International Journal of Pest Management, October–December 2005; 51(4): 231 – 244

Impacts of transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management

education on smallholder cotton farmers

PUYUN YANG1, KUNWEN LI2, SHANGBAI SHI3, JINGYUAN XIA1, RONG GUO1,
SHAOSHI LI1, & LIBING WANG3
1
National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, P. R. China, 2Plant Protection
Station of Xiantao City, Hubei Province, P. R. China, and 3Plant Protection Station of Hubei Province, Wuhan, Hubei
Province, P. R. China

Abstract
Comparative field research on transgenic Bt cotton and conventional cotton under different conditions (fields without
pesticide inputs, fields managed by farmers with IPM education, fields managed by farmers lacking IPM education) were
carried out in Hubei province of China in 2002. The amount of pesticide used on Bt cotton by non-IPM farmers was found
to be around three times that used by IPM farmers. IPM farmers made significantly higher net profits from cultivating
transgenic Bt cotton in comparison with non-IPM farmers. Other pest management practices had more significant influences
on the population dynamics of predatory natural enemies and major insect pests than did the adoption of transgenic Bt cotton
in the cotton ecosystem. Our study showed that IPM education, by increasing farmer capacity to critically evaluate inputs and
their effects, monitor their fields and make informed decisions on pest management, enabled farmers to reduce pesticide use
significantly, so resulting in improved production and profit margin. IPM farmer education thus, contributed to maximising
the value of planting transgenic Bt cotton.

Keywords: Farmer education, farmer field school, integrated pest management, transgenic Bt cotton

of severe insect pest and disease problems, in

1. Introduction
Transgenic Bt cotton containing a truncated form
of the Bt genes cry IA(b) from the bacteria Bacillus
thuringensis HD-1 and cry IA(c) from HD-73 was
initially introduced into China in 1994 and first
commercialized in 1997. The success of Bt cotton in
resistance to cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa aramigera)
led to explosive expansion of Bt cotton planting in
China (Piao et al. 2001; Pray et al. 2001). Farmer
adoption of Bt cotton has increased to over 90% of the
cotton area in Northern China, and over 50% in
Eastern and Central China; the acreages of Bt cotton
in China grew from 2000 ha in 1997 (Huang et al.
2002), 1.07 million ha in 2000 (Wu et al. 2002), and
up to over 2.4 million ha in 2002 (Huang et al. 2002).
Currently there is around 2.5 million ha of Bt cotton
are grown annually in China (Yang et al. 2005).
Bt cotton farmers in China are typically small
producers with an average crop area of less than 1 ha
per household, of which the cotton area is less than
0.5 ha (Huang et al. 2002). There are estimated be
currently 6 million small-producer cotton farms in
China planting Bt cotton. Small-producer farmers are
usually resource-poor and risk aversive. They are less
tolerant to crop pest infestations, giving high priorities
to the use of pest control measure (Pray et al. 2002).
Chinese cotton farmers have endured several episodes
particular, consecutive outbreaks of cotton bollworm
from 1992 to 1995. Under high pest pressures, and in
addition to the increasing ineffectiveness of pesticides
via the development of pesticide resistance, many
failures have been experienced in controlling cotton
bollworm. Chinese small-producer cotton farmers
still rely highly on pesticides even in Bt cotton pest
management. For example Yang et al. (2005) showed
that Bt cotton growers still sprayed an average of 13
times/season on Bt cotton in Northern China.
Previous economic analysis based on comparisons
between Bt and non-Bt cotton and farmer studies
have shown that Chinese farmers decrease the
applications of pesticides, save labour inputs and
reduce farmers’ exposure to highly toxic pesticides by
adopting Bt cotton (Xia et al. 1998; Pray et al. 2001,
2002; Huang et al. 2002). However, the mainstream
extension mechanism of new agricultural technology
as well as biotechnologies used in China is still an
outdated top-down approach (Bernard and David
2001; Fan 2001; Yang et al. 2005). The issue of the
sustainability of Bt cotton is raised as the numbers of
farmers adopting this transgenic crop expanded
dramatically without appropriate ecological knowl-
edge. Many ecological and economic repercussions
were experienced in past with the application of new
technologies developed in the ‘green revolution’, due

