 p o l i t i c a l w i 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 homegrown drought-tolerant sugarcane.

China continues to benefit significantly from Bt cotton (US$18 billion for 1997 to 2014), and notably ChemChina recently bid US$43 billion 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 krishijagran.com

krishijagran.com

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 c o n t r i b u t e d t o F o o d S e c u r i t y, Sustainability and the

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 CO2 emissions by 27 billion 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.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l l y, p u b l i c - p r i v a t e partnerships (PPP) have been successful in developing and delivering approved products to farmers. Thirdly, the advent of genome-edited crops may be the most important development identified by today's scientific community. A recent and promising application is the powerful technology, named CRISPR. Many well-informed observers are of the view that genome editing offers a timely and powerful unique set of significant comparative advantages over conventional and GM crops in four domains: precision, speed, cost and regulation. Unlike the onerous regulation that currently applies to trans-genics, genome-edited products logically lend themselves for science-based, fit-for-purpose, proportionate, and non-onerous regulation. A for ward-looking strategy has been proposed (Flavell, 2015) featuring the troika of transgenes, 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.

Clive James Emeritus Chairman and Founder, ISAAA

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

21

GM Technology

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: several “firsts” in approvals and commercialization's of “new” GM crops, such as Innate™ potatoes and Arctic® Apples; commercialization of the first non-transgenic genome-edited crop, SU Canola™; first time approval of a GM animal food product, GM salmon, for human 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 donated to the public-private 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

AAYESHA KHAN 9891889588 aayesha@krishijagrn.com

8

18

ßÔÁ¿ø¸ æ±á. í

GM Technology

Status of Bt Brinjal in India T

he 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 be resistance against lepidopteran insects like Field trials the Brinjal Fruit and conducted on researchS h o o t B o r e r L e u c i n o d e s managed farms carried out orbonalisand Fruit

by Mahyco and the Indian Borer Helicoverpa Council of Agricultural armigera.

Importance of Brinjal in INDIA :

Research suggested a 42% pesticide reduction and a doubling of the yield was possible by producing Bt Brinjal.

Brinjal is a low calories and fats containing vegetable and contains mostly water, some protein, fibre and carbohydrates. It is also an exc 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.

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,

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

24

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

krishijagran.com

neomycin phosphotransferase-II 3.

The aad gene for another marker 3� (9) Oaminoglycoside 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

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

krishijagran.com

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.

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

25

GM Technology

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.

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.

GM Technology

G

GENETIC TRANSFORMATION IN INSECTS

enetics and molecular biology have become dominating forces within biology. This trend has been clear over the last 21/2 decades, but the near 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 technology based. The polymerase chain reaction and advances in DNA-sequencing technology and in computing capabilities, to name just a few, have fueled growth in molecular biology and given rise to the new fields of genomics and bioinformatics.

Genomics is the wholesale descriptive analysis of an organism's genome, including DNA sequence and gene expression information.

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

26

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 system was devised for 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. significance. These data will provide During this same time, the application the raw materials for the exploration of this technology to the improvement of important questions in insect of existing genetic control efforts, such biology and for the harnessing of as the sterile-insect technique and the genes to solve insect-based problems genetic manipulation of insect in agriculture and human health. vectorial capacity, has proven to be Critical to these efforts will be valid in principle. It might appear that technologies that permit hypotheses we are now moving beyond the a r i s i n g f r o m g e n o m i c s a n d technology development phase of the bioinformatics programs to be tested insect transformation problem and into a technology in vivo. Gene application phase. This Gene introduction or “geneticintroduction or article briefly reviews the transformation” technologies “ g e n e t i c p rogress that has that permit genes of any origin transformation” o ccurred in nonto be introduced into insects, technologies that drosophilid transgenic permit genes of either temporarily or technology and critically any origin to be permanently, will play a critical assesses whether these introduced into role in gene function developments, in their insects, either identification and testing. c urrent state, are temporarily or Gene transformation will also sufficient to meet the permanently, will enable us to manipulate insect demands of the research play a critical genotypes and potentially to p r o g r a m s that this role in gene devise chemical-free methods technology was f u n c t i o n developed to serve. Some for controlling pest insect identification of these programs, for populations and/or the pest and testing. example the spreading of status of an insect.

