sustainability of cotton cultivation after introduction of
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainability of cotton cultivation after
introduction of genetically modified seeds in Tamil
Nadu, India
University of Amsterdam
International Development Studies
Research Master Thesis
Student: ARIANA FERFILA
Student number: 10427228
2
Supervisor:
dr. J.M. (Maarten) Bavinck
Associate professor
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166
1018 WV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone: +31(0)205254185
E mail: [email protected]
Second reader:
dr. Y.P.B. (Yves) van Leynseele
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166
1018 WV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
E mail: [email protected]
Local supervisor:
dr. K.Karunaharan
Bharathidasan University
Thiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu, India
E mail: [email protected]
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
List of figures, photos, maps, tables, graphs ....................................................................................................... 6
List of acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 8
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 9
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach ...................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 The Analytical Components of SRLA .................................................................................................. 13
2.1.1.1 Livelihood assets ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.1.2 Mediating processes ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.1.3 Livelihood strategies ..................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.1.4 Agricultural technologies ............................................................................................................... 17
2.1.2 Critique of SRLA ................................................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Agro-ecology Approach ................................................................................................................................ 20
2.3 Conceptual Scheme ....................................................................................................................................... 25
3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Ontological positioning ................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2 Research questions and sub-questions .......................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Units of analysis and sampling ...................................................................................................................... 29
3.4 Research Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 31
3.5 Ethical Issues and limitations ......................................................................................................................... 33
4 RESEARCH CONTEXT................................................................................................................................ 34
4.1 Agricultural policy ......................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 The green and the gene revolution ................................................................................................................. 35
4.3 Cultural dissonance ....................................................................................................................................... 37
5 COTTON SECTOR ........................................................................................................................................ 38
5.1 Cotton production ........................................................................................................................................... 38
5.2 Types of cotton production ............................................................................................................................. 39
5.3 Cotton production in India .............................................................................................................................. 41
5.3.1 Cotton seeds ............................................................................................................................................ 43
5.3.2 Use of fertilizers .................................................................................................................................... 43
5.3.3 Use of pesticides .................................................................................................................................... 45
5.4 Cotton production in Tamil Nadu .................................................................................................................. 47
5.4.1 Research location in Tamil Nadu .......................................................................................................... 50
5.4.2 Basic characteristics of the sample population ....................................................................................... 54
4
6 CULTIVATING COTTON IN TAMIL NADU .......................................................................................... 57
6.1 Socio-economic profiles of cotton farmers ................................................................................................... 57
6.1.1 Human capital ......................................................................................................................................... 57
6.1.2 Natural capital ........................................................................................................................................ 59
6.1.3 Social capital .......................................................................................................................................... 60
6.1.4 Physical capital ....................................................................................................................................... 62
6.1.5 Financial capital ...................................................................................................................................... 64
6.1.6 Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 69
6.2 Agricultural practices & technologies ............................................................................................................ 70
6.2.1 Use of machinery .................................................................................................................................... 73
6.2.2 Crop-livestock integration ...................................................................................................................... 73
6.2.3 Soil fertility maintenance ........................................................................................................................74
6.2.4 Seeds ...................................................................................................................................................... 77
6.2.5 Crop diversity ......................................................................................................................................... 81
6.2.6 Disease and weed control ...................................................................................................................... 83
6.2.7 Pest control ............................................................................................................................................. 83
6.2.8 Source of technical advice ...................................................................................................................... 86
6.2.9 Main findings ......................................................................................................................................... 88
6.3 Economic performance of cotton cultivation ................................................................................................. 89
6.3.1 Size of the land under cotton .................................................................................................................. 89
6.3.2 Cotton yields ........................................................................................................................................... 91
6.3.3 Cotton price ............................................................................................................................................ 92
6.3.4 Seed costs ............................................................................................................................................. 94
6.3.5 Fertilizer costs ....................................................................................................................................... 95
6.3.6 Pesticide costs ...................................................................................................................................... 97
6.3.7 Labour costs .......................................................................................................................................... 98
6.3.8 Costs for renting machinery .................................................................................................................. 99
6.3.9 Main findings ....................................................................................................................................... 100
7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 104
7.1 Theoretical reflections ................................................................................................................................ 104
7.2 Answers to the research questions ............................................................................................................... 105
7.3 Areas for further study ................................................................................................................................. 111
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................................... 112
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 121
Appendix 1 List of respondents ........................................................................................................... 121
Appendix 2 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 123
Appendix 3 Operationalisation of major concepts .............................................................................. 125
5
ABSTRACT
Cotton cultivation in India has changed substantially after the introduction of genetically
modified cotton seeds (approved in 2002). By combining the Sustainable rural livelihood
approach with concepts from Agro-ecology I analyse and compare agricultural practices and
technologies involved in cotton cultivation from various perspectives: economic,
environmental and social. I argue that the evolution of agricultural technology should not be
evaluated in economic terms alone and that the environmental sustainability of agriculture
itself needs to be included. My study is based on a comparison of two sites: one site where
genetically modified cotton cultivation has become common place, and a second site where it
is only now coming up.
From September to December 2013 I conducted four months of ethnographic fieldwork in
Perambalur and Dindigul District of Tamil Nadu, India. I did around 60 interviews with
cotton farmers, input sellers, local NGO representatives and academic researchers. Other
research methods used were: in-depth household case studies, observations, surveys and
semi-structured interviews, key informant interviews and secondary data.
My conclusions are that the trend of evolution of agricultural technology (genetically
modified cotton seeds) brought to the farmers wide range of opportunities and risks. Bigger
cotton yields and bigger profits are the optional economic benefits of applying new
agricultural technology, while higher production costs, yield failure in case of rain scarcity
and dependence on input sellers are the newly introduced risks. In addition it is still not
known and agreed among the scientists what environmental changes will introduction of
genetically modified organisms bring, how will farmers deal with secondary pests pressures,
declining fertility of the soil and the loss of biodiversity in the long run.
I posit that if society wants to increase the sustainability of cotton production and reduce the
distress of the Indian farmers, a rethinking of the modernizing process of agriculture itself is
necessary. The question needed is: what agricultural practices and technologies should
farmers start applying in order to increase self-sufficiency and avoid dependence on off-farm
inputs, non-institutional sources of loans and the long-term negative effects of monocultures?
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods conceptual framework with agricultural technologies
Fig. 2.2 The conceptual framework for agricultural practices & technologies and sustainable rural livelihoods
Fig. 4.1 Trends in fertilizer consumption (N,P and K), 1950 – 2010
Fig. 5.1 Demographic data of Kolakkanatham village
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 5.1 & 5.2 Towards Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur village
Photo 6.1 Agricultural Cooperative Society in Kolakkanatham village
Photo 6.2 Path connecting Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur
Photo 6.3 Cotton plant
Photo 6.4 Nearby field on the way from Kanthasamypuram towards Palaniyur
Photo 6.5 & 6.6 The ways how new types of GM cotton seeds were advertised
Photo 6.7 One of the farmers in Kolakkanatham
LIST OF MAPS
Map 3.1 Locations of Thappai, Varakuppai, Alunthalaipur, Saradamangalam and Kollakanatham in Perambalur district, Tamil Nadu
Map Location of Dindigul and Perambalur in Tamil Nadu
Map 5.1 Kolakkanatham village
Map 5. 2 Map drawing of Kolakkantham village
Map 5.3 Map drawing of Kanthasamypuram
Map 5.4 Map drawing of Palaniyur
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Cotton production in the main producing countries in season 1960-1961
Table 4.2 Cotton production in the main producing countries in season 2012-2013
Table 4.3 Consumption of pesticides in India from 1955-86
Table 5.1 Number of the respondents
Table 5.2 Gender structure of the respondents
Table 5.3 Age structure of the respondents
Table 5.4 Education structure of the respondents
Table 5.5 Size of the respondents' land
Table 6.1 Share of the land under cotton cultivation in relation to total farmer's land in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Table 6.2 Share of the land under cotton cultivation in relation to total farmer's land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 4.1 All India harvested cotton area (1960 – 2011)
Graph 4.2 All India production of cotton (1960 – 2011)
Graph 4.3 All India yield of cotton (1960 – 2011)
Graph 4.4 All India cotton area under irrigation (1960 – 2011)
Graph 4.5 All India consumption of fertilizers (2003 – 2013)
7
Graph 4.6 All India consumption of pesticides (1990 – 2013)
Graph 4.7 Tamil Nadu harvested cotton area (1996 – 2011)
Graph 4.8 Tamil Nadu production of cotton (1996 – 2011)
Graph 4.9 Comparison of yields of cotton per hectare for Tamil Nadu and all India (1996 – 2011) Graph 6.1 Family members working on the land in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.2 Family members working on the land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.3 Size of the farmers' land in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.4 Size of the farmers' land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.5 Source of the farmers' loans in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.6 Source of the farmers' loans in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.7 Cattle in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.8 Cattle in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.9 Source of off-farm income in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.10 Source of off-farm income in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.11 Soil Fertility maintenance in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.12 Soil Fertility maintenance in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.13 Use of chemical fertilizers in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.14 Use of chemical fertilizers in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.15 Quantity of chemical fertilizer’s application in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.16 Quantity of chemical fertilizer’s application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.17 Brands of cotton seeds cultivated in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.18 Brands of cotton seeds cultivated in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.19 Crop pattern in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.20 Crop pattern in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.21 Pesticide application in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.22 Pesticide application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.23 Pesticide application in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.24 Pesticide application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.25 Source of technical advice in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.26 Source of technical advice in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Graph 6.27 Acreage under cotton in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.28 Acreage under cotton in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.29 Cotton yields per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.30 Cotton yields per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.31 Total costs for cotton seeds per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.32 Total costs for cotton seeds per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.33 Total costs for fertilizers per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.34 Total costs for fertilizers per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.35 Total costs for pesticides per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.36 Total costs for pesticides per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.37 Total costs for renting machinery in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.38 Total costs for renting machinery in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.39 Farmer’s personal estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.40 My estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.41 Farmer’s personal estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.42 My estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
8
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACS - Agricultural Cooperative Society
AICCIP – All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project
EANDS – Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India
ENSSER – European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
FAI – Fertilizers Association of India
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IAASTD – International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development
ICAC – International Cotton Advisory Committee
INR - Indian Rupees
OFAI - Organic Farming Association of India
PPIN – Plant Protection Information Network
SRLA – Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach
9
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2002 the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Indian Ministry of Environment
and Forests approved commercial release of three Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton hybrid
seeds. Bt cotton represents the first genetically modified crop technology that was approved
by the regulatory authorities in India. Since then biotechnology and genetically modified
crops have been the subject of controversial debate. Proponents see this new agricultural
technology as an instrument to achieve agricultural growth and farmer's poverty alleviation,
while opponents emphasize environmental and health risks.
The technology was developed by the US company Monsanto. Already in 1996 Monsanto
transferred a US Bt cotton variety to India. In collaboration with the Mahycho (Maharashtra
Hybrid Seed Company) the technology was firstly introduced into several of Mahycho's
hybrid cotton varieties. Bt cotton, sold under the brand name Bollgard, namely contains genes
from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and makes the plant resistant to certain insect
pests, especially cotton bollworm and related species. The main attributes of genetically
modified cotton according to the first trials (Narayanamoorthy, 2006; Qaim, 2003; Stone,
2011) were resistance to bollworms pests, better pest control, subsequent reduction in use of
pesticides and higher cotton yields.
India became in the years that followed 'the world's biggest producer of Bt cotton, with an
estimated area of 23,2 million acres under this technology in 2010' (Kouser & Qaim, 2011:
2106). But Bt-cotton is hardly a technology with no impact on cultivation practices as it 'may
bring a plethora of changes including new requirements for field management practices, new
kinds and rates of technological change, new sources of advertising and lobbying and new
insect population dynamics (Stone, 2011: 387).
Whether cultivating Bt cotton is an economically beneficial opportunity for Indian farmers is
an issue under discussion since its introduction. Through all these years the non-
governmental organizations in India (Deccan Development Society, Navdanya) routinely
reported about problems with Bt cotton cultivation such as higher production costs,
infestation of secondary pests, bio-safety concerns etc. Furthermore the Indian media has
with disquieting regularity 'drawn attention to the plight of a significant number of desperate
cotton farmers who saw no way out of the debt trap' (Baumgartner in Eyhorn, 2007:7).
According to National Crime Records Bureau of India from 1995 to 2012 more than a quarter
of a million farmers have committed suicide. Suicide rates among the farmers have been
10
tragically high among the highest cotton producing states in the country. According to Vasavi
(2012) each of the affected regions manifested a coming together of a triple crisis: economic,
social and ecological. Although the introduction of Bt cotton has played a negative role in
this cases it 'is correct to indicate it is not the key or singular factor responsible for suicides'
(Vasavi, 2012: 22). The desperation of the farmers primarily purportedly stemmed from 'the
fact that high input costs, stagnating yields and low cotton prices lead farm households into
poverty and indebtedness, especially under unfavourable climatic conditions' (Baumgartner in
Eyhorn, 2007:7). In addition the livelihoods of cotton farmers were 'subject to the
intensification of resource depletion which includes the decreasing fertility of the soil, the
decline of water table and loss of biodiversity' (Vasavi: 2012: 64). What seriously stands out
in these cases of suicides and the overall condition of farmers' distress in India is the need to
rethink the dominant model and practice of agriculture and 'to review and promote practices
and patterns of agriculture that are suitable to the ecological, economic and social needs of
population' (Vasavi, 2012:4).
I have conducted four months of research field work in Perambalur and Dindigul District of
Tamil Nadu in India between September and December 2013. The central concern of my
research was to evaluate risks and opportunities farmers are facing, while adopting certain
agricultural practices and technologies. The risks and opportunities were estimated after
reconstructing different agricultural practices and technologies involved, reviewing socio-
economic profiles of the cotton farmers, their perceptions of risks and opportunities and the
economic performance of one season's cotton cultivation.