Correspondence: Dr Puyun Yang, National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100026, P.R. China.
Tel: 8610 64194543. Fax: 8610 64194542. E-mail: Yangpy@agri.gov.cn
ISSN 0967-0874 print/ISSN 1366-5863 online Ó 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09670870500396672
232 P. Yang et al.
to the lack of effort taken in the understanding of their
impacts on ecosystems and agricultural intervention
practices in the long term. For instance, over-reliance
of pesticides in many crops caused the dilemmas
of resistance, resurgence and residue problems
(Matteson et al. 1993; Roling et al. 1998; John et al.
2000). In terms of the adoption of Bt cotton for the six
million Chinese small-producer farmers, the key
questions are: Will the benefits of Bt cotton continue?
If so, will they continue in the longer term? To answer
these questions, it is necessary to understand small-
producer farmers’ current practices on Bt cotton, so
as to develop an ecologically sound integrated pest
management system on Bt cotton.
Recent farmer field school (FFS) training funded
by the European Union and FAO on integrated pest
management in cotton involving adult, non-formal
education by using a learning discovery approach, has
concentrated on filling gaps in farmers’ knowledge on
Bt cotton and correcting farmers’ misconceptions
about Bt cotton pest managements (EU, FAO Farmer
Field School Programme in Cotton IPM in Asia
2000 – 2004). If the curriculum of FFS in Bt cotton is
carefully designed to address the needs of Bt cotton,
FFS farmer graduates should be able to demonstrate
the use of Bt cotton in a sustainable way.
This study attempted to: (1) compare common
small-producer cotton farmers’ and IPM-FFS farm-
ers’ practices in Bt cotton; (2) understand the impacts
of the common small-producer cotton farmers’ and
the IPM-FFS farmers’ practices on ecology of Bt
cotton systems; (3) understand economic impacts of
the Bt cotton and farmers’ IPM training and their
interactions; (4) identify critical gaps between com-
mon farmers’ and IPM-FFS farmers’ practices in
planting Bt cotton. The intention is to use the
information from this study to promote feasible IPM
approaches to empower the small-producer cotton
farmers to use biotechnology in sustainable ways.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Cotton varieties
Transgenic Bt cotton-SGK321, developed by the
Biotechnology Research Institute of Chinese Acad-
emy of Agricultural Sciences and the conventional
cotton-Xiangzha No. 2 were used in this study.
SGK321 is a Bt cotton expressing proteins of Bt cry
IA and CPT I (cowpea trypsin inhibitor gene).
Xiangzha No. 2 is a conventional (non-Bt) cotton
variety. Both varieties have been commercialised and
are the two most widely cultivated varieties in 2002 in
the study site, Xiantao county, Hubei province of
central China.
2.2. Field experiments
Field experiments were conducted from April to
December 2002 in Xiantao county, Hubei Province
of central China. Six treatments were designed in the
study, namely: (1) Bt cotton with IPM (Bt-IPM);
(2) Bt cotton with farmer’s practice (Bt-FP);
(3) Bt cotton with no pesticide spraying plots (Bt-NS);
(4) Conventional cotton with IPM (C-IPM);
(5) Conventional cotton with farmer’s practice (C-FP);
(6) Conventional cotton with no pesticide spraying
(C-NS) plots. Each treatment plot covered 0.25 ha
and was replicated 3 times. The experimental plots
were located in nine villages of Xiantao county.
Experiment plots were separated from each other at
least 500 m to avoid interactions among them.
The IPM plots were managed by 18 small-
producer farmers who graduated from three typical
IPM farmer field schools (FFS) in 2001. The pest
control practices in IPM plots were based on the
decisions made by the FFS farmers.
The FP plots were managed by six individual
small-producer farmers who had never participated
in any kind of IPM training. Only their cotton
varieties were recommended. There was no further
intervention with their cotton production. The pest
control practices for FP plots were based on the
decisions made by the six individual small-producer
farmers themselves.
The NS plots were also managed by the 18 FFS
farmers. On the NS plots, the use of pesticide was
prohibited, but the other agronomic practices such as
field preparation, sowing, fertilizing, harvesting, etc.,
were kept the same as those of the IPM plots.
2.3. Field data collection
On all plots, project staff undertook systemic
surveys on the populations of Bt cotton target pests,
non-target pests and predatory natural enemies, the
systemic surveys were conducted in all the treatment
plots at 7-day intervals throughout the whole cotton
growth season (from early May to early September).
The tri-diagonal five-point sampling method was
used for field surveys on insect populations in the
plots. A sample of 10 plants per point with a total of
50 plants per plot was taken in the field surveys. For
each sampled plant, a thorough whole plant inspec-
tion was conducted in which adults, nymphs or
larvae of cotton boll worm (Helicoverpa aramigera),
aphids (Aphis gossypii Glover), ladybeetles (Coccinel-
lidae spp.), spiders (Araneae spp.) and predatory bugs
(Orius spp.) were counted. Red spider mites (Tetra-
nychus spp.) were counted by inspecting the whole
plant before the seven-true leaf stage (before mid
June) , and the three leaves which are one of the fully
expanded topical leaf, one middle leaf and one of
the leaves in the first fruit branch at plant bottom
after the seven-true leaf stage (after mid June).
Twelve cotton IPM specialists were recruited from
the county and township extension agencies and
trained to carry out the field surveys.
The agronomic activities in all the plots were
recorded in detail on a daily basis by the individual
 Transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education
farmers, for example the date of preparing fields,
seed treatments, sowing, fertilizing, transplanting,
irrigation, spraying, weeding and harvest, the size of
plots, and the name of the varieties. The input costs
for the plots including pest control and labor inputs
were also recorded on a daily basis, for example the
type, name and amount of pesticide sprayed, labors
used for weeding, transplanting, harvesting. Inter-
views were carried out monthly (9 times) throughout
the whole cotton season (from April to December) by
the trained extension staff to clarify and compare
farmers’ records if necessary. Information on local
market prices of agro-chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers
and plant growth regulators) was also collected
monthly by the trained extension staff to accurately
assess the value of inputs.
The actual yields in the plots were recorded by
hand-picking during the harvest season. The total
amount of cotton harvested in the whole season in
each plot was recorded and used as the basis for
deducing economic revenues. Economic revenues in
the plots are calculated according to the actual yields
and based on local prices.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Each plot was considered as an experiment unit.
Biological analysis was based on the data of the
samples in the plot for the insect population