G e n e b e n e f i c i a l t r a n s g e n e s t h r o u g h transformation will also enable us to manipulate insect genotypes and m o s q u i t o p o p u l a t i o n s , w e r e potentially to devise chemical-free conceived >10 years ago and still methods for controlling pest insect serve as a driving force for the populations and/or the pest status of 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 an insect. acknowledge the significant level of Efforts to develop geneticprogress that has been made recently transformation technology for insects

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

krishijagran.com

TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS AS GENE VECTORS IN NON-DROSOPHILID INSECTS

The Hermes Element The Hermes element from M. domestica is a member of the hAT family of transposable elements.

Hermes was isolated after 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 size. The hobo and Hermes 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 crossmobilization as measured by plasmidbased and chromosome-based excision assays performed in D. krishijagran.com

melanogaster.

Hermes elements have been found in house fly populations throughout the world. Cathcart et al (L Cathcart, ES Frafsur, PW Atkinson, & DA O'Brochta, submitted 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 natural populations of 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 for publication), Stomoxys calcitrans(MJ Lehane, PW Atkinson, &

DA O'Brochta, submitted for publication),Tribolium castaneum, and Culex quinquefasciatus (ML Allen, CS LeVesque, DA O'Brochta, & PW Atkinson, submitted for publication).

Two types of chromosomal integration events have been observed after the microinjection of Hermes-containing plasmid DNA into developing insect embryos: (a) events arising from the transposition of only the Hermes element and the 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 Michel, AC Pinkerton, 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

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

27

GM Technology

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.

GM Technology

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 cinnabarcontaining Hermes elements in A. aegypti 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 role that recombination has subsequently played in the 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,

28

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 both A. aegypti and Cx. 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 justifiably fueled interest in developing these elements as robust gene transfer vectors. The abundance

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

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, and Bactrocera tryoni and subsequently used Mos1 to 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 nor Hermes produced krishijagran.com

trangenic individuals.

The Himar1 and Mos1 transposases 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 m e m b e r s o f t h e m a r i n e r / Tc 1 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 is substituted for magnesium. The physical properties of both transposases are similar, and both display increased rates of transposition with increasing transposase concentration. The most significant difference between the

krishijagran.com

In D. melanogaster transformants, in transpositions arising from interplasmid 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 terminal nucleotides of the 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 plasmid, 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

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 yotic transposases. 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 whether they are absolutely 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 obser vations), 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 been by transpositional

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

29

GM Technology

Himar1 has been 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.

two transposases is that Himar1 has the greatest activity at a concentration of âˆź10 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.

recombination of the piggyBac element. Transformation frequencies are âˆź10%, 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.

GM Technology

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

Bayer Offers $62 billion to acquire Monsanto

G

erman pesticide and crop seed company Bayer said that it had offered $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

T

he Government of India took back the notification issued on royalty 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.

30

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

krishijagran.com

Colour Coding of Land Classes Colour Coding of Land

A

s we all know the quality of land varies 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.

32

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

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. krishijagran.com

krishijagran.com

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.  by terracing, strip cropping and crop rotations which alternates legume with cerals.  adopting the technique of stubble mulching, fertilizing, mcmuring, liming etc.

In very dry and less rainfall areas some measures to prevent wind erosion on class II land are to established. They are contour farming, strip 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. 

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

33

Colour Coding of Land

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 crops and cover crops periodically and incorporate into the soil.  recycling of crop residues back into the soil directly or indirectly.  following suitable crop rotations in which soil 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

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

Colour Coding of Land



34

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

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 krishijagran.com

Colour Coding of Land

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

36

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

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 krishijagran.com

krishijagran.com

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:

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

37

Colour Coding of Land

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

complete fencing so as to prevent the entry of man and animals. ď‚&#x; plugging all major gullies of the tract ď‚&#x; 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.

Colour Coding of Land

ď‚&#x;

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

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

38

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

Rain water storage, ponds, lakes

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 krishijagran.com

5000 FARMERS IN BANGLADESH WILL BE PROVIDED WITH Bt BRINJAL SEEDS

News

Matia Chowdhury 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

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 Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA), credited the success to Bangladesh's political will, particularly from Agriculture Minister Matia Chowdhury.

In a recent speech, Matia Chowdhur y, 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.”

40

AGRICULTURE WORLD | MAY 2016

krishijagran.com

Published on 25th & Posted on 27th - 28th of Every Month

RNI No.-DELENG/2015/65174

Postal Reg. No. DL-SW-1/4191/16-18