My thesis is structured as follows: in the second chapter my theoretical framework is
presented linking Sustainable Rural Livelihood approach with concepts of Agro-ecology. The
chapter ends with presenting the conceptual scheme. In the third chapter my methodological
framework is presented with ontological positioning, research questions, units of analysis and
description of research methods used. The chapter ends with considering ethical issues and
limitations I have faced during my research. The fourth chapter briefly explains wider
research context putting emphasis on agricultural policy, the green and the gene revolution
and cultural dissonance. The fifth chapter presents some facts of global cotton production but
moreover presents the cotton sector in India in more detail, considering different types of
cotton production and the issues of seeds, use of fertilizers and pesticides. The chapter ends
with presenting cotton production in Tamil Nadu and basic characteristics of the research
11
locations and samples in Perambalur and Dindigul Districts of Tamil Nadu. Sixth chapter is
empirical in nature, presenting analyses of cotton cultivation in Tamil Nadu considering
socio-economic profiles of cotton farmers, reconstruction of agricultural practices and
technologies and estimation of economic performance. The seventh chapter is a concluding
one presenting theoretical reflections, answers to my research questions and concluding
thoughts on areas for further studies.
12
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This second chapter presents my theoretical framework linking Sustainable Rural Livelihood
approach (SRLA) with the concepts of Agro-ecology. Firstly I present the analytical
components of SRLA with a brief introduction of agricultural technology concept in SRLA
frame. Then I also mention some critique of the SRLA approach before presenting the Agro-
ecology approach. The chapter ends with an overview of the conceptual scheme.
2.1 SUSTAINABLE RURAL LIVELIHOODS APPROACH
The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach is a theoretical framework that partially suits
the complexity of my research topic. According to Ellis (2000) it is people centred and
provides a researcher with a method for thinking about the multiple and interactive influences
on people’s livelihoods without overlooking wide range of explanatory factors. SRLA has
challenged single-sector approaches in solving complex rural development issues and has the
ability to integrate ‘insights and interventions beyond disciplinary or sectoral boundaries’
(Scoones, 2009:171). SRLA has been used as a theoretical framework by number of
organizations since the late 90’s. It has been applied not only for the purposes of designing
projects and programmes, but also for assessing research and existing activities.
One of the key features of the SRLA is that it recognizes people themselves as actors with
assets and capabilities ‘who act in pursuit of their own livelihood goals’ (Adato & Meinzen-
Dick, 2002:6). A livelihood ‘comprise the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and
social capital), the activities and the access to these activities (mediated by institutions and
social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household’
(Ellis, 2000:10). Moreover, it needs to be understood as an ongoing process, in which it can't
be assumed that elements remain the same from one year to the next. The concept implies
that the means of livelihood can be transformed by activities but also policies. Although
individuals, households and communities are the primary levels of the analysis, SRLA seeks
for relevant interactions at micro, intermediate and macro levels.
Since its very beginning SRLA has been committed to including several dimensions of
sustainability: environmental, economic, social and institutional. A livelihood is considered
to be sustainable according to SRLA ‘when it can cope with and recover from stresses and
13
shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural
resource base’ (Scoones, 1998:5). But although SRLA has encouraged critical reflection
about diversity and complexity of rural realities in the past, it is presently facing an urgent
need to rethink, retool and reengage livelihood perspectives for new challenges. According to
Scoones (2009) four themes must be considered and addressed: knowledge, politics, scale
and dynamics. In section 2.1.2 we consider two of them: knowledge and politics.
The controversy about genetically modified crops and concerns about the climate change in
the beginning of 21st century re-opened debates about issues such as self-sufficiency of the
farming systems, future of human food, human health, biodiversity and corporate control of
the agri-food system. All of these issues are centred around the question of sustainability;
‘they all have intersecting ecological, economic and socio-political dimensions; and (...) they
have both local and global dimensions’ (Scoones, 2007:593).
2.1.1 THE ANALYTICAL COMPONENTS OF SRLA
SRLA views rural people as operating in a real or potential context of vulnerability under
surrounding physical, geographic, social, economic and political conditions. Sustainability
and vulnerability represent two opposite extremes of a continuum depicting the quality of the
livelihood systems with regards to the household’s capabilities and assets.
SRLA is usually divided conceptually into five sections (see Fig. 2.1):
Vulnerability Context [trends, shocks]
Livelihood Assets [natural, financial, physical, social and human capital]
Mediating Processes [policies, institutions, organizations]
Livelihoods Strategies [employed by rural people in pursuit of income,
security, well-being]
Livelihoods Outcomes
Adato and Meinzen-Dick (2002) have added one more concept to the original scheme of
SRLA - agricultural technologies. This variation of the original scheme is very useful for
the purposes of my research.
14
Fig. 2.1 The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods conceptual framework with the added concept of agricultural technologies (Adato, Meinzen-
Dick, 2002)
The starting point of the framework is the assets ‘owned, controlled, claimed or in some other
means accessed by the household’ (Ellis, 2000:31). They are seen as stocks of capital that can
be utilized directly or indirectly with the aim to generate the means of survival of the
household or to sustain its material well-being. The translation of these set of assets into a
livelihoods strategy is ‘mediated by a great number of contextual, social, economic and
policy considerations’ (Ibid, p.37). According to Scoones (1998) these are seen as ‘contexts,
conditions and trends’ on the one hand and ‘institutions and organizations’ on the other.
While the former category (vulnerability context in Fig.2.1) encompasses history, politics,
economic trends, climate, agro-ecology, demography and social differentiations, the latter
category (mediating/ transforming processes or policies, institutions and processes in Fig.2.1)
includes policies, institutions, laws, incentives and social relations.
As the interrelationship between assets, mediating processes and livelihoods activities
unfolds over time SRLA identifies certain, exogenous aspects as capable of initiating or
influencing new patterns of household activities. These are referred as trends and shocks. For
our research interesting trends include the evolution of agricultural technology, international
market trends and rates of out-migration from rural areas. While trends refer to long-term
socioeconomic climate and the ‘livelihood outcomes may be adverse or fortuitous’ (Ellis in
Amekawa, 2011:131), shocks destroy assets directly. Shocks refer to any impacts which are
sudden, unpredictable and severe such as droughts, floods, human illnesses, economic crisis
and war.
15
Livelihoods strategies are composed of activities generating the means of household survival.
In reality people combine different activities in a complex portfolio. Rural livelihood
diversification can be defined as a process ’by which rural households construct an
increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and improve their
standard of living’ (Ellis, 2000:15). Although SRLA underlines the importance of livelihood
diversification as key strategy the diversifying livelihood strategies of rural people are not my
primal focus of concern. I will instead concentrate on agricultural practices and technologies
(see section 2.1.14).
2.1.1.1 LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
The main aspects of rural people’s livelihoods and the relationships among them are
presented through a combination of assets:
HUMAN CAPITAL refers to the labour available to the household: its education,
skills and health.
NATURAL CAPITAL consists of the land, water and biological resources utilised by
people to generate means of survival.
SOCIAL CAPITAL refers to the social networks (like family, relatives, friends or
inside-village relations) and associations in which people participate and from which
they can gain support (informal safety nets, membership in organizations etc.).
PHYSICAL CAPITAL consists of infrastructural assets (buildings, roads, irrigation
canals) and production assets (machines, tools, vehicles, equipment).
FINANCIAL CAPITAL stands for the amount of money to which the household has
access. This is likely to be in the form of savings, access to credit in the form of loans,
regular income, pensions etc.
The livelihood assets are not merely resources that households can mobilize in sustaining
their livelihoods but they provide ’the capability to be and to act’ (Bebbington in Amekawa,
2011:133). Assets are (material and social) means through which people can make a living,
but they are also vehicles for hermeneutic actions (making living meaningful) and
emancipatory actions (challenging the structures). SRLA indicates that there is a close
relationship between vulnerability and assets: ‘the most vulnerable households are those that
are both highly prone to adverse external events and lacking the assets or social support
systems that could carry them through periods of adversity’ (Ellis, 2000: 62).
16
2.1.1.2 MEDIATING PROCESSES (POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS)
Assets of individuals and households are to a certain degree influenced by various mediating
processes from governance, institutions, organizations, policies but also social relations.
Governance is a notion ‘addressing long term transformation of a polity and associated
changes in the development path’ while ‘institutions are the normative means through which
governance implements the structural design of a polity’ (Amekawa, 2011:134). Institutions
are the formal rules, conventions and informal codes of behaviour that ‘comprise constraints
on human interaction’ (North in Ellis, 2000:38). The role of institutions (laws, land tenure
agreements) is in reducing uncertainty by establishing the structure for stable human
interactions. The way markets interface between different (familial, communal, social,
collective and state/policy) institutional forms results in a complexity of a micro-macro links.
The public and private sector, civil society, community institutions, laws as well as culture
may all play a role. They all form the environment in which livelihood strategies are pursued
and they shape livelihoods by ‘influencing access to assets, livelihood strategies,
vulnerability and terms of exchange’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:9).
Organizations are distinguished from institutions. They depict ‘groups of individuals bound
by some common purpose to achieve objectives’ (North in Ellis, 2000:38). Examples of
organisations are government agencies (Ministry of Agriculture), administrative bodies (local
government), NGOs and associations (farmer’s association).
2.1.1.3 LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES
Livelihood strategies refer to people’s choices that they employ ‘in pursuit of income,
security, well-being, and other productive and reproductive goals’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick,
2002:10). Households and individuals may pursue multiple strategies, sequentially or
simultaneously in order to make income or to provide a measure of security. Livelihood
strategies are dynamic in terms of responding to changing pressures and opportunities and
adapting accordingly. The typical adaptive strategies recognized among resource poor
households are: (1) agricultural intensification or extensification (agricultural intensification
refers to intensifying resource use in combination with the given land area, while agricultural
extensification refers to bringing new land into cultivation or grazing), (2) diversification of
income resources (non-farm rural employment), (3) migration (seasonal or temporary labour
17
migration), (4) making use of communal resources, (5) relying upon social relationship
(kinship support systems) or informal credit resources, (6) adjusting consumption patterns
and (7) mortgaging or selling assets (see also Agarwal in Amekawa, 2011).
Livelihood strategy outcomes according to Ellis (2000) can be divided between livelihood
security and environmental sustainability aspects. Livelihood security aspect, according to
Ellis, brings together attributes related to income level, income stability and reduction in
overall risk profile of the income portfolio. Environmental sustainability on the other hand
refers to changes in the stability and resilience of natural resources (water, soils, bio-diversity,
forests). Although Ellis argues, that these terms are difficult to be more precisely defined,
outcomes have a feedback-effect on the livelihoods assets and vulnerability context. In
livelihood strategy outcomes indicators such as income, food security, sustainable use of
natural resources can be found, they can further on weaken or strengthen the assets base,
reduce or increase vulnerability and make improvements in well-being aspects such as health,
self-esteem, sense of control, maintenance of cultural assets etc.
2.1.1.4 AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES
Adato and Meinzen-Dick (2002) indicated three possible ways how agricultural technology
could fit into the SRLA framework: by affecting the vulnerability context, through the
linkages to the asset base or as part of the policies, institutions and processes. In general new
agricultural practices and technologies can reduce vulnerability (for example when new crops
are more resistant towards water supply fluctuations or different kinds of pests) but they can
also increase vulnerability (when new varieties of seeds are more susceptible to crop failure if
weather conditions are not right, when farmers have to purchase seed material every year
under conditions of cash constraint, or when agricultural practices and technologies are
decreasing soil fertility).
The adoption of agricultural practices and technologies is also linked to the assets base.
Usually certain types of assets are needed in order to adopt new agricultural practices and
technologies. Here we can recall the critical observations of the green revolution in India
claiming that only the farmers with large landholdings (natural capital) were able to benefit
from the package of technological innovations (Altieri, 1989; Shiva, 1993; Vasavi 2012). As
the new hybrid varieties of seeds required greater amounts of water (natural capital),
18
irrigation facilities (physical capital) were also seen as a necessary requirement for adopting
new agricultural practices and technologies.
Social capital on the other hand can also play an important role in agricultural technology
usage ‘because of the ways in which social networks and social relationships facilitate or
constrain technology dissemination’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:16). Farmers, for an
example, may prefer to learn from their neighbours’ successes and failures, rather than
through official government channels and instructions.
Furthermore it is important to address how policies and institutions influence the adoption of
new agricultural practices and technologies. In the current context of globalization and
liberalization the agrarian policies are under increasing pressures of intensifying international
competition and withdrawal of state support. Of increasing importance is to research how
certain processes (such as reducing government subsidies for fertilizers and electricity;
liberalization of agricultural trade; decreasing availability of institutional credit; dependency
on traders for inputs, loans and selling of crops; promotion of genetically modified crops
from the privatised seed companies; new intellectual property rights; rising costs of
production processes and declining prices for crops on the global market) are influencing the
sustainability of rural livelihoods in developing countries.
According to this reasoning it is important to assess the impact of newly introduced or
competing agricultural practices and technologies. Effective but also environmentally
friendly agricultural practices and technologies sustain rural livelihoods in the long run and
have a significant impact on farmer’s existence. With SRLA as an underlying theoretical
framework I am interested in analysing, how different agricultural practices and technologies
involved in growing cotton influence the livelihood strategies of households and individuals
that have different types of assets. Although I will adjust the SRLA framework and
supplement it with concepts from the Agro-ecology approach later in this chapter, it offers
the researcher a valuable framework to highlight multi-layered interactions involved in the
complex agricultural realities on the ground.
2.1.2 CRITIQUE OF SRLA
According to Ellis (2000) one of the criticism of SRLA addresses the neglect of non-
economic factors. The actual process of strategy development after all does not simply result
19
from a given constellation of assets and context with the aim of increasing different kinds of
capital. Livelihood strategies need to take into a consideration other non-economic aspects
such as culture, traditions, historical factors, social status and personal ambitions. Among the
all already mentioned assets we could therefore add the ’cultural asset’, which would include
‘beliefs, traditions, language, identity, festivals and sacred rites’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick,
2002: 26).