dynamics, economic analysis was based on the data
of the whole plot recorded in the whole season, each
mean of its three replicates is considered as a
representative of the treatment. The data of field
survey and farmers’ records were encoded, entered
into Excel sheets and verified prior to analysis. SAS
(Version 8) was used in the statistical analysis. The
data homogeneity of variance and normality of errors
have been tested, data were transformed into equalize
variance when necessary. Repeated measure ANO-
VA was conducted in comparing the overall
differences of insect populations between treatments,
and paired t-test was applied in comparing the insect
populations at a specific time. For comparing
economic parameters (pesticide applications, eco-
nomic returns, variable costs), Fisher’s protected
LSD test was used as a post-ANOVA test in
comparing the means between treatments.
Table I. Socio-economic background of the FFS and FP farmers (Mean + SE).
Variables FFS farmers (n ¼ 18)
Age 42.1 + 4.6
Years of formal education 7.8 + 3.2
Family size (People/family) 4.1 + 1.3
Land holdings in 2002 0.46 + 0.32
(Hectare/household)
Years of growing cotton 21.5 + 6.46
Cotton acreage in 2002 0.27 + 0.09
(Hectare/household)
No significant differences in term of economic and social variables between FFS and FP farmers were found out by t-test (P 4 0.05).
233
3. Results
3.1. Pest management practices
3.1.1. Socio-economic background of the farmers. So-
cio-economic background of the 18 FFS farmers and
six common farmers is described in Table I. There
was no significant difference between the IPM and
common farmers in term of their socio-economic
backgrounds (t-test, df ¼ 22, r 4 0.05). Most farm-
ers were between 35 and 45 years old. All the farmers
had received some formal education, the FFS
farmers had a mean of 7.8 years school education,
while the common farmers received 7.6 years on
average. They were typical small holders, with farm
sizes averaged around 0.47 ha/household. Cotton
area per farm is small, roughly a quarter of ha on
average for both samples of farmers.
3.1.2. Pest monitoring pattern. The pest monitoring
patterns were different between the six common
cotton farmers managing the FP plots and the 18
FFS graduates who managed IPM plots. During the
cotton season, it was observed that the six common
cotton farmers entered cotton fields not for pest
monitoring but mainly for agronomic activities. Pest
problems were usually discovered by their awareness
of pest damage symptoms on leaves (e.g., leaves
curled by aphids, leaves ‘burnt’ by red spider mites,
or leaf holes caused by leaf feeders) at cotton
vegetative growth stages, and damage to both leaves
and squares or bolls (such as shedding of squares or
bolls or holes in bolls) at squaring and boll formation
stages. However, they were very alert to the presence
of caterpillars. When caterpillars were found on
cotton plants, all of them decided to take actions.
The common farmers visiting the fields for pest
monitoring was very causal. Normally, they scouted
the fields by checking a few cotton plants for
caterpillars or larvae, or visiting in a circle around
the field sides for checking pest occurrences during
cotton season.
The 18 FFS farmers had received a season long
training on cotton IPM-FFS in the previous year
(2001). The cotton IPM-FFSs had field-based
training sessions that lasted for a full cotton season.
The FFS farmers met once every week and partici-
pated in 18 sessions in total. Each session includes at
FP farmers (n ¼ 6) T Value (t-test) (df ¼ 22)
42.7 + 5.7 0.18 (P ¼ 0.8619)
7.6 + 4.1 0.22 (P ¼ 0.8270)
4.2 + 1.4 0.09 (P ¼ 0.9299)
0.49 + 0.26 0.43 (P ¼ 0.6727)
22.1 + 7.81 0.21 (P ¼ 0.8349)
0.29 + 0.06 0.74 (P ¼ 0.4652)
234 P. Yang et al.
least three activities: the cotton ecosystem analysis, a
special topic and a group dynamic activity. A season-
long comparative study on the IPM plots with farmer
practice plots (FP) was also conducted by the FFS
participants. The details of the FFS activities were
described by John et al. (2000).
All the 18 FFS farmers made weekly field
observations on the IPM plots which take into
account plant health and its compensation abilities,
population fluctuations of pest and natural enemies,
soil conditions, and climatic factors. The 18 FFS
farmers worked in five groups (three groups of four
members, two groups of three members) to observe
both the Bt cotton and the conventional IPM plots.
Each group sampled five plants, walking across the
plot diagonally and choosing a plant at every 10 m,
and a total of 25 plants per plot were sampled by the
five groups. They took notes and collected specimens
of pests and natural enemies. Each group summar-
ized and analysed field surveys through ecosystem
drawings. After considering all the elements in the
crop system, field management decisions were made,
based on the group’s consensus.
3.1.3. Decision-making modes in pest management.
Different modes of decision-making in cotton pest
managements were demonstrated between the 18
FFS farmers and the six common farmers. For the six
common farmers, decision-making on the use of
pesticides varied according to the influences of
different factors in different situations. The first type
of decision on spraying pesticides was based on
prophylaxis either from their own experience or
following their neighbours, or calendar sprayings
without field surveys. This type of decision-making
usually occurred in early season when the pests did
not appear up. The second was based on their
awareness of the incidence of insects, usually
caterpillars or aphids they found in plant leaves.
The third was their reaction to the evidence of pest
damage such as leaf curling (by aphids), discolora-
tion or defoliation (by red spider mites), and square
or boll shedding (by boll worms or physiological
reactions). Both the second and the third types of
decision-making usually took place in mid-season
Table II. Pesticide applications in the study plots (Mean + SE).
No. of total pesticide
Treatment sprays (numbers/season)
Bt-IPM 4.67 + 1.13 c
Bt-FP 10.33 + 1.04 b
C-IPM 12.33 + 0.96 b
C-FP 21.33 + 1.40 a
F Value (Anova, df ¼ 3) 61.8 (P 5 0.0001)
Amounts of pesticide or insecticide used were counted in the volumes (L) of formulations. Different letters denote significant differences
among treatments with the overall ANOVA (SAS, V 8.0) at the 5% level (P 5 0.05) (Fisher’s protected LSD), same letter denote no
significant differences.
(from mid-June to September) when the infestation
of pests occurred. The fourth was on the advice of
relatives, local extension agents or pesticide retailers
in the local market. The fifth was influenced by
commercial advertisements in the media (TV or
radio, posters in villages). The fourth and fifth types
of the decision-making were occasionally observed
from some of the six common farmers during the
whole cotton season. The frequency of pesticide
sprayings by the six common farmers were significant
different between the Bt cotton and conventional
cotton (Table II) (P 5 0.05), but all of the decisions
made on pesticide spraying were not based on regular
pest monitoring and their modes were not signifi-
cantly different between Bt cotton and conventional
cotton.
For the 18 FFS farmers, decision-making on the
use of pesticides was based on cotton ecosystem
analysis. The FFS farmers made weekly field
observations on plant health and its compensation
abilities, population fluctuations of pest and natural
enemies, variety and climatic factors. The FFS
farmers analysed current situations by taking into
considerations of the relationship of all above-
mentioned factors to make decisions. The analysis
enabled them to make informed decisions on pest
management. The frequency of spraying pesticides
was significantly less in the Bt cotton compared with
the conventional cotton (Table II) (P 5 0.05).
The average frequency of pesticide spraying was
highest in C-FP plots, roughly twice of those in
Bt–FP plots and 5 times of those in Bt-IPM plots
(Table II) (P 5 0.05). The average total amount
of pesticide used in the plots was also highest in the
C-FP plots (Table II) (P 5 0.05). Insecticide applica-
tions were accounting for most of the total pesticide
applications in both the Bt cotton and the conven-
tional cotton of FP and IPM plots and showed
the same trends as the total pesticide applications
(Table II).
The kinds of pesticide used by the 18 FFS farmers
in IPM plots were very different from those by the
six common farmers in FP plots. Only four
kinds (Chlorpyrifos, Imidacloprid, Abamectin and
Carbendazol) were used in the IPM plots, while as
Amount of total No. of insecticide sprays Amount of insecticide
pesticides (L/ha) (numbers/season) (L/ha)
2.93 + 1.36 c 4.33 + 0.86 c 2.57 + 1.17 c
9.14 + 2.70 b 9.67 + 0.79 b 8.19 + 1.75 b
10.05 + 3.86 b 10.33 + 0.88 b 9.15 + 2.83 b
13.38 + 4.55 a 18.33 + 4.45 a 11.72 + 4.29 a
62.72 (P 5 0.0001) 30.0 (P 5 0.0001) 48.83 (P 5 0.0001)
 Transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education
many as nine kinds of pesticides (Monocrotophos,
Chlorpyrifos, Phoxin, Abamectin, Carbendazol,
Methamidophos, Mancozeb, Fenvalerate, Metho-
myl) were used by the six common farmers in the
FP plots.
3.2. Population dynamics of major cotton pests
3.2.1. Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). Five
generations of cotton bollworm occurred annually in
this cotton zone. The first and second generations
infested spring crops such as winter wheat, maize,
and vegetables. The third, fourth and fifth genera-
tions of cotton bollworm occurred in cotton.
The egg numbers of the third generation of cotton
bollworm occurred in mid-July were very low in all
the plots. Significant peaks of egg numbers of the
fourth and fifth generations of cotton bollworm
occurred in mid-August and early September in all
the plots, but the egg numbers of the fifth generation
declined rapidly due to unfavorable food and weather
conditions for the adult (Figure 1). No significant
differences in the egg numbers of cotton bollworm
between the Bt cotton (SGK321) and the conven-
tional cotton (Xiangzha No. 2) in NS plots from late
July to early September (F1,12 ¼ 3.94, P ¼ 0.0706).
Egg numbers of the fourth and fifth generations of
cotton bollworm were not significantly different in
the conventional cotton than in the Bt cotton of IPM
plots (F1,12 ¼ 0.53, P ¼ 0.5999) and FP plots as well
(F1,12 ¼ 0.91, P ¼ 0.4286).
There were significant differences in larval num-
bers of the third and fourth generations of cotton
bollworm between the Bt cotton and the conven-
tional cotton in the NS, IPM and FP plots
(F1,12 ¼ 144.22, P 5 0.0001). The results indicate
that the Bt cotton was highly resistant to the third and
fourth generations of cotton bollworm, reducing the
larval populations of cotton bollworm in Bt cotton
over 70% in comparison to the conventional cotton
under the same numbers of eggs from mid-July to
early September (Figures 1 and 2) (F1,8 ¼ 34.76,
P 5 0.0001). There were significant differences in
larvae populations of the fifth generation of cotton
bollworm between the Bt cotton and the conven-
tional cotton in IPM and NS plots after middle
September (Figure 2) (F1,2 ¼ 6.73, P ¼ 0.0109).
Larval numbers of the third and fourth generations
of cotton bollworm in the conventional cotton were
very high in NS plots, reached above 40/100 plants
for the third generation and 60/100 plants for the
fourth generation, also high in the conventional
cotton in FP plots, but were at low levels in the
IPM plots, particular in Bt cotton (Figure 2).
3.2.2. Cotton aphid (Aphid gossypium). The popu-
lation of cotton aphid in the NS plots were very low
throughout the whole cotton season (from early June
to early September) and no significant differences
were observed between the Bt cotton and the
235
conventional cotton (F1,12 ¼ 2.44, P ¼ 0.1287),
which implied that the natural enemies are efficient
enough to reduce cotton aphids in check if no
pesticides applied.
In the IPM and FP plots, the applications of
pesticides led to increases of cotton aphids in the Bt
cotton in late season. The populations of cotton
aphids increased dramatically from middle July and
reached their peaks at late August in Bt cotton in FP
plots, but no resurgences of aphids were observed in
the same period in the conventional cotton of the FP
and IPM plots (Figure 3), which implied that Bt
cotton were much more susceptible to the infestation
of cotton aphids (F1,12 ¼ 24.15, P ¼ 0.0004).
3.2.3. Red spider mites (Tetranychus spp.). The
populations of red spider mites were extremely higher
in Bt cotton compared with the conventional cotton in
NS plots before late July (F1,12 ¼ 85.45, P 5 0.0001),
and the severe infestations of red spider mites led to
widespread defoliation of cotton plants in June and
July, which demonstrated that the variety into which
the Bt gene was transferred was highly favorable and
susceptible to red spider mites. The populations of
red spider mites were very low both in the Bt cotton
and conventional cotton of the FP and IPM plots
thorough the whole cotton season (Figure 4).
3.3. Population dynamics of major predatory
natural enemies
3.3.1. Ladybeetles (Coccinellidae spp.). No signifi-
cant differences of ladybeetle populations between
the Bt cotton and the conventional cotton in the IPM
plots were observed from June to early September
(F1,14 ¼ 1.65, P ¼ 0.2229). In the NS plots, there
were also no significant differences of ladybeetle
populations between the Bt cotton and the conven-
tional cotton observed from late June to early
September (Figure 5) (F1,14 ¼ 0.14, P ¼ 0.8749).
However, there were significant differences of lady
beetle populations between the IPM, FP and NS
plots (F2,14 ¼ 8.62, P ¼ 0.0048).
3.3.2. Spiders (Araneae spp.). The spider popula-
tions were distinctively higher in NS plots in
comparison with those of FP plots from June to
early August and IPM plots from middle June to
early September in both Bt cotton and the conven-
tional cotton (F2,12 ¼ 47.87, P 5 0.0001). No
significant differences of spider populations between
the Bt cotton and the conventional cotton were
observed either in IPM, or FP or NS plots (Figure 6)
(F1,12 ¼ 3.4, P ¼ 0.0677).
3.3.3. Predatory bug (Orius minutus). The popula-
tions of predatory bugs were especially low in both
the Bt cotton and the conventional cotton of the FP
plots throughout the whole cotton season, but more
abundant in the NS plots in comparison with those of
236 P. Yang et al.