What has also been observed is that SRLA lacks the notion of power and power relations. As
Ashley & Carney have put it: ‘the Sustainable Livelihoods framework overall can convey a
somewhat cleansed, neutral approach to power issues’ (Ibid., p.28).
Scoones (2009) has identified four failures of SRLA: incapacity to deal with big shifts in the
state of global markets and politics, failure to link livelihoods and governance debates in
development, lack of attempts to deal with long-term secular change in environmental
conditions and last but not least, exclusion from the debates on long term shifts in rural
economies and wider questions about agrarian change.
At this point I will elaborate further on challenges identified by Scoones (2009) in the realms
of: (1) knowledge and (2) politics.
(1) Knowledge. Livelihood thinking has often carried along some explicit normative
commitments around a set of widely-shared principles. Through a process of discursive
framing this has created a politics of livelihoods knowledge, making of which has rarely been
discussed. When terms emerge that further on influence the construction of debates, it is
worthwhile reflecting on livelihood perspectives as a discourse in which questions of values
become important. Although accepting diverse, complex livelihoods as an empirical reality,
the underlying ‘assumption propose it as a starting point for a future trajectory to something
better’ (Scoones, 2009: 185). With other words, institutional power behind the ideas creates
certain politics of knowledge in the development field. ‘Unpacking, questioning, challenging
and recasting such perspectives is vital’ (Ibid.) in order to show that knowledge production
always is conditioned by values, politics, institutional histories and commitments.
(2) Politics. Although the urgent need to bring politics back into the livelihoods perspectives
is recognized, according to Scoones the attention to politics and power already is at the heart
of SRLA. Much of livelihoods analysis centres on question how different people get access to
20
assets for pursuit of their livelihoods. This necessarily encompasses question of power and
politics as institutions are mediated by power relations. But the attention to the issue of power
and politics must move beyond the local levels as basic questions of political economy and
history do matter (such as the nature of the state, the influence of private capital and terms of
trade, wider structural forces that are conditioned by histories of places and peoples,
interactions with colonialism, state-making, globalisation etc.).
Regardless of all the use of SRLA should not be limiting but should be used creatively
and ’with concepts, tools, and modes of analysis that have long been used in other fields;
such as development sociology, anthropology and history’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:30).
One of the underlying narratives of SRLA that I want to problematize here is the assumption
that ‘agriculture is no longer a major source of sustainability in rural livelihoods’ (Amekawa,
2011:142). SRLA, paradoxically, doesn’t contain an aspect of environmentally sustainable
agricultural practice itself. Which then further on pose a question how (with which concepts
and tools) to reconstruct complete set of agricultural practices farmers are applying in order
to evaluate the environmental, social and economic sustainability aspect of the evolution of
agricultural technology?
2.2 AGRO-ECOLOGY APPROACH
At this particular point I want to introduce Agro-ecology as another development school that
is promoting people-centred approach with focus on integration, complexity, inter-
disciplinarity and equity. Although at present there are still multiple definitions, different
objects, concepts, levels of scale and research methods, it seems Agro-ecology is gaining
wider recognition (Mendez et al, 2013). Initially Agro-ecology dealt with crop production
and protection aspects and started distinctively evolving since the 1930s. In recent decades
scales and definitions spatially expanded; from the plot, field to the farm and agro-ecosystem
scale and finally addressing the ‘entire realm of the food system1’ (Wezel et al., 2009:513).
Today the term Agro-ecology means ‘either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice or
political or social movement’ (Wezel et al., 2009:503) and its primary aim is solving the
sustainability problem of agriculture.
1 Food system is here understood as a global network of food production, distribution and consumption.
21
The concept of sustainable agriculture ‘is a relatively recent response to a decline in the
quality of the natural resource or productive base associated with modern agriculture.’
(Rosset&Altieri, 2008:288) According to Agro-ecology sustainable agriculture distinguish
itself with regard to nature of inputs, resource use, cropping pattern, degree of diversity,
methods of plant protection, cultural practices, management of resources and degree of
dependency on local external resources and knowledge. The concept of sustainable
agriculture has evolved in response to ecological as well as other problems such as ‘pest
resistance and outbreak, loss of biodiversity, pesticide hazards and contamination, scale
biases towards larger farms, undemocratic top-down transmission of new technology and
information etc’ (Altieri& Nichols in Amekawa, 2011: 119). According to Rosset & Altieri
(2008) through unsustainable agricultural practices a steady erosion of the productive base
has occurred. This is indicated by the decline of organic matter in the soil, loss of bio-
diversity, salinization, depletion of groundwater, pest outbreaks (because of widespread
monoculture), genetic uniformity, elimination of natural enemies (for the pests), resistance of
insects, weeds and crop diseases, pesticides etc.
Agro-ecology is concerned with developing a new approach to natural resource management
that would be environmentally sustainable, based on local resources and knowledge and
would aim to improve whole farming systems at the field level rather than solely emphasizing
increase in the yield of specific commodities. From the scientific point of view, Agro-ecology
is a new discipline, ‘that defines, classifies and studies agricultural systems from an
ecological and socio-economic perspective’ (Altieri, 1989:38). It is a science which
emphasises the importance of food sovereignty, conservation of natural resources, agro-
biodiversity and empowers rural social movements.
‘The problem of hunger and rural poverty in the developing countries has been perceived
fundamentally as a problem of production’ (Altieri, 1989: 42). The common solution was to
develop a system where ’low productivity subsistence oriented agriculture would be
transformed into high-productivity commercial, cash crop-oriented agriculture’ (Chambers in
Altieri, 1989:42). The process of modernization of agriculture that occurred after World War
Two introduced mechanization, dissemination of improved seeds – hybrids, pesticides and
fertilizers to the developing countries. It brought ‘non-ecological, chemical-intensive
practices, maximum yield breeding strategies and monoculture specialization’ (Wezel et al,
2009:506). But in the areas where conversion from subsistence to cash crop agricultural
22
economy occurred, a number of ecological and social problems also became evident: ‘loss of
food self-sufficiency, genetic erosion, loss of traditional farming knowledge, permanence of
rural poverty’ (Toledo in Altieri, 1989:42), not to forget water pollution and soil degradation.
Focusing solely on improving productivity of agricultural production ‘a deep understanding
of the nature of agro-ecosystems and the principles by which they function’ (Altieri, 2002:7)
has been neglected. With a narrow focus on the short-term yields and economic returns
agricultural economists considered social and environmental factors as externalities. ‘Public
policies rarely considered the environmental impact of agriculture, nor the social
consequences of a uni-dimensional rural development focussed on production and
economics.’ (Wezel et al, 2009:505) Agro-ecology, on the other hand, was meanwhile
evolving as a discipline, developing basic ecological principles for the purpose of studying,
designing and managing agro-ecosystems that are productive, natural resource conserving,
culturally sensitive, socially just and economically viable. Agro-ecology is argued to avoid
one-dimensional view of agro-ecosystems. ‘Instead of focusing on one particular component
of the agro-ecosystem, agro-ecology emphasizes the interrelatedness of all agro-ecosystem
components and the complex dynamics of ecological processes’ (Rosset&Altieri, 2008:290).
Agro-ecologists began very early to emphasize that it is indeed crucial ‘that scientists
involved in the search for sustainable agricultural technologies are concerned about who will
ultimately benefit from them’ (Altieri, 1989: 40). It is further more necessary to monitor what
is produced, how it is produced and for whom. Simply focusing on the technological aspect
of the sustainability problem of agriculture is argued not to be enough. The major constraint
to a wider recognition of the logic of Agro-ecology still supposedly is ‘that powerful
economic and institutional interests have backed research and development for the
conventional agro-industrial approach, while research and development for agro-ecology and
sustainable approaches has been largely ignored’ (Altieri, 2002:16).
Agro-ecology argues that crisis of modern agriculture is universal, ‘encompassing developed
and Third World economies’ (Rosset&Altieri, 2008:284) and that it has three dimensions:
economic, social and environmental. The key forces identified as drivers of agricultural crisis
are: extensive monoculture, excessive use of machinery, inputs controlled by agribusiness,
dependence on fossil fuels and high capital requirements.
23
Agro-ecologists go beyond input substitution 2 and stress the importance of developing
integrated agro-ecosystems with minimal dependence on external, off-farm inputs. ’The
emphasis is on the design of complex agricultural systems in which ecological interactions
and synergism between biological components replace inputs to provide the mechanisms for
sponsoring soil fertility, productivity and crop protection’ (Rosset&Altieri, 2008:289).
Emphasis is also put on recovering and nourishing local knowledge about vegetation, animals,
soils and environment. On the basis of local knowledge and ecological features (such as
ability to bear risk, efficiency of symbiotic crop mixtures, recycling of materials, reliance on
local resources and germplasm and exploitations of micro-environments) appropriate
agricultural strategies can be developed.
A common point of all Agro-ecology approaches is the realization, that ‘if someone wants to
practice this new discipline, its operational tools and concepts are still under development and
difficult to identify’ (Wezel et al, 2009:510). At the plot or field level, however, a number of
principles and practices have been identified: recycling nutrients and energy on the farm
(rather than introducing external inputs), enhancing soil organic matter and soil biological
activity, diversifying plant species and genetic resources in agro-ecosystems over time and
space, integrating crops and livestock in order to optimize interactions and productivity of the
total farming system and not only the yields of an individual species. Sustainability is
supposed to be achieved ‘by enhancing diversity and complexity of farming systems via
poly-cultures, rotations, agroforestry, use of native seeds and local breeds of livestock,
encouraging natural enemies of pests, and using composts and green manure to enhance soil
organic matter thus improving soil biological activity and water retention capacity’
(Altieri&Toledo, 2011:588).
Until recently Agro-ecology approach was used by non-governmental organizations focusing
on sustainable agriculture and rural development topics, and ‘those oriented toward
empowering small-scale farmers and resource poor rural communities’ (Mendez et al., 2013:
5). The turning point for the inclusion of Agro-ecology also at higher policy levels came with
the publication of the 2009 report entitled International Assessment of Agricultural
2 Input substitution is according to Altieri and Rosset (2008) an evolving discourse in which agri-business has appropriated the concept of sustainability to its own ends. Input substitution approach is only emphasizing environment friendly alternatives to agro-chemical inputs, without challenging dependence on off-farm inputs or monoculture structure that characterize current agricultural systems.
24
Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development (IAASTD3) which recognized it as ‘an
alternative promising approach to resolve the interrelated global problems of hunger, rural
poverty and sustainable development’ (IAASTD in Mendez et al., 2013: 5). Olivier de
Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, thus in his address to UN Human
Rights Council in March 2011 expressed and affirmed the need to move towards agro-
ecological ways of production if we want to feed the world, fight rural poverty and combat
climate change at the same time. In addition in June 2013 the European Network of Scientists
for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) organized a conference about
Transformative Agenda on Agro-ecology for Sustainable Food Systems in Europe4. There is
thus a good reason to integrate the Agro-ecology approach with SRLA as it is attempted in
the following section.
Inclusion of Agro-ecology in the SRLA theoretical framework is important for giving the
criteria and variables for evaluating especially environmental, but also economic and social
sustainability aspects related to the evolution of agricultural technology (especially
genetically modified cotton seeds). It also helps to gain a deeper understanding of agricultural
practices in relation to long-term environmental sustainability aspects. Finally the Agro-
ecology approach draws attention to important socio-economic aspects of newly introduced
agricultural practices such as dependency on input sellers, top-down dissemination of
knowledge, reliance on off-farm inputs etc.
3 IAASTD is a report commissioned by the World Bank, the United Nations and the World Health Organization sought to direct research and development policy solutions to the issue of hunger, poverty and sustainable agricultural development. By many it is considered as the agricultural equivalent of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) report. ‘It brought together hundreds of scientists and institutions from all regions of the world over a seven-year period’ (Mendez et al. 2013: 15). 4 ENSSER, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility is dedicated to bringing together independent scientific expertise to develop public-good knowledge for the critical assessment of existing and new emerging technologies. Link to the conference announcement: http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/agroecology-conference/
25
2.3 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME
It is important to assess the impact of newly introduced agricultural practices and
technologies on the sustainability of rural livelihoods. My study seeks to reconstruct current
agricultural practices and technologies involved in cotton cultivation and to explore how
these practices impact livelihood assets and outcomes of cotton farmers. I designed a
conceptual framework in order to estimate sustainability of rural livelihoods according to
three aspects: environmental, economic and social. Here the focus is on the risk and
opportunity context farmers are facing with introduction of new agricultural technology
(genetically modified cotton seeds) and livelihood assets and outcomes that might be affected
by agricultural practices. Figure 2.2 below builds on the sustainable livelihoods diagram (see
Fig. 2.1) modified by Adato and Meinzen-Dick with the concept of agricultural technologies
added. My conceptual framework represents narrower version of the SRLA framework as it
leaves out the vulnerability context and institutions, but includes the principles of agro-
ecology especially in reconstructing agricultural practices and evaluating risks and
opportunities context. See also Operationalization table in Appendix 3.
Fig. 2.2 The conceptual framework for agricultural practices & technologies and sustainable rural livelihoods
(modified from Tang, Bennett, Xu, Li, 2013)
POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS (PROCESSES)
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES &
TECHNOLOGIES
LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
RISK & OPPORTUNITY CONTEXT
LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES
LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIS
26
According to the diagram above farmers with different livelihood assets apply certain
agricultural practices and technologies on their land and employ different livelihood
strategies in order to achieve certain livelihood outcomes. My aim is to explore how different
agricultural practices are impacting livelihood assets, strategies and outcomes of the farmers.
Agricultural practices and technologies are reconstructed according to three aspects of
sustainability: environmental, economic and social and later on evaluated from the risk and
opportunities context encompassing agro-ecology principles.
Risk and opportunity context, livelihoods assets and outcomes are variables that might be
affected by agricultural practices. Livelihood strategies, on the other hand, 'belong to process
variables meaning that the choices farmers employ in pursuit of outcomes might be affected
as agricultural practices have an impact on their concepts, information structures and capital'
( Tang et al., 2013: 18). In this study the decline of farmers' risks, enhancement of livelihood
assets and improvement of livelihood outcomes are main indicators to measure 'if the
objective of sustainable livelihood is achieved' ( Tang et al., 2013: 18).