Figure 1. Population densities of Helicoverpa armigera eggs in the study plots (2002, Xiantao). Value shown is mean + SE. Asterisks indicate
significant differences in population densities between the Bt cotton-SGK321 and the conventional cotton-Xianzha No. 2 (paired t-test,
*P 5 0.05).

FP plots both in the Bt cotton from middle July
to early September and in the conventional cot-
ton from late July to early September (Figure 7)
(F2,12 ¼ 287.19, P 5 0.0001).
3.4. Economics
There was no significant difference of average
cotton yields between Bt cotton and the conventional
cotton both in the IPM and FP plots (Table III)
(P 4 0.05). Only the conventional cotton in the NS
plots got significant lowest yields (Table III)
(P 5 0.05). The average incomes of cotton demon-
strated the same trends as the average yields in all
study plots (Table III). The average gross margin was
highest in the Bt cotton of IPM plots and the
conventional cotton of IPM plots, and the gross
margin of the Bt cotton of IPM plots was significant
 Transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education 237

Figure 2. Population densities of Heliothis armigera larvae in the study plots (2002, Xiantao). Value shown is mean + SE. Asterisks indicate
significant differences in population densities between the Bt cotton-SGK321 and the conventional cotton-Xianzha No. 2 (paired t-test,
*P 5 0.05).

higher than that of the Bt cotton of FP plots
(Table III) (P 5 0.05). However, the average gross
margin in the conventional cotton of IPM plots was
not significant higher than that of the conventional
cotton of FP plots (Table III) (P 4 0.05).
Analysis on variable costs is given in Table IV, as
indicated the compositions of seed versus pesticide
costs were distinctively different between Bt cotton
and the conventional cotton, for example the average
seed costs was 8% of the total costs in Bt-FP plots
but only 1% in C-FP plots, while pesticide costs were
7% of the total costs in Bt-FP plots but 17% in C-FP
plots (Table IV).
The average pesticide cost was highest in C-FP
plots, roughly 2 times of those in Bt–FP plots and
6 times of Bt-IPM plots (Table IV) (P 5 0.05).
Pesticide costs were significant higher in the
conventional cotton comparing with those in the
Bt cotton of IPM and FP plots (Table IV)
(P 5 0.05). The average fertilizer costs were similar
in all the categories of study plots (Table IV)
(P 4 0.05). The average labour costs were highest
238 P. Yang et al.

Figure 3. Population dynamics of Aphis gossypii Glover in the study plots (2002, Xiantao). Value shown is mean + SE. Asterisks indicate
significant differences in population densities between the Bt cotton-SGK321 and the conventional cotton-Xianzha No. 2 (paired t-test,
*P 5 0.05).

in the conventional cotton of FP plots and the Bt
cotton of FP plots (P 5 0.05), and the average
labour costs of IPM plots were less than that in FP
plots in both Bt cotton and the conventional cotton
(P 5 0.05).
4. Discussion
Previous field studies indicated that cotton boll-
worm did not show any oviposition preferences
between Bt cotton and conventional cotton (Cui
and Xia 1999; Xia et al. 2001), and our study also
verified the same trends in NS plots (Figure 1). The
differences of egg populations of the fifth generation
of cotton bollworm between the Bt cotton and the
conventional cotton in FP plots might be due to
intensive use of pesticides, which lead to the
resurgences of cotton bollworm in late season by
destroying its natural enemies in FP plots.
The Bt cotton SGK321 plants demonstrated a
high efficacy in the resistance to cotton bollworm
larvae, but the level of resistance declined in late
season. This was consistent with earlier laboratory,
field and cage studies (Xia et al. 1995, 1998, 2001;
 Transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education 239

Figure 4. Population dynamics of red spider mites (Tetranychus spp.) in the study plots (2002, Xiantao). Value shown is mean + SE.
Asterisks indicate significant differences in population densities between the Bt cotton-SGK321 and the conventional cotton-Xianzha No. 2
(paired t-test, *P5 0.05).

Rui et al. 2001). The variation in insect resistance in
Bt cotton was mainly attributed to the variation in Bt
gene expression or bio-availability of the toxin within
plant ages and organs (Xia et al. 2001). However our
study has also demonstrated that pest management
practices play a key role in the efficiency of using its
insect resistance of Bt cotton. The quantity of
pesticide applied in the Bt cotton of FP plots was
around three times as in the IPM plots, and sprayed
twice frequently, clearly demonstrating that farmers
without IPM education would still overuse pesticides
in Bt cotton.
Sucking pests, red spider mites (T. cinnabarius)
were significantly more abundant on the Bt cotton
SGK321 than on the conventional cotton Xiangzha
No. 2 (Figures 3 and 4) in NS plots. Cotton aphid
(Aphid gossypium) more abundant in Bt cotton
than in the conventional cotton in FP and IPM
240 P. Yang et al.

Figure 5. Population dynamics of ladybirds (Coccinellidae spp.) in the study plots (2002, Xiantao). Value shown is mean + SE. Asterisks
indicate significant differences in population densities between the Bt cotton-SGK321 and the conventional cotton-Xianzha No. 2 (paired
t-test, *P 5 0.05).

plots. The resurgence of red spider mites and cotton
aphids would devalue the gains from the expression
of the Bt gene because of the additional sprays
needed for controlling them in Bt cotton. However,
the susceptibility of the parent variety of the Bt cotton
SGK 321 also requires investigation.
Earlier studies revealed increases in abundance of
some predators such as Exochomus graminicolum, Orius
minutus and Coccinella septempunctata, in Bt cotton in
comparison with its parental cultivar (Xia et al. 1998,
2002; Rui et al. 2001). In this study, only general
predators in the broad categories of spiders, ladybirds
and predatory bugs were counted. Results indicated
that there were significant differences of predator
populations among different pest management inter-
ventions of IPM, FP and NS plots, but not between the
 Transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education 241

Figure 6. Population dynamics of spiders (Araneae spp.) in the study plots (2002, Xiantao). Value shown is mean + SE. Asterisks indicate
significant differences in population densities between the Bt cotton-SGK321 and the conventional cotton-Xianzha No. 2 (paired t-test,
*P 5 0.05).