27
3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
In the third chapter I present my ontological positioning, research questions and sub-
questions, followed by describing my units of analysis and description of research methods
used. The chapter ends with discussing on ethical issues and limitations I have faced during
my field work.
3.1 ONTOLOGICAL POSITIONING
My research leans on a critical realist (CR) perspective. The key assumption in CR ontology
is that the world exists independently of our knowledge of it, perceptions, theories and
constructions. ‘The world is stratified, consisting not only of events, but objects including
structures, which have powers and liabilities capable of generating events’ (Easton. 2010:
118)
Science or the production of any kind of knowledge is a social practice. Knowledge in this
respect is largely linguistic, the nature of language and the way we communicate are not
incidental to what is known and communicated. Although acknowledging independence of
the world from our knowledge, critical realists accept the possibility of knowing reality.
According to Easton (2010) the features of critical realism include its distinction between the
real, the empirical and the actual. The real is whatever exists. It is the realm of objects, its
powers and structures. The actual refers to what happens if and when those powers are
activated and the empirical is defined as the domain of experience. The empirical domain is
where observations are made and experienced.
In my research I try to reconstruct the agricultural practices and technologies farmers apply
while cultivating cotton (the empirical), I try to estimate the economic performance of cotton
cultivation (the actual) and I try to explain the mechanisms and the structures that have
created the context of risk and opportunities, while using certain agricultural practices and
technologies when growing cotton (the real).
28
3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS
Main Research Question:
Sub-questions:
Changes in the environmental, economic and social context in which farmers' households
operate can constitute threats to their livelihoods, but also open up new opportunities. The
risk and opportunity context influences farmers' decisions as they observe and interpret
changes and trends, but also effect the livelihood outcomes and assets. Risk and opportunity
context includes trends and fluctuations in input prices, labour market, climate, product
market, water resources, technological innovation, conflicts etc.
In my research farmers represent agriculturalists, that grew cotton in year 2012-2013, own
the land that is not bigger than 6.5 hectares and recognize agriculture as their main source of
income.
What are the comparative risks and opportunities met by farmers applying various
agricultural practices and technologies in growing cotton in Perambalur and Dindigul
Districts in Tamil Nadu, India?
What is the socio-economic profile of farmers applying various agricultural practices
and technologies in growing cotton?
How do various agricultural practices and technologies used by farmers growing cotton
differ?
How do farmers perceive risks and opportunities in applying various agricultural
practices and technologies while growing cotton?
What are the comparative livelihood outcomes among farmers using various agricultural
practices and technologies in growing cotton?
29
Agricultural practices and technologies encompass a set of activities and inputs farmers are
applying on their fields while cultivating cotton.
Socio-economic profiles of the farmers consist of five types of livelihood assets. Assets are
seen as stocks of capital that can be utilized directly or indirectly with the aim to generate the
means of survival of the household or to sustain its material well-being.
Livelihood outcomes are narrowed to two sets of variables. One set is evolving around the
notion of livelihood security (including income stability and households' food self-reliance),
the other takes into consideration the issue of sustainable use of natural resources.
3.3 UNITS OF ANAYSIS AND SAMPLING
My primary units of analysis are farmers and their households, who own the land on which
their crops are growing, agriculture is their main source of income and their fields are less
than 6.5 hectares of size. According to the Indian Agricultural Census 2010-11 with the term
farmer I refer to marginal (0.5-1ha), small (1-2ha), semi-medium (2-4ha) and medium (4-
10ha) sized farmers as opposed to the large farmers that own industrialized farms or
plantations (10ha and above). I also refer to those farmers who engage with the market and
undertake commercial cultivation as opposed to ‘peasants’ who cultivate primarily for
subsistence (only for their own and family needs).
The average landholding in our sample is 6.71 acres or 2.71 hectares of land. Indian
agriculture is generally characterized by small farm holdings. Around 98 percent of farmers
in India have land holdings smaller than 4 hectares and they cultivate nearly 82 percent of the
arable land according to Indian Agricultural Census 2010-11. The average farm size in India
is only 1.15 hectares.
My research field work was done in India in two districts of Tamil Nadu; Perambalur and
Dindigul District (see map 3.1). After my first enquiries, when arriving to Tamil Nadu, I
managed to locate a few villages in Perambalur District that were all involved into cotton
cultivation. These villages were Thappai, Varakuppai, Alunthalaipur, Karudamangalam,
Anaippadi, Kolakkanatham and Saradamangalam (see map 3.2). After the first week of
visiting each village and speaking with a few cotton farmers with my translator, it became
clear that all the farmers in these villages were cultivating genetically modified cotton. I
decided to focus this part of the research in Kolakkanatham as it was the biggest village.
There are primary and secondary government schools located in the village, a primary health
30
centre, a bank, a library, a veterinary hospital, a post office, a couple of grocery shops, an
Agricultural Cooperative Society office and a few local shops selling seeds, fertilizers and
pesticides. Local busses travel in all directions of Perambalur area on a regular basis (every
couple of hours). As my translator and I were staying in Alunthalaipur with two local families,
we were travelling to Kolakkanatham with the local bus daily.
Map 3.1 Location of Dindigul and Perambalur in Tamil Nadu
Map 3.2 Locations of Thappai, Varakuppai, Alunthalaipur, Saradamangalam and Kollakanatham in Perambalur
district, Tamil Nadu
In Kolakkanatham we started visiting cotton fields on all sides of the village and randomly
meeting farmers in the fields. For our selection we only considered farmers that were
cultivating cotton in year 2012-2013, owned fields that were less than 6.5 hectares (16 acres)
and were gaining their main income from farming.
31
Finding a second research location and a group of cotton farmers that are not so involved in
intensive genetically modified cotton cultivation in Tamil Nadu was more problematic. With
the help of secretary of SIMCODESS, local NGO near Dindigul, I managed to locate few
smaller villages in Dindigul District of Tamil Nadu that have been actively involved into
activities of preserving old cotton seed varieties. These villages were Kanthasamypuram,
Palaniyur, Chinnappar Puram and Karisalpatti, not very far from Dindigul itself. The smaller
village populations and the remoteness of the locations were in contrast with my previous
research location in Perambalur District. After visiting these villages, I decided to do a
research in two of them, located next to each other, Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur (see
map 5.3 and 5.4). During this stage of research my translator and I were staying in A.Vellodu
and travelling by local bus daily through Dindigul to reach Kanthasamypuram village. In
these two villages the number of cotton farmers was much smaller than in comparison to
Kolakkanatham. We interviewed almost all the farmers that were cultivating cotton in year
2012-2013, owned fields that were less than 6.5 hectares, were gaining main income from the
farming and were prepared to speak to us.
3.4 RESEARCH METHODS
As my theoretical framework is the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach expanded with
Agro-ecology, my aim was to apply an integrative approach drawing upon quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis. Most of all, I tried to conduct a reflective and flexible
ethnographical research. Here I adopted a broad interpretation of ethnography ‘as a research
process based on fieldwork using a variety of mainly (but not exclusively) qualitative
research techniques but including engagement in the lives of those being studied over an
extended period of time’ (Davies, 2008: 5).
The research methods I used are: in-depth household case studies, observations, surveys and
semi – structured interviews, key informant interviews and secondary data.
Participatory observation and in-depth case studies represented the starting point of my field
research and helped me to identify and build relationships important for further research
activities. Moreover they enabled villagers to get accustomed to my presence. This point of
departure for a further research can give ‘the researcher an intuitive as well as an intellectual
grasp of the way things are organized and prioritized, how people relate to one another, and
the ways in which social and physical boundaries are defined’ (Schensul et al, 1999: 91).
32
The first part of my research field work was conducted in Kolakkanatham village in
Perambalur District from September until beginning of November 2013. All this time I was
living with a family in Alunthalaipur, in which the father was one of the first cotton
cultivators in that village. Living with this family, conducting informal interviews observing
and participating in their daily house activities helped me to gain many insights into everyday
practices of the farmers, their identities, gender and inter-generation relations.
The second part of my research was conducted in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur from mid
November to late December 2013. We were in everyday contact with secretary of
SIMCODESS and his wife, who was also the formal director of the NGO. By observing
households' and village dynamics and spending time with the farmers involved in cotton
production I gained much information on the complexity of agricultural practices and
farmers' everyday activities and challenges.
In-depth household case studies and participant observation provided me with the insights
that are not available when applying other methods. Furthermore they also represented the
starting point for refining questions I was asking further on while conducting other more
structured data collection techniques. As I was incorporated in a family in Alunthalaipur and
to a lesser extent in A.Vellodu, this brought many personal, social and scientific advantages.
In both research locations I conducted all together 45 quantitative surveys and semi-
structured interviews among farmers. Surveys among the farmers were conducted for gaining
demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the research population. Semi-structured
interviews allowed me subsequently to follow up relevant topics that were emerging during
the course of discussion and interviewing. To conduct a good semi-structured interview ‘the
interviewer must know enough about the local culture to avoid violating principle of polite
conversation’ (Schensul et al, 1999: 136). By means of semi-structured interviews (being re-
fined through the initial stage of my research) I tried to achieve the level of good
conversation and reciprocal relationship between the interviewer and interviewee.
Questionnaires were based on ‘initial direction’ of the concepts already presented in my
theoretical framework and operationalization table, but careful attention was also given to
other perspectives and issues emerging if relevant.
Also very beneficial for my research was identifying key informant persons in the villages
and conducting more open interviews with them. 'Key informant interviews allow the
researcher to follow up in more detail with individuals that have specialized knowledge'
33
(Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 20012: 35). Among them were for example individuals that had
rich knowledge about specific agricultural practice, village history and structure, or they were
early adopters of the agricultural technology. Very useful insights into my research
problematic were gained also through open interviews with local seed distributors and
agricultural input sales-men but also academic researchers on cotton problematic in India (the
head of the cotton research station in Veppanthattai, Perambalur District) and representatives
of local NGO’s (SIMCODESS, KUDUMBAN and Ettram Rural Comunity College).
Secondary data sources from government (data from Census of India), other researcher's
studies (Deccan Development Society) and Indian press media (The Hindu, The Week,
Frontline) were also not overlooked. They facilitated a cross-checking of information from
other sources. Moreover my research fieldwork diary - including day-to-day recording of the
events, work, observations and the sequencing of my field research - was also a helpful tool
for reflection and for my later analysis.
3.5 ETHICAL ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS Research in developing countries demands high level of reflectivity and responsibility.
Together with my translator, I strived to show full respect to all the people we were talking to
in the villages; although my position as a researcher was not neutral (in terms of my values,
race, gender, language, research interests and methods) I tried my best to reflect on it
regularly with my translator and my local supervisor.
Researchers in developing countries need very quickly to reach the level of neutral
acceptance of culture, religion and way of existence of the population under study, as this is
the prerequisite of tolerance that needs to be shown on each step of conducting field work.
Perhaps the most evident limitation of my research was the language barrier. I can only guess
how much data, small talk and extra explanations were lost during the interviews in the
process of translating into English language. Although before starting the series of interviews,
I took time to go through the questionnaire, we agreed that everything needs to be translated
in order to be noted down, I think that much more was said in the Tamil language than later
on translated into English for me.
34
4. RESEARCH CONTEXT
The fourth chapter briefly explains wider research context putting emphasis on existing
agricultural policy, discussing historical aspect of technology innovation or the green and the
gene revolution and cultural dissonance appearing with modernizing agriculture.
4.1 AGRICULTURAL POLICY CONTEXT
The central government of India abandoned the existing policy of treating agriculture as a
priority sector as part of its neoliberal turn in 1991. The structural adjustment package that
commenced then included ‘devaluation, fiscal correction, trade liberalization, financial sector
reforms, deregulation and privatization’ (Walker, 2009: 559). From 1991 onwards the
government thus began withdrawing from ‘green revolution support systems providing state-
subsidized hybrid seeds, irrigation and some degree of low-interest credits’ (Lerche, 2011:
106). Between 1996 and 2001 the central government also rapidly removed trade protection
for agriculture. ‘During that five-year period, the prices of all primary products, including
cotton, jute, food grains and sugar, fell by astonishing 40 to 60 percent’ (Walker, 2009: 574).
During the 1990’s external trade in agricultural produce and inputs was liberalized, which
exposed Indian farmers to outside competition and fluctuating world market prices. The
removal of state subsidies and monopolies on fertilizers also resulted in ‘considerable price
increases paralleled by rising prices for pesticides and other inputs (Walker, 2009: 572).
Besides the opening of the Indian market to the global trade and influx of the multinational
corporations, the new agricultural policies were accompanied with a general shift toward cash
crop cultivation. The switch to cash crop cultivation and redevelopment of the agricultural
sector into an export-oriented one was being supported by subsidies, irrigation facilities and
investments available only for particular cash crops (cotton, sugarcane).
Financial liberalization redefined the ‘priority sector’, but also led to a decline in institutional
credit for agriculture. The state’s withdrawal drove many small-holder farmers ‘into the arms
of moneylenders and traders, both of whom supply loans at usurious rates (amounting in
some instances to as much as 100 percent) and are much more inflexible in rolling over debts
than institutional lenders’ (Patnaik in Walker, 2009: 573). For small-holder farmers non-
institutional sources have become the dominant source of credit again. The availability of
cheap credit has classically been considered as a requirement, if resource-poor farmers
35
wanted to engage in the necessary productive investment ‘in order to engage in potentially
high-profit but always high-risk activities’ (Lerche, 2011: 107).
4.2 THE GREEN AND THE GENE REVOLUTION
Critical scholars studying the globalization of agro-food systems argue ‘that neoliberal
reforms have facilitated the privatization of agricultural research and development, the
development and global diffusion of genetically modified crops, the global imposition of
intellectual property rights, the erosion of farm support programmes and the commoditization
of both agricultural inputs and outputs’ (Kumbamu, 2012: 104). If we want to discuss the
complexity of the agrarian crisis in India today, we have to briefly mention the legacy of the
green revolution in order to be able to contextualize the technological trajectory of innovation,
development and diffusion of modern biotechnology in today’s gene revolution.