Bt cotton and the conventional in the same category of
pest management practice (Figures 5 – 7). This implies
that pest management practices were the dominant
factor influencing on the populations of predatory
natural enemies in cotton ecosystem.
Of great concern in the application of Bt cotton is
the development of insect resistance to Bt protein
(Xia et al. 1998; Zadoks et al. 2000; Shoemaker
2001). Laboratory selection showed that resistance
ratios of H. armigera increased 7 – 11 times when
neonates were feed on a diet containing cry IA(c)
proteins for 17 – 22 generations (Cui and Xia 1999;
Fan et al. 2000; Lu et al. 2000; Rui et al. 2001).
Although the effects of IPM education for farmers in
using Bt cotton were convincing in this study in
terms of economic and ecological benefits, more data
on larval survival under different pest management
practices (IPM, FP and NS) are required to assess
the ecological conditions under which resistance may
develop. Further revision of the curriculum of IPM
242 P. Yang et al.

Figure 7. Population dynamics of predatory Orius bugs (Orius minutus) in the study plots (2002, Xiantao). Value shown is mean + SE.
Asterisks indicate significant differences in population densities between the Bt cotton-SGK321 and the conventional cotton-Xianzha No. 2
(paired t-test, *P 5 0.05).

education will be necessary if such ecological
conditions can be clarified.
Previous field studies confirmed the economic and
ecological benefits of Bt cotton by comparing Bt
cotton and conventional cotton (Xia et al. 1998; Pray
et al. 2001, 2002; Huang et al. 2002), but there have
been no reports on the economic impacts of using Bt
cotton under different pest management practices.
Earlier studies revealed that economic returns from
planting Bt cotton were affected by the ecosystem
and the infestation levels of the target pests, and are
regionally dependent (Shoemaker 2001). Analysis on
the net incomes (gross margins) in this study indicate
that pest management practices make important
contributions to the profits of Bt cotton as well,
and suggest that IPM education is a important
contribution to the economic sustainability of Bt
cotton production in future.
Farmer surveys in China revealed that farmers’
knowledge on Bt cotton is drawn mainly from their
 Transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education 243

Table III. Economic returns from the study plots (Mean + SE).

Yields of seed cotton

Treatments (Kg/Hectare) Incomes of cotton (US$/hectare) Gross margins (US$/Hectare)

Bt-IPM 4785.4 + 1251.3 a 1861.4 + 487.0 a 1231.4 + 467.7 a

Bt-FP 4150.7 + 848.7 ab 1614.4 + 330.2 a 802.6 + 323.3 b
Bt-NS 3601.3 + 700.6 ab 1400.7 + 272.6 a 764.9 + 308.3 b
C-IPM 4485.9 + 420.1 ab 1744.7 + 163.4 a 947.3 + 199.8 ab
C-FP 3890.3 + 855.2 ab 1513.2 + 332.7 a 678.3 + 311.0 b
C-NS 3571.1 + 910.7 b 1388.7 + 353.6 b 473.9 + 329.2 b
F Value (Anova, df ¼ 5) 1.37 (P 5 0.3016) 0.91 (P 5 0.5038) 2.03 (P 5 0.1469)

Gross margin ¼ Incomes of cotton – land rent – total variable inputs (including seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and labors, etc.). Different letters
denote significant differences among treatments with the overall ANOVA (SAS, V 8.0) at the 5% level (P 5 0.05) (Fisher’s protected LSD),
same letter denote no significant differences.

Table IV. Variable costs in the study plots (Mean + SE).

Treatments Seeds (US$/hectare) Pesticides (US$/hectare) Fertilizers (US$/hectare) Labours (US$/hectare)

Bt-IPM 82.1 + 0 a 29.8 + 3.9 c 221.8 + 50.1 a 282.3 + 104.9 c

Bt-FP 82.1 + 0 a 73.0 + 6.4 b 207.6 + 13.9 a 449.1 + 24.3 a
Bt-NS 82.1 + 0 a 0+0 d 244.3 + 16.0 a 258.0 + 44.7 c
C-IPM 14.6 + 0 b 61.2 + 29.6 b 216.3 + 7.9 a 356.6 + 42.2 b
C-FP 14.6 + 0 b 189.1 + 43.3 a 201.7 + 16.1 a 467.8 + 86.5 a
C-NS 14.6 + 0 b 0+0 d 222.0 + 22.3 a 260.4 + 48.0 c
F value (Anova, df ¼ 5) Infinite (P 5 0.0001) 33.98 (P 5 0.0001) 1.06 (P 5 0.4270) 16.91 (P 5 0.0001)

Cost of labors ¼ workdays 6 estimated labor price (estimated labor prices were determined in local labor markets, varied from 1.01 to 1.91
US$/workday according to different season). Different letters denote significant differences among treatments with the overall ANOVA
(SAS, V 8.0) at the 5% level (P 5 0.05) (Fisher’s protected LSD), same letter denote no significant differences.