Green revolution and the gene revolution are ‘two different technological trajectories of
modern biotechnology – at a macro level’ (Parayil, 2003: 971). In the 1960’s and 1970’s
technological innovations (hybrid crops, innovative breeding techniques) from developed
countries were disseminated to developing ones for increasing food production. The package
of modern western agricultural science introduced agricultural tools and practices involving
chemical fertilizers, bio-technology innovations and pesticides as necessary inputs for certain
desirable outputs. High-yielding varieties of seeds defined as ‘early maturing semi-dwarf
types that, under intensive agricultural practices provide a significant higher yield compared
to traditional types’ (Parayil, 1992: 742), constituted as essential element. According to
Parayil (2003) high-yielding varieties of seeds proved to spread more widely and quickly
than any other technological innovation in the history of agriculture in the developing
countries. In quantitative terms yields nearly always increased, but two conditions were
essential: water and fertilizers. The high-yielding varieties ‘first of wheat and subsequently of
rice, than of longer staple cotton and new crops, made possible a doubling and even trebling
of yields as well as multiple cropping when short duration varieties were used’ (Walker, 2009:
568). Important to add here is, that green revolution involved the dissemination of a package
of new inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) ‘at initially subsidized rates in irrigated areas and
the extension of inexpensive credit for investment in new technology’ (Walker, 2009: 568).
To reconstruct the history of the green revolution in developing countries we can not ignore
the diffusion of knowledge and the institutionalization of agricultural research system. With
36
the help of foreign investments agricultural universities and national agricultural research
system were established in India. For the green revolution to be efficiently spread it was also
necessary to build seed and fertilizer distribution systems and irrigation facilities.
The gene revolution advanced the application of genetic engineering techniques from the
1990’s onwards. Genetic engineering has been defined as ‘an application of biotechnology
involving the manipulation of DNA and the transfer of gene components between species in
order to encourage replication of desired traits’ (OTA in Altieri, 1998: 10). The current focus
of biotechnology has been on developing herbicide tolerant crops and pest and disease
resistant crops.
To understand the core difference between green revolution and gene revolution technology,
we can provide a very simple example. While the green revolution technology package can
be physically divided into seeds, fertilizers, pesticides etcetera, in the case of gene revolution
technology ‘the whole technology is packaged into the seed’ (Qaim in Kumbamu, 2006: 16).
The main proponents of transgenic crops today argue that ‘the advancement of technology in
agriculture can solve the economic and environmental problems of developing countries by
boosting productivity and reducing dependency on pesticides and insecticides’ (Kumbamu,
2006: 8). What is ironic is that after the green revolution, which constituted the first wave of
agro-chemically based agriculture, the proponents of the gene revolution are now proposing,
by equipping each crop with new insecticidal genes, ‘reduction in chemically intensive
farming and a more sustainable agriculture’ (Altieri, 1998: 10).
Parayil (2003) argues that although we are talking about the same technology cluster, we
have to acknowledge that the green revolution and the gene revolution are very different
versions of global and national innovative systems. In the diffusion of the green revolution’s
technology markets played only a secondary role, while the key concern was not related to
profit. The gene revolution, however, ‘is being shaped by dominant forces in the international
private domain where the technological innovations process is determined, largely, by private
capital, its quest for profit, market share and shareholder value’ (Parayil, 2003: 974).
According to Altieri (1998) it can best be defined as a process of knowledge intensive
innovation, which is taking place in the developed world and have unprecedented
implications not only for agricultural technology but also for food safety and food security of
the global world.
37
4.3 CULTURAL DISSONANCE
Although technological change brought by the green revolution was part of the problem
solving process, we should acknowledge that realization of it ‘depended on the adoption of a
package of improved cultural practices’ (Dalrymple, 1985: 1067).
‘The increasing integration of agriculturalists into the market economy has led to reordering
the cultural basis of Indian agriculture’ (Vasavi, 2009: 99). Although the prior agrarian
system was largely hierarchical, agriculture was practiced on region-specific patterns to suit
local ecological conditions. The non-western, non-commercial model of agriculture used to
be conducted ‘on shared knowledge systems that included negotiating old and new
agricultural know-how, drawing on networks of kin and fellow workers and related to in
terms that of cultural significance’ (Boehm in Vasavi, 2009: 99).
The increasing uncertainties among agriculturalists as to what knowledge is to be drawn on
and the changes that are taking place in the social and cultural structures of agricultural
practices are apparently of importance. Vasavi (2009) thus notes that ‘the new agricultural
regimes, from the green revolution model’s use of hybrid seeds and external inputs to the new
regime of using genetically modified seeds, induce increasing dissonance in knowledge and
know-how’ (Vasavi, 2009: 99).
38
5. COTTON SECTOR
The fifth chapter offers some information on global cotton production but moreover presents
the cotton sector in India more in detail, describing different types of cotton production and
the issues around seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. The chapter ends with presenting cotton
production in Tamil Nadu and basic characteristics of my research locations and samples in
Perambalur and Dindigul Districts of Tamil Nadu.
5.1 COTTON PRODUCTION
According to ICAC (2012) the global production of cotton increased since 1960's from 10
million to 25 million tons per year in 2012. The reasons for the increase of cotton production
are the emergence of new producers, area expansion by existing producers, an increase in
yields per hectare, cotton hybrids in the 1960's and genetically modified cotton seeds in the
late 1990's. Most of the growth in cotton production came from China and India, which are
recognized today as the largest cotton producers besides United States of America (USA). In
1960's India produced 10% of the world cotton production, while in 2012 its share rose to
22%.
Area ('000 ha)
Production
('000 tons fibre)
Average yield
(kg fibre per ha)
INDIA 7 637 1 012 133
USA 6 195 3 100 500
CHINA 5 301 1 372 259
WORLD TOTAL 32 901 10 217 310
Table 4.1 Cotton production in the main producing countries in season 1960-1961 (source: ICAC, 2012)
Area ('000 ha)
Production
('000 tons fibre)
Average yield
(kg fibre per ha)
INDIA 10 972 5 431 495
USA 4 139 3 730 901
CHINA 4 975 6 417 1 290
WORLD TOTAL 33 580 25 101 747
Table 4.2 Cotton production in the main producing countries in season 2012-2013 (source: ICAC, 2012)
39
During this period world cotton production has undergone some contradictory trends. China
and USA decreased the area under cotton cultivation but increased the production and the
average yields of cotton per hectare. India, on the other hand, increased the area under cotton
cultivation, increased the cotton production also, but still has the lowest yield of cotton per
hectare in comparison to China and USA. According to ICAC (2012) the largest share
(around 33%) of the global cotton area today belongs to India. It is estimated that cotton
provides livelihood for 10 million Indian households. While in USA cotton is produced with
mechanized harvesting on farms larger than 100 ha, in China and India cotton, however, is
mostly cultivated by farmers who hand-pick the harvest and cultivate cotton on less than 6 ha.
5.2 TYPES OF COTTON PRODUCTION
Cotton can be produced in basically two ways: through highly chemically intensive or
through organic farming. Both forms are studied in this research. The prevailing approach to
cotton production is for the most part highly intensive, with high inputs of synthetic fertilizers,
chemical pesticides and (if available) irrigation water.
'Globally cotton production is done by a relatively small number of large, mechanized
farmers (USA, Australia, Brazil) and a very large number of smallholders (China, South Asia,
West Africa)' (Kooistra: 2006:19). In developing countries farms are most often small,
family-run and part of a mixed cropping system. They produce food for family consumption
and animal feed, but also generate family income through cultivation of cash crops (such as
cotton, maize, sugarcane etc). Crop rotation 5 and intercropping 6 are less prevalent in
conventional agricultural practices. Continuous cropping (without crop rotation) is designed
to generate as high income as possible, but narrow crop rotation 'in the long run affects soil
fertility, especially when cotton is grown in the same field in consecutive years' (Eyhorn;
2007: 81). 5 Crop rotation is practice of growing different types of crops in the same area in sequential seasons. It was one of the components of poly-culture, that was practiced by the farmers before monocultures and cash-crops spread. Crop rotation was used to control pests and diseases that can become established in the soil over time. It can give various nutrients to the soil, improve the soil structure, fertility and reduce soil erosion. (Eyhorn, 2007) 6 Intercropping is the practice of growing two or more crops in proximity. The most common goals of intercropping is to produce greater yield on a given land by making use of resources that would otherwise not be utilized by single crop, to give a structural support to the crop by their companion plants, to suppress weeds and to provide beneficial nutrients for the soil. Intercropping is used to encourage bio-diversity with providing a habitat for variety of insects and soil organisms that can help limit outbreaks of crop pests by increasing predator bio-diversity and benefit the farmers in the long run. (Altieri, 2002)
40
But intensive cotton cultivation is also having range of negative effects on human health and
environment. Moreover many farmers are facing a decline in soil fertility due to intensive
cultivation practices. 'If synthetic fertilizers are used without also applying organic manures,
they eventually affect organic matter content, soil life and soil structure' (Eyhorn, 2007:25).
One way of solving soil fertility decline is to continuously increase the level of fertilizer
inputs in order to maintain yields. The other problematic that is worth mentioning here is the
growing pesticide resistance of important cotton pests. Through several decades many insect
species have developed resistance against certain insecticides. Some pests have also become
major problems because 'populations of natural enemies have been diminished due to
frequent application of broad spectrum pesticides' (Eyhorn, 2007:25). All this has led many
farmers to increase pesticide applications and its quantities in order to maintain pest attacks
under control.
Organic farming 'has increasingly gained attention as a way to manage natural resources in a
more sustainable way and to raise incomes especially of small holder farms' (Eyhorn,
2007:19). Farming practices in organic cotton cultivation are different from the prevailing
conventional agricultural practice. Organic farmers don't use seeds treated with chemicals,
synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or genetically modified seeds. Beside safeguarding of the
natural resources of soil, water and bio-diversity, their aim is to design and manage agro-
ecosystems in a sustainable manner. The emphasis is put in particular on soil fertility
maintenance and balanced crop rotation. Organic nutrient management of the soil or
preservation of soil fertility 'includes balanced crop rotation, intercropping with pulses,
recycling of crop residues and the use of compost and farmyard manure' (Eyhorn, 2007: 36).
A diverse crop rotation involving legumes (e.g. soybean, chick peas) and growing intercrops
are integral part of organic farming techniques.
Regarding effective organic pest management they most of all try to prevent the build-up of
pest populations with efforts 'to enhance the ecological balance between pest and predator
populations. Pest management is based primarily on preventive measures like selecting robust
cotton varieties (using local cotton and non-hybrid varieties of seeds), maintaining diverse
crop rotation, intercropping of maize and pigeon pea as trap crops etc. Only when necessary
botanical and biological preparations are used to control pests and diseases. Botanic
pesticides and repellents are prepared from locally grown plants.
41
5.3 COTTON PRODUCTION IN INDIA
In India cotton farms are found in the cotton belt that begins in the north west, crosses
through the centre of the country and finishes in the south-east. According to EANDS (2013)
in India cotton is produced in three zones: northern (Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan), central
(Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat) and southern zone (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu). About 76% of total cotton production in India takes place in three states-
Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh - whereas 70% of all cotton is consumed by
spinning mills located in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Punjab. In India the planting period
for cotton generally takes place from March to September, while the harvesting period spans
from October to February.
Graph 4.1 All India harvested cotton area (1960 – 2011), source: EANDS, 2013
Graph 4.2 All India production of cotton (1960 – 2011), source: EANDS, 2013
According to the graph (4.1) we can observe two points of areal increase, one dates in the
mid 1990's and the second dates in year 2003. Cotton production (graph 4.2) increased very
slowly until the late 1980's. But we can observe a larger increase in production through all the
42
90's, followed by a rapid leap forward since 2003. In year 1991 the production of cotton was
9.71 million bales, in year 2003 - 13.73 million bales and in year 2011 - 35.2 million bales.
Graph 4.3 All India yield of cotton (1960 – 2011), source: EANDS, 2013
The graph (4.3) regarding yields of cotton per hectare through the years provides more
insight. We see that increase in cotton yields per hectare started already in the 1980's
followed by a considerable decrease in the mid 1990's. The trend didn't reverse until year
2003 when average yields per hectare sharply rose again. In year 1991 the average yield of
cotton per hectare was 216 kg, in year 2001 - 186 kg and in year 2011 the average yield rose
to 491 kg per hectare.
Even though 'cotton is considered to be quite a difficult crop to grow because it is sensitive to
drought, low temperatures and attacks by various insects' (Kooistra & Termorshuizen, 2006:
6), it is extensively grown under rain-fed conditions in India. In India the increase in area
under irrigation was modest in last two decades. In year 1990 - 32.9% of cotton area was
under irrigation, in year 2000 - 34.3% and in year 2010 - 33.8%.
Graph 4.4 All India cotton area under irrigation (1960 – 2011), source: EANDS, 2013
43
5.3.1 COTTON SEEDS
The cotton plant is native to tropical and subtropical regions. In India all four species of
cotton for commercial purposes are grown (Gossypium arboretum, Gossypium herbaceum,
Gossypium barbadense and Gossypium hirsutum). In 2002 genetically modified cotton
(biotech hybrid cotton) was approved for commercial release by Indian authorities.
'Genetically modified cotton varieties were developed to reduce insecticide and herbicide use'
(Kooistra, 2006: 223). Since then hundreds of biotech cotton hybrids have been released in
India by 35 seed companies. 'In 2008 – 09, a total of 7,6 million hectares, nearly 81 percent of
the total cotton area was under biotech hybrid' (ICAC, 2010).
Presently in India Bt-cotton is widely used. Bt-cotton contains genes of the bacteria Bacillus
thuringensis (Bt) that make crop resistant to one variety of cotton pests – bollworm. Since its
release Bt-cotton has been the topic of controversial discussions. On the field level, the
performance of Bt-cotton is mixed. According to Eyhorn (2007) some of the farmers
adopting it have reported higher yields and pesticide reduction, while others reported poor
performance and even crop failures. The negative features of adopting Bt-cotton from the
economical and ecological aspect are many: higher economic risks for the farmers, expensive
seeds, dependence on seed producers, genetic homogeneity of cotton crops, a possibility of
out crossing Bt-cotton with related wild species, irreversible environmental impacts, release
of organisms that have never existed before, pollution of the gene-pool of cultivated crops,
violation of the farmers' fundamental property rights and 'the lack of clarity as to how the
costs associated with genetically modified crops will affect rural farming communities in
developing countries' (Kooistra & Termorshuizen, 2006: 17)
5.3.2 USE OF FERTILIZERS
'The history of the Indian fertilizer industry dates back to 1906, when the first fertilizer
factory opened at Ranipet in Tamil Nadu. Since then, there have been major developments in
terms of both, the quantity and the types of fertilizers produced' (FAO, 2005). Before the mid
1960s fertilizer consumption in India was less than 1 million ton per year. With the
introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds the growth of fertilizer consumption sharply
increased. From 1966 to 1992 total fertilizer consumption increased from 1 million to 12,73
million ton per year. 'Expansion of irrigation, spread of high yielding varieties of seeds,
distribution of fertilizers at affordable (subsidized) prices, expansion of dealer's network,
44
improvement in fertilizer's availability and virtually no change in fertilizer prices for ten
years (1981-1991) were major reasons for increase in fertilizer consumption from the onset of
the green revolution to 1990' (Sharma & Thaker, 2011: 6).
Synthetic fertilizers used for cotton usually consist of a combination of nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). To determine a fertilizer's effectiveness for crop growth
and its environmental impact rainfall patterns, types and levels of fertilizers used and timing
of fertilizer application need to be considered.
Fig. 4.1 Trends in fertilizer consumption (N,P and K), 1950 – 2010, source: FAI, 2010
Today India is the second largest consumer of fertilizers in the world after China. The highest
consumption recorded was in 2010-11 season (28,122 million ton of nutrients). Since then
modest decrease occurred.
Graph 4.5 All India consumption of fertilizers (2003 – 2013), source: Department of Fertilizers, 2014
45
For organic farming, on the other hand, the key nitrogen fertilizer is livestock manure.
Manure apart from supplying necessary nutrients to the crops, also 'contributes to soil organic
matter, which in turn stimulates soil biological processes, soil structure, root penetrability and
water retention (Kooistra & Termorshuizen, 2006:10). Additionally, if cotton is intercropped
or cropped in rotation with legumes, soil nitrogen fertility increases. Over past several
decades synthetic fertilizers became widely available and legume cultivation for above
mentioned purpose decreased.
5.3.3 USE OF PESTICIDES
In 1952 the first pesticide production plant was established near Calcutta in India and since
then pesticides gradually became a popular solution for addressing most of the occurring
problems with pests. Insect pests, diseases and weeds can cause considerable damage to
cotton production. Although reliable estimates in India are scarce, 'it is estimated that crop
losses varied between 10–30% due to pests alone' (Gupta, 2004: 84) before introduction of Bt
cotton. The term 'pesticide' itself encompasses insecticides, herbicides, plant growth
regulators and others. Before the invention of synthetic pesticides pests were managed by
(chemical free) cultural practices such as crop rotation, mixed cropping systems,
manipulating cropping densities and smaller fields. 'Out of the total consumption of
pesticides in India: 80% of the pesticides used are insecticides and 15% are herbicides'
(Gupta, 2004: 83). Insecticides are generally the most acutely toxic class of pesticides, while
herbicides are mainly used for weed control. Usage of herbicides in India is low, because
weeding is still mostly done manually and not with the help of chemicals.
Today according to Gupta (2004) there exists a strong evidence that some of the chemicals,
regularly used in pesticides, pose a potential risk to humans, environment and biodiversity.
Beside the pesticide production workers, also sprayers, mixers and agricultural farm workers
are recognized as high risk groups exposed to pesticides. It is assumed that their long-term,
low dose exposure is linked to human health effects such as immune suppression,
reproductive abnormalities, cancer and hormone disruption. Moreover the risks from
pesticides usage are high in India because of lack of training in pesticide use, badly managed
household storage and disposal, ignorance about potential danger to health and environment,
inappropriate mixing, over-application of pesticides, easy availability of hazardous pesticides
and lack of personal protective equipment (boots, gloves, glasses). India also is an example
46
where some of the pesticides, which are no longer officially permitted continue to be used,
because of poor monitoring and verification processes. 'Even in the 1990's more than 70% of
the gross tonnage of pesticides used in agricultural applications in India consisted of
formulations which were banned or severely restricted in the east and west' (Abhilash,
2009:3).
'The use of pesticides will always lead to the exposure of non-target organisms and unwanted
side-effects that occur in some species, communities or complete ecosystems' (Kooistra &
Termorshuizen, 2006: 18). Pesticides contaminate soil, vegetation and groundwater. Beside
killing weeds or pests pesticides are toxic to many other non-target organisms including fish,
birds and beneficial insects (like bees, ants, worms etc). The factors that influence
environmental impact of pesticides are pesticide toxicity, spraying method, frequency of use
and quantity per application. According to Eyhorn (2007) heavy treatment of soil with
pesticides can cause decline of beneficial microorganisms in the soil, which in long-term
cause soil degradation. High use of pesticides on cotton over last decades had resulted in
documented changes in pest pressure and resistance. The most worrying fact is that pests
after certain period of time, started adapting and developing resistance or the ability to
tolerate certain doses of insecticide farmers were using in order to get rid of pests. Farmers in
these cases usually just increased pesticide dosages and number of pesticide applications.
Year
consumption of pesticides ('000 tones) in
India
1955-56 2,4
1965-66 14,16
1975-76 45,6
1985-86 61,9
Table 4.3 Consumption of pesticides in India from 1955-86 (source: Birthal, 2003:23)
National consumption of pesticides in India increased rapidly since green revolution and
peaked in early 1990's at around 75 thousand tons. Pesticides were also used in bigger
quantities in areas with good irrigation facilities. 'In several documents published in the
1990's it is reported that around 40-50% of the national pesticide use was applied on the
cotton crops in those years' (ICAC, 2010:1). Within the country consumption patterns were
particularly high in major cotton producing states such as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
47
Maharashtra, Punjab and Gujarat. Nevertheless, pesticide usage started declining during the
1990s. The declining trend is attributed to several factors: taxes were raised on pesticides,
subsidies were removed and programmes on training in Integrated Pest Management
techniques were introduced.
Graph 4.6 All India consumption of pesticides (1990 – 2013), source: Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, 2013
In India biotech cotton varieties were introduced after 2002 when consumption of pesticides
was 48,3 thousand tons per year. In year 2008-09 when already 81% of the total cotton area
was under biotech cotton, consumption of pesticides had gone down to 43,86 thousand tons
per year. Overall decrease in pesticide usage was observed in the years that followed
introduction of biotech cotton, but we have to add that since 2009 the trend changed again. In
year 2012 the pesticide consumption reached 56,09 thousand tons.
5.4 COTTON PRODUCTION IN TAMIL NADU
Cotton is not a very important crop for farmers in Tamil Nadu. It is grown on very small area
(see graph 4.7). It is estimated that around 200.000 farmers are involved in cotton cultivation
in Tamil Nadu alone.
0102030405060708090
Consumption of pesticides ('000 tones) all India
consumption of pesticides ('000 tones)
48
Graph 4.7 Tamil Nadu harvested cotton area (1996 – 2011), source: The Cotton Corporation of India
Graph 4.8 Tamil Nadu production of cotton (1996 – 2011), source: The Cotton Corporation of India
Since 1996 we can see on the graph (4.7) a decreasing trend in area under cotton cultivation
in Tamil Nadu. The trend continues until 2002 when steady increase follows, but not reaching
the area under cotton in the mid 90's. In the year 2001, 200 thousand hectares were under
cotton, while in 2011 the area decreased to 133 thousand hectares. Regarding cotton
production we observe a correlation with the graph (4.7). The production reached its lowest
point in 2002 and since then slowly and steady increased. There were two bad seasons – from
2002 to 2004, when the production of cotton fell to 300 and 375 thousand bales of cotton.
After season 2009/2010 we can again observe steady increase in cotton production.
When comparing average yields per hectare between Tamil Nadu and all India (from 1996 to
2011), we see, that Tamil Nadu ranks above the average in terms of cotton productivity per
hectare. In season 2011/2012 Tamil Nadu cotton productivity was the highest among cotton
producing states - 831 kg of cotton per hectare, while Gujarat produced 700 kg per hectare.
All the other cotton producing states ranked lower.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Area of cotton (Tamil Nadu)
area (thousand ha)
0
200
400
600
800
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Production of cotton (Tamil Nadu)
production (thousand balles)
49
Graph 4.9 Comparison of yields of cotton per hectare for Tamil Nadu and all India (1996 – 2011), source: The Cotton Corporation of India
According to data from the Department of Fertilizers, Tamil Nadu consumed in a season
2012/2013 - 164,58 kg of fertilizers per hectare, while the all India average was 128,34 kg
per hectare. This indicates chemically intensive agriculture in Tamil Nadu.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Yields of cotton (kg/ha)
TAMIL NADU all India
50
5.4.1 RESEARCH LOCATIONS IN TAMIL NADU
Perambalur District, located in the centre of Tamil Nadu, is acknowledged as being part of
the Indian cotton belt territory, while Dindigul District, closer to the hilly regions of western
Tamil Nadu, is not. In the following sections I compare agricultural practice in these two
districts.
PERAMBALUR DISTRICT
Perambalur District is centrally located inland district of Tamil Nadu. It covers the area of
1,756 thousand square kilometers and has population of 565,223 thousands (District at
Glance, 2015). In Perambalur District 83% of population still lives in rural areas. For
administrative purposes the district has been divided in four Taluks: Perambalur, Kunnam,
Veppanthattai and Alathur. Kolakkanatham village, where first part of my research was
conducted, is located in Alathur Taluk.
As Kolakkanatham village had an Administrative office and was big enough to be considered
as a demographic unit by itself, I was able to get an access to some elementary demographic
data collected by the 2011 Census of India.
THE SIZE OF THE LAND IN THE VILLAGE: 1.510 acres
THE SIZE OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURE: 920 acres
TOTAL POPULATION: 2.676 people
MALE: 1.358 FEMALE: 1.318
CHILDREN (under 15 years old): 162
NUMBER of families that are using identity cards to get publicly distributed goods: 769
NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES / CASTES IN THE VILLAGE: 16
Fig. 5.1 Demographic data of Kolakkanatham village, source: Administrative office in Kolakkanatham
The soil of Perambalur District is best suited for raising dry crops. A major crop is considered
to be sugarcane, while the other crops grown in this area are oilseeds, pulses, rice, cereals and
cotton. The district is known for its high temperatures and low degree of humidity.
51
Map 5.1 Kolakkanatham village, source: Googlemaps (date of access: January 29, 2015)
Map 5. 2 Map of central part of Kolakkantham village including respondents' houses (distances were estimated
by counting steps - for approximate scale see above map), author: Ariana Ferfila
52
DINDIGUL DISTRICT
Dindigul District is located in south-west of Tamil Nadu. It covers an area of 6,266 thousand
square kilometers and has population of 2161,367 thousands (Dindigul Profile, 2015). In
Dindigul District 63% of population lives in rural areas. For administrative purposes the
district has been divided into three Revenue Divisions and eight Taluks. Kanthasamypuram
and Palaniyur, where the second part of my research was conducted, are part of Dindigul
Division, Reddiarchatram Block and Karisalpatti Panchayat.
Kanthsamypuram and Palaniyur village are not easy accessible. From the local road it is
possible to access Kanthasamypuram village and then continue walking the unpaved path
until reaching Palaniyur village. Palaniyur was not accessible by any paved road. In these two
villages there is no government school, bank, post office, local input shop or primary health
centre. My search for demographic data of these two villages in nearby Administrative
offices was not successful as Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur were not considered as
independent demographic units as they were too small. They are also too small to be found
on Google maps.
Photo 5.1 & 5.2 End of the main local road, where the bus stop is located and where the unpaved path begins towards
Kanthasamypuram and further to Palaniyur village (November 2013)
Most popular commercial crops to grow in Dindigul District are rice, pulses, cereals,
sugarcane, groundnut and cotton.
53
Map 5.3 Map of Kanthasamypuram including respondents' houses (distances were estimated by counting steps),
author: Ariana Ferfila
Map 5.4 Map of Palaniyur including respondents' houses (distances were estimated by counting steps),
author: Ariana Ferfila
54
5.4.2 BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION
At this point I will present some basic demographic characteristics of the interviewed farmers
from both research locations: Kolakkanatham village (Perambalur District) and
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur village (Dindigul District).
All together I have interviewed 45 farmers: 25 of them in Kolakkanatham and 20 farmers in
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur.
VILLAGE Number of interviewed farmers
Kolakkanatham 25
Kanthasamypuram 9
Palaniyur 11
Total 45
Table 5.1 Number of the respondents
According to the gender structure most of my interviewees were male farmers. 78% of the
respondents I was talking to with my translator were men. Two female farmers that were
among the respondents in Kolakkanatham were left alone to take care of the fields after their
husbands died.
VILLAGE / Gender male female
Kolakkanatham 19 6
Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur 16 4
Total 35 10
Table 5.2 Gender structure of the respondents
Regarding the age structure of the respondents interviewed in both villages, most farmers
were rather old: 63% of them were older than 50 years. Some farmers also expressed their
worries regarding the young generations, as the majority of them wish to finish the school,
leave the countryside and get a job in the cities.