previous practices. They simply transfer the experi- References

ence and knowledge developed on conventional
cotton to Bt cotton (Yang et al. 2005). The findings
from this study further suggest that, despite the shift
to Bt cotton, which aims to reduce farmers’ pesticide
usage, pesticide reduction will not be maximized
unless the farmers have also been educated in IPM.
Our study confirmed that IPM education, by
increasing farmer capacity to critically evaluate inputs
and their effects, monitor their fields, and make
informed decisions on pest management, enables
small-producer farmers to reduce pesticides signifi-
cantly and result in better production and profit
margins. IPM farmer education, thus, has the
potential to help farmers maximize the value of
planting Bt transgenic cotton.
Acknowledgements
The support of European Union and FAO cotton
IPM programme in Asia (GCP/RAS/164/EU) for this
study is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank Dr
Peter Ooi and Dr Lim Guan Soon of FAO for
technical advice and the specialists in the plant
protection stations of Xiantao city and Hubei
province for field surveys and for training the IPM
farmers in the study villages. Dr Derek Russell
provided invaluable guidance on revising the manu-
script and we are grateful to the constructive
comments from the anonymous reviewers, which
helped us to improve the manuscript greatly.
Bernard H, David N. 2001. Impediments to sustainable agricul-
ture in China. In promoting global innovation of agricultural
science and technology and sustainable agriculture develop-
ment. International Conference on Agricultural Science and
Technology, November 7–9, 2001, Beijing, China.
Cui J, Xia J. 1999. Studies on the resistance dynamic of the Bt
transgenic cotton on cotton bollworm. Acta Gossypii Sinica
11(3):141–146 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Fan X. 2001. Agricultural science and technology and vertical
integration in agriculture in China. In promoting global
innovation of agricultural science and technology and sustain-
able agriculture development. International Conference on
Agricultural Science and Technology, November 7–9, 2001,
Beijing, China.
Fan X, Zhao J, Fan Y. 2000. Inhibition of transgenic Bt plants to
the growth of cotton bollworm. Plant Protection (Chinese
Journal) 26(2):3–5 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Huang J, Rozelle S, Pray C, Wang Q. 2002. Plant biotechnology
in the developing world: The case of China. Science 295:
674–677.
John P, Russell D, Andrew B. 2000. From farmer field schools to
community IPM, ten years of IPM training in Asia, FAO
Community IPM Programme. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Matteson PC, Gallagher KD, Kenmore PE. 1993. Extension of
integrated pest management for plant hoppers in Asian irrigated
rice. In: Denno RF, Perfect TJ, editors. Ecology and manage-
ment of plant hoppers. London: Chapman & Hall.
Lu M, Zhao J, Fan X. 2000. Resistance monitoring of Helicoverpa
aramigera to Bacillus thuringiensis insectidal proteins in Northern
China. Acta Gossypii Sinica 12(4):180–183 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Piao Y, Yang P, Guo R. 2001. Status of Bt cotton and its impact
on cotton production in China. Proceedings of FAO Regional
Workshop on Bt Cotton Study in China. Bangkok, Thailand,
May 4–5. pp 2–3.
244 P. Yang et al.
Pray C, Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S. 2002. Five years of Bt cotton
in China-the benefits continue. The Plant Journal 31(4):
423–430.
Pray C, Huang J, Ma D, Qiao F. 2001. Impact of Bt cotton in
China. World Development 29:813–825.
Roling N, van de Fliert E. 1998. Introducing integrated pest
management in rice in Indonesia: a pioneering attempt to
facilitate large-scale change. In: Roling N, Wagemakers W,
editors. Facilitating sustainable agriculture. Participatory learn-
ing and adaptive management in times of environmental
uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rui C, Fan X, Gui X. 2001. Control efficacy of transgenic cotton
expressing Bt and CpTI genes to Helicoverpa armigera. Cotton
Science (Chinese journal) 13(6):337–341 (in Chinese with
abstract).
Shoemaker R. 2001. Economic issues in agricultural biotechnol-
ogy. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 762, US Departments
of Agriculture.
Wu K, Li W, Feng H, Guo Y. 2002. Seasonal abundance of the
mirids, Lygus Lucorum and Adelphocoris spp. (Hemiptera:
Miridae) on Bt cotton in northern China. Crop Protection
21:997–1002.
Xia J, Cui J, Ma L, Dong S, Cui X. 1998. The role of transgenic Bt
cotton in integrated insect pest management. Acta Gossypii
Sinica 11:57–64 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Xia J, Cui J, Dong S. 2001. Resistance of transgenic Bt cotton to
Helicoverpa aramigera and its effects on other insects in China.
In: Johnie N, Sukumar S, editors. Genetic improvement of
cotton-emerging technologies. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers,
Inc.
Xia J, Wang C, Wen S, Ma L. 1995. A preliminary study on the
role of transgenic Bt cotton in integrated pest management.
China Cotton 22(8):8–11 (in Chinese with English Abstract).
Yang P, Iles M, Yan S, Jolliffe F. 2005. Farmers’ knowledge,
perception and practices in transgenic Bt cotton in small
producer system in Northern China. Crop Protection 24:229–
239.
Zadoks J, Waibel H. 2000. From chemical pesticides to gene-
tically modified crops-history, economics, politics. Netherlands
Journal of Agricultural Science 48:125–148.