VILLAGE / Age 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-70 more than 70 unknown
Kolakkanatham 0 2 5 9 6 2 1
Kanthasamypuram
& Palaniyur 2 3 4 4 7 0 0
Total 2 5 9 13 13 2 1
Table 5.3 Age structure of the respondents
55
Furthermore, regarding the education structure of the respondents, farmers interviewed in
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur had better education levels than in Kolakkanatham. In
Kolakkanatham five farmers were illiterate and only five farmers reached 9th standard or
more,7 in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur none of our respondents was illiterate and 14
farmers had reached 9th standard or more.
VILLAGE / Education illiterate 1-5th 6-8th 9-10th 11-12th
Kolakkanatham 5 7 8 4 1
Kanthasamypuram &
Palaniyur 0 2 4 9 5
Total 5 9 12 13 6
Table 5.4 Education structure of the respondents
When asking farmers about their caste affiliation 8 and religion all the farmers in
Kolakkanatham declared themselves to be Hindu. Half of them belonged to Other Backward
Castes (OBC) and eight farmers to Scheduled Castes (SC). In Kanthasamypuram and
Palaniyur five of the interviewed farmers were Catholics and the remainder Hindu. All the
farmers that were ready to express their caste affiliation in these two villages, belonged to
Backward Caste (BC).
I have also clustered interviewed farmers' population according to size of the land. In
Kolakkanatham, as the village population was bigger and cotton was a dominant crop pattern,
it was easy to find and speak with the cotton farmers, who generally owned less than 5 acres
of land. As the table 5.5 shows more than half of the interviewed respondents in this village
represent those farmers. On the other hand I also decided to include in my sample two
farmers who didn't own the land at all (but were renting it) and three farmers who owned
more than 10 acres of land.
7 Primary school or elementary school in India lasts from 1st to 5th standard, middle school from 6th to 8th standard. High school lasts from 9th to 10th standard and higher secondary education from 11th to 12th standard. More than 12th standard is considered as college level education. 8 Official surveys divide social structure of the Hindu society into different castes: forward castes (FC), scheduled castes (SC). other backward castes (OBC) and scheduled tribes (ST). 'Scheduled castes and tribes being the most under priviliged groups of society, benefit from certain quotas in education, public servant positions and elected bodies (Eyhorn, 2007: 9).
56
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the village populations were smaller and cotton was not
a dominant crop pattern, so I faced some difficulties in finding a sufficient number of cotton
farmers (this is also the reason why the population of the respondents in this research location
is smaller).
VILLAGE /
size of the land owned 0 acres x ≤ 5 acres 5 acres > x ≤ 10 acres x > 10 acres
Kolakkanatham 2 13 7 3
Kanthasamypuram & Palaniur 0 8 8 4
Total 2 21 15 7
Table 5.5 Size of the respondents' land
57
6. CULTIVATING COTTON IN TAMIL NADU
Sixth chapter is empirical in nature. First of all, following SRLA approach, I will construct
socio-economic profiles of the farmers encompassing five types of capital: human, natural,
social, physical and financial. Secondly, following field level principles of Agro-ecology, I
will reconstruct agricultural practices and technologies farmers are applying in order to
compare them and evaluate them from the environmental, social and economic sustainability
viewpoint. The set of agricultural practices will be reconstructed according to criteria such as:
use of machinery, crop-livestock integration, soil fertility maintenance, seeds, crop diversity,
disease and weed control, pest control and source of technical advice. Thirdly, the economic
performance of cotton cultivation will be calculated to estimate the income that farmers are
receiving at the end of the season. The reconstruction of (2012-2013) cotton cultivation
activities with the reference to farmers' expenses will be constructed through criteria such as
size of the land under cotton, cotton yields, cotton price, total costs for the inputs (seeds,
fertilizers, pesticides), hired labour and rented machinery. I will calculate the revenues (total
production of cotton multiplied by market price) minus production costs (for inputs, hired
labour and renting machinery) to estimate incomes for year 2012-2013.
Finally I will discuss the environmental and economic risks and opportunities that have been
introduced through the use of genetically modified (Bt) cotton seeds.
6.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILES OF COTTON FARMERS
Following the SRLA approach I constructed a socio-economic profile of the cotton farmers in
each research location that consists of several types of capital: human, natural, social,
physical and financial.
6.1.1 HUMAN CAPITAL
Human capital is compounded of variables such as: available labour force; health; gender,
age, education, caste affiliation. The latter variables have already been discussed in chapter 5.
Agricultural knowledge will be in detail discussed in section 6.2.
Almost half of the farmers I have interviewed in Kolakkanatham village replied that two
family members are regularly working on the land. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur half
of the farmers I have interviewed confirmed the same. In the remainder of households, 28%
58
of the respondents in Kolakkanatham have more than two family members working on the
land, while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur 30% of the respondents confirmed the same.
Graph 6.1 Family members working on the land in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.2 Family members working on the land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
In Kolakkanatham only one farmer told us that this year he is not hiring labourers to work on
his land, while 52% of the interviewed farmers regularly hire additional labourers for all the
activities in connection with cotton cultivation: planting, weeding and picking cotton. In
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur only one farmer said that nobody from his family members
is working on the fields and that he hires labourers for all the work needed. In these two
villages 65% of the respondents were hiring labourers for sowing the seeds, weeding and
harvesting cotton.
When asking farmers about the overall health condition of their family members, I realized
that this was rather uncomfortable for them and even if there were some family health issues,
respondents rarely complained. Some farmers in Kolakkanatham expressed their difficulties
with getting old, two farmers expressed their worries about drinking problems in the family,
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
How many family members regularly work on the field in Kolakkanatham? (n=25)
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
How many family members regularly work on the field in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur? (n=20)
59
two female farmers were left alone after their husband died and in three families one of the
grandparents was still alive, but not being able to work on the fields anymore.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur one farmer was complaining about his inability to work
on the field as much as he used to, three households were taking care of the old grandmothers
not being able to work and one farmer had issues with skin disease on his hands.
6.1.2 NATURAL CAPITAL
Natural capital consists of variables such as land and crop diversity.
The grand majority of the farmers we were speaking to in Kolakkanatham village owned the
land on which they were cultivating crops. Only one farmer was also renting some extra land
beside the land he owned. We were also speaking with two farmers in this village that were
only renting the land and not owning any. Even though I decided to include them in my
sample. Generally speaking in Kolakkanatham 14 of the respondents owned 5 acres of land
or less, seven respondents owned between more than 5 and including 10 acres of land, while
4 respondents owned more than 10 acres of land.
All the farmers we were speaking to in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur owned the land on
which they were cultivating crops. Two farmers were also renting some extra land beside the
land they owned. In these two villages 7 respondents owned 5 acres of land or less, 8
respondents owned between more than 5 and including 10 acres of land, while 5 respondents
owned more than 10 acres of land.
Graph 6.3 Size of the farmers' land in Kolakkanatham
02468
10121416
≤ 5 acres more than 5 acres and ≤ 10 acres
more than 10 acres
What is the size of the land on which farmers are cultivating crops in Kolakkanatham? (n=25)
60
Graph 6.4 Size of the farmers' land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Regarding the diversity of the crops in Kolakkanatham, farmers were cultivating mainly
cotton and maize, maybe some pulses in between the rows and very often castor oil plants
around the cotton. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur there was no strictly prevailing crop
pattern. The farmers we have been interviewing in these two villages were most often
cultivating Bengal grams (chick peas), maize and grasses for cows beside cotton. At least half
of the respondents in these two villages were still growing quite diverse varieties of crops,
from vegetables, fruit trees to herbs, all in smaller quantities.
6.1.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social capital is compounded of following variables: family type and number of family
members; social networks (relatives, friends, village contacts) and membership in
associations and organizations.
In Kolakkanatham 80% of our respondents had families consisting of four or more family
members. One farmer even had a family of eleven family members. When asking farmers
about their relatives, 44% of them had relatives living inside the village.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur 75% of our respondents had families consisting of four
or more members. When asking farmers if they have any relatives, the prevailing answer was
that they have relatives living inside and outside the village.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
≤ 5 acres more than 5 acres and ≤ 10 acres
more than 10 acres
What is the size of the land on which farmers are cultivating crops in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur? (n=20)
61
In Kolakkanatham village 50% of our respondents were members of Agricultural
Cooperative Society (ACS) located in the village. ACS is a state government run cooperative
bank and its main functions are to provide affordable loans, sell inputs, offer basic
information about the inputs to the farmers and rent a tractor to its members. ACS covers the
area of four villages (Kolakkanatham, Kolathur, Anaipuram and Anaippadi) and has 700
members (Interview 23, 16.10.2013). For a farmer to become a member of ACS he/she must
be more than 21 years old and has to pay entry membership fee of 120 Indian Rupees (INR).
Owning a land is not a necessary prerequisite to become a member of ACS, but is a
prerequisite to get a loan;
ACS is providing loans and information on how to use inputs. Any type of farmer can get a loan, but
there is one condition; he should print out some kind of proof and get the signature of administrative officer,
that this particular land is owned by the farmer. Only with this kind of printed proof a farmer is able to get a
loan. (Interview 23, 23.10.2013)
Photo 6.1 Agricultural Cooperative Society in Kolakkanatham village, november 2013
Also in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur half of the farmers told us they were members of
Agricultural Cooperative Society located in wider Dindigul area, as there was no ACS office
inside the villages.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur some of the farmers used to be members of Organic
Farming Association of India (OFAI) in the past and they were participating in the activities
of CIKS (Centre for Indian Knowledge System) and SIMCODESS (local non-governmental
association) that were organizing capacity building workshops on various aspects of organic
farming techniques since 2006 in Dindigul district. Farmers that participated got a loan,
educational material and organic inputs needed for organic cotton cultivation, but the project
and led activities, according to secretary of SIMCODESS (Interview 58, 7.12.2013), stopped
in 2008. The intention to increase organic cotton cultivation in the area of these two villages
62
failed especially because of the failure in achieving recognition of organic cotton from the
ginning and spinning factories. Cultivating organic cotton thus did not generate enough
money at the end to pay the effort needed for implementing chemical-free agricultural
practices during the season. This was the main reason, according to the words of the farmers
in these two villages (that were cooperating with SIMCODESS) that they decided to shift
towards conventional farming again.
SIMCODESS introduced organic methods in this village, they were giving some advice to the farmers
how to cultivate cotton organically. They also tried to get a good price for organic cotton, but the cotton
collectors' response was negative and at the end their word was final. But me personally, I am still following the
organic methods. I have a certificate that I am organic agriculture practitioner. I continue with organic
methods, because I am interested into these things. Other villagers don't follow it anymore, because they don’t
have any benefits if they decide to grow cotton organically. (Interview 46, 24.11.2013)
Couple of years ago, before my mother was still able to help me with the work on the fields, I was
involved in workshops organized by SIMCODESS and CIKS, to learn how to use natural mixtures and cultivate
cotton without chemicals. Village farmers were also organized in some kind of a group of organic farmers to be
able to get a bank loan together. But in the end some of the farmers in the group didn't receive money. That is
also the reason why some farmers today refuse to follow organic methods. (Interview 52, 2.12.2013)
6.1.4 PHYSICAL CAPITAL
Physical capital is compounded of variables such as house type, infrastructural assets and
production assets.
In Kolakkanatham there are 3 types of houses; one with concrete walls and concrete roof,
others with concrete walls and a roof made out of bricks (older and more simple) and the
third made out of mud walls and roof out of palm tree leaves. The last type of the houses, also
the oldest one, was able to give much lower temperatures in the inside spaces than the ones,
that had roofs made out of bricks. The roofs made out of palm tree leaves were providing
much thicker and isolated shelter but also better protection in the rainy season for the house
inhabitants in general.
In Kanthsamypuram and Palaniyur we were not able to find houses that would have roofs
made out of palm tree leaves like in Kolakkanatham village. All of the other types of houses
were present in the village; the house with concrete walls and concrete roof, the house with
concrete walls and roof made out of bricks and there were also some houses made out of mud
63
walls, but with roofs out of concrete material. The majority of the houses in this area were old
and very spacious, having also an inner courtyard. The houses that had walls made out of
mud were often very properly built, giving low temperatures to the inside spaces, but
windows were usually absent.
In Kolakkanatham village the access to the main road was enabled from all parts of the
village, where the houses were located. Almost every hour or at least couple of hours there
were buses passing and driving in the main directions of wider Perambalur District areas.
In Kolakkanatham village 60% of our respondents owned a motorbike, only one farmer
owned a car and bus was in the grand majority referred to as the main transport means to
reach longer distances.
The access to Kanthsamypuram and Palaniyur was not so easy. There was a path going
through the villages and connecting them both, but this path was not paved and not easily
accessible from the main roads except by the motorbike or bigger truck. Once you reached
the main road, where Kanthasamypuram village started or once you reached the neighbouring
village of Palaniyur - Dharmatuppati, the local buses connections to Dindigul became quite
regular.
In Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur only three farmers mentioned they use solely bicycle for
their transport needs and only one farmer in Palaniyur owned a car. All the rest of the
respondents were using motorbikes as their main transport vehicle beside buses for longer
distances.
Photo 6.2 Path connecting Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur
All the farmers in Kolakkanatham were cultivating crops on the rain-fed fields and nobody
owned irrigation facilities among our respondents. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur eight
of the interviewed farmers mentioned, they had (simple, rain-fed) irrigation facilities
64
available for the crops they were cultivating. All the rest of the farmers depended solely on
the rain.
None of the farmers in Kolakkanatham, Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur owned a tractor.
They were all renting it for preparing the land before sowing the cotton seeds.
6.1.5 FINANCIAL CAPITAL
Financial capital is compounded of variables: source of the loan, access to credit, savings,
cattle, regular income (on-farm and off-farm income) and pension.
When asking the farmers in Kolakkanatham where they borrow money if necessary needed,
53% of the answers indicated, that they usually exchange golden jewellery for a money loan
in the bank or ACS (also known as pawnbroking). At the end of the crop season farmers were
able to get the jewellery back if they returned the money loaned. Farmers were saying that
there is no interest rate charged, but most likely the bank or ACS is taking a certain
percentage for this transaction. 10% of the answers were then indicating the bank as the
source for the farmers' loan and other 10% Agricultural Cooperative Society. In this village 7%
of the answers indicated borrowing from friends, another 7% borrowing from neighbours and
6% from local input shops.
Graph 6.5 Source of the farmers' loans in Kolakkanatham
pawnbroking (exchanging jewellery for
money) 53%
from local input shops
6%
from ACS 10%
from bank 10%
from friends 7%
from neighbours 7%
x (not known) 7%
Where do farmers borrow money in Kolakkanatham? (more than one answer is possible)
65
Usually I mortgage the jewellery in return for money. I am also borrowing from the neighbours with 2 -
3% interest rate when needed. When the cotton is harvested and sold, I return the borrowed money. Five years
ago it was also possible for me to borrow from local shop owners and ask for inputs without paying. After the
harvest they would come to my house to collect the cotton. It was at that time, that we balanced the amount of
money for the inputs (a loan given at the start of the season by the input sellers) with the cotton prices and
amount of cotton I produced at the end of the season. (Interview 22, 23.10.2013)
If needed, I borrow money from the Agricultural Cooperative Society. I am a member there for 15
years now. They opened the appeal to join ACS when there were elections. For 15 years I have been taking a
credit there – 20.000 INR a years, according to my crop value. But you have to be a member of ACS in order to
be able to do that. Ten years ago there were no interest rates charged, but the government changed this.
(Interview 4, 4.10.2013)
When asking the farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur where they borrow money if
needed, 75% of the answers indicated that they most often go to the bank to exchange the
golden jewellery for money and 9% of the answers indicated local input shops in wider
Dindigul area.
Graph 6.6 Source of the farmers' loans in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
When further on asking more in detail about the availability of institutional loans or credits to
the farmers in Kolakkanatham six farmers replied that they have never took a loan from the
bank or ACS, while ten farmers confirmed they received a loan at least once.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur twelve farmers never took a loan from the bank or ACS,
while four of them did. One of these four farmers mentioned that he never returned the loan
pawnbroking (exchanging jewellery for
money) 75%
from local input shops
9%
from ACS 4%
from neighbours 4%
x (not known) 8%
Where do farmers borrow money in Kanthasamypuram&Palaniyur? (more than one answer is
possible)
66
to the bank, so he was not entitled to apply for the loan again. Two farmers in these two
villages also mentioned, that they were part of Self Help (microfinance) groups.
I have a certificate that I own the land, so I am able to get a loan in Kannara Bank – interest rate there
is 1% per month. But I usually get the money for exchanging the jewellery in the bank. The third option is
borrowing the money from money lenders for 4-5% interest rate per month. (Interview 39, 20.11.2013)
I mortgage the jewellery when needed, but I can't get loans in form of inputs or from the bank.
Sometimes I borrow from money lenders with an interest rate 3-4% per month. If needed, I can also sell a cow.
This is why we are breeding so many cattle. Banks are not helping farmers. Government employees can get a
loan very easily but the farmers not, because we don’t have a regular income. Also ACS is not ready to provide
loans for the farmers, because the repayment procedures are very difficult for the farmers. The real situation is
that the farmers are not getting any support from the government, because middle persons are eating all the
money. ACS has so many rules and regulations, farmers often don’t want to go to ask for a loan at all.
(Interview 41, 21.11.2013)
I 'mortgage' the jewellery if needed, but I don’t take loans from ACS because they have many rules and
regulations. Middle officers are not making things easier for the farmers. For the farmers these rules are hard
to follow. A lot of farmers are also illiterate. I also borrow from the neighbours – with an interest rate of 2 to 4 %
per month. It is also possible to get a loan in form of inputs and then sell the cotton to these people as they are
also cotton collectors. (Interview 40, 20.11.2013)
It is interesting to note, that local money lenders were rarely mentioned by the farmers until
we specifically asked. In Kolakkanatham 44% of the farmers we were speaking with also
borrows from the local money lenders from time to time. They mentioned that when they
borrow money in such a way, the interest rate is 2 to 3% per month. This is the highest
interest rate charged among all the sources of loans available to the farmers.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur 75% of the farmers confirmed they are sometimes
borrowing money from local money lenders. The scope of interest rate per month for
borrowing money in such a way was ranging from 2 to 10%, which was again the highest
interest rate among all the sources of loans available to the farmers.
Some of the farmers also reported about the option of taking a loan in form of inputs at the
local input shops. Employee at ACS said (Interview 15, 16.10.2013), that farmers who don’t
own any assets usually rely on this type of borrowing as they are not entitled to get a loan in
ACS or a bank.
67
The main difference between ACS and the local shops where they are selling inputs is that farmers if
they want to buy the inputs in ACS, they need to have money and pay. The local shops, on the other hand are
giving the farmers opportunity to pay later for the inputs, but also to sell the cotton there at the end of the
season. That creates possibilities for increasing prices of inputs if the farmers asked for the delay with the
payment. ACS is government led and has fixed prices for the inputs. In this village, I have to say many farmers
are using the opportunity to pay later in the local shops for the inputs. (Interview 15, 16.10.2013)
While speaking with the input sellers of the local shops in Kolakkanatham village, many of
them confirmed the possibility of getting loans in form of inputs.
From this village alone around 50-60 farmers are taking a loan at my shop. As they are buying
fertilizers, pesticides and seeds here, I maintain a list of the farmers that took a loan in form of inputs.
Sometimes also if the yield is not good, they can't repay the amount of money taken. But generally, when
farmers collect the cotton they come back to repay for the inputs with the cotton produced. (Interview 35, owner
of the local input shop, 5.11.2013)
When asking farmers further, whether they received any regular on-farm income besides the
money from the crops, 6 farmers in Kolakkanatham village mentioned selling a cow or a goat.
Cattle also might be perceived as a type of a financial capital farmers might own, as they
might sell it when necessarily needed. Although here I have to add that in Kolakkanatham 44%
of our respondents didn't own any cattle at all.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur only one farmer didn’t own cattle. When asking farmers
in these two villages about their on-farm income, thirteen farmers mentioned selling milk.
When additional money was needed some of these farmers also used to sell a cow or a hen.
One farmer in Kolakkanatham and one farmer in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur also
mentioned that they were leasing part of their land to other farmers.
Graph 6.7 Cattle in Kolakkanatham
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
no(1-3) cows(2-4) goats
hens(1-3) cows, (2-30) goats
cows, hens(2) cows, (2) goats, (2) hens
Does a farmer have any cattle? How many? (Kolakkanatham, n=25)
68
Graph 6.8 Cattle in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
When asking farmers in Kolakkanatham, if their households also receive any off-farm
income, 72% of our respondents said that they received some money from adult children or
that they earned some additional money themselves. Some of the farmers indicated more than
one source of off-farm income, while three of the farmers didn’t have any additional source
of off-farm income. In Kolakkanatham eight farmers said their family members were joining
100 days Government Employment Scheme9 opportunity to work. Seven farmers were also
working on other people’s land to earn some additional money.
Graph 6.9 Source of off-farm income in Kolakkanatham
9 The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (in Perambalur district of Tamil Nadu was launched in 2008) guarantees 100 days of employment in a financial year to any rural household whose adult members are willing to do manual work. It is considered to be a step toward the realization of the right to work. The Village Panchayat issues job cards to every registered individual, payment is equal to a statutory minimum wage and equality payment for men and women is recognized. The priority of this Scheme is put into developing the economic and social infrastructure in rural areas such as formation of new roads, renovation of ponds, others flood protection and water conservation measures etc.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
no
(2-4) cows
(1-5) goats
(5) hens
(3) cows, (3) goats
(2-10) cows, (2-10) hens
(2) cows, (4) goats, (10) hens
unknown
Does a farmer have any cattle? How many? (Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur, n=20)
no 9%
work as an agricultural
labourer 21%
joining Government Employment
Scheme 25%
money help from the adult children
15%
owning grocery shop in the village
6%
others 12%
unknown 12%
Source of farmer's off-farm income in Kolakkanatham (n=25) (more than one answer is indicated by the farmers)
69
When asking farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur if they received any off-farm
income, only three farmers didn't mention getting or earning some additional money. Eleven
farmers said, they are joining 100 days Government Emplyment Scheme opportunity to work
and five farmers also said that they go to work on other people's land when needed.
Graph 6.10 Source of off-farm income in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
In Kolakkanatham two farmers among the respondents were receiving pension as they used
to work in public sector in the past. One farmer in this village was getting pension for old
people not able to work on the fields anymore. This money is coming directly from the Tamil
Nadu government and amounts 1.000 rupees per month.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur only one farmer was receiving pension as he used to
work as a teacher in the past.
6.1.6 MAIN FINDINGS
Socio-economic profiles of cotton farmers in both research locations differ according to
several assets. Education levels of the farmers were higher in Kanthasamypuram and
Palaniyur. One selected crop pattern (cotton-maize) was more prevalent in Kolakkanatham
and the level of crop diversity on the fields was higher in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur.
Kolakkanatham had an Agricultural Cooperative Society inside the village but the
membership in ACS of the interviewed farmers was approximately the same (50% of the
respondents) in both research locations. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur some of the
no 10% work as an
agricultural labourer
17%
joining Government Employment
Scheme 38%
money help from the adult children
21%
others 14%
Source of farmer's off-farm income in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur (n=20)
(more than one answer is indicated by the farmers)
70
farmers also had had the opportunity to learn and participate in educational activities on
chemical free agricultural practices. This contributed to higher level of awareness of harmful
long-term impacts of highly intensive agricultural practices.
It also needs to be repeted that Kolakkanatham was much easier accessible by the roads and
already had local input shops inside the village, while Kanthasamypuram and Palaniur were
located in much more remote locations. This probably created some difficulties in
transporting inputs from other villages or cities.
In Kolakkanatham 44% of the respondents didn't own cattle, while in Kanthasamypuram and
Palaniyur only 5% didn't own any.
6.2 AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES & TECHNOLOGIES
One of the first requirements in order to compare the agricultural practices and technologies
between research locations is to reconstruct the set of farmer's activities in cotton cultivation.
In Kolakkanatham cotton seeds were put in the soil in the months of August and September.
The plant needs 120 days to grow before it develops cotton balls ready for harvesting. In
Kolakkanatham the harvest began in December and lasted until March. After the harvesting
season the land lay fallow.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur farmers started sowing cotton seeds in September, but
this can be done optionally until November. The harvesting season began in December and
lasted until June. After the harvesting season the land lay fallow.
Photo 6.3 Cotton plant
The majority of the farmers in Kolakkanatham (80% of the respondents in this village) was
growing cotton for ten years or longer. While speaking with the farmers about the spread of
cotton cultivation in this village, it became clear that farmers saw great opportunity in
71
growing cash-crops, monocultures and applying chemical-intensive farming practices on their
fields. 'More yields, more money' seemed to be a priority, no matter long-term consequences.
As cotton was recognized as the main cash provider for these farmers, cotton yields were
playing a central role in farmer’s livelihoods.
Without chemicals we can’t grow cotton, it is necessary. If you use a lot of fertilizers and a lot of
pesticides also the yields are bigger. Without chemicals the cotton is not good. (Interview 4, 4.10.2013 )
This village started growing cotton 25 years ago. Now for past 15 years the cotton is a dominant crop
grown in the village. In the past chilly cultivation was the dominant crop-pattern of the village but also ragi 10
crops and maize were grown. As many people cultivated chilly in this area in the past, the price for chilly was
very low, that is why some people than decided to give a try to grow cotton. So, some people shifted to cotton
cultivation and others followed. In that period also some subsidies were available for the farmers. (Interview 23,
vice-president of Kolakkanatham village, 23.10.2013)
It was interesting, that in the beginning when I started asking the farmers in Kolakkanatham
if they have ever did agriculture without using chemicals, their answers were always
indicating the necessity of chemicals. It was only when I started asking farmer, what they
were growing before cotton, that their memories of chemical free agricultural practices
emerged. Chemical free farming was attached in farmers' memory to the crop pattern of the
past, before cotton became popular and prevailing cash crop in the village.
When asking farmers in Kolakkanatham about the crops that existed in this village in the past,
they were mentioning cultivation of chilly, maize and ragi crops. These crops were grown
without any use of chemicals (fertilizers or pesticides), using only manure and compost and
they were reproducing the seeds themselves;
15 years ago, before I started cultivating cotton, I was growing ragi crops, maize, chilly, reproducing
the seeds also. At that time I owned cattle so I was regularly using compost for maintaining the fertility of my
soil. I used only a bit of Urea sometimes, per acre maybe one package in a season. At that time I was just
throwing it a bit on the soil, today I put the fertilizer more directly, above the roots of cotton plants. (Interview
18, 18.10.2013)
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur 40% of the respondents had an even longer memory of
growing cotton; they remembered growing cotton since their childhood.
10 Ragi is a Tamil name for Eleusine Caracana, annual plant widely grown as a cereal in the arid areas of Asia. It is commonly known as finger millet.
72
In these two villages the change of the crop pattern with the arrival of cotton as a cash crop
didn’t really occur like in Kolakkanatham. In Kolakkanatham cotton cultivation was
accompanied with a set of new, intensifying agricultural practices and technologies. In
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the tradition of growing cotton was longer, a greater
diversity of the crops cultivated by the farmers remained, although some changes in
agricultural practices occurred and genetically modified seeds started to be grown by some
farmers in this area too. But the hype around the success of growing genetically modified
cotton seeds that we have found in Kolakkanatham was absent in these two villages. Farmers
were much more ready to discuss and share the memories of previous forms of agricultural
practices and were also more critical and careful toward using excessive quantities of
chemicals on their fields.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur some of the farmers, as already mentioned before,
participated in the activities of the local non-governmental organization SIMCODESS.
Although the majority of the farmers, that participated in this educational activities than were
slowly shifting away from chemical free agricultural practice, they could still recall some
methods used;
Three years ago I was preparing the mixture from the leaves. I was preparing some liquids from
Neem11 tree and other trees, mixing it with water… But now I don’t do it anymore, because it is too difficult to
collect so many leaves all around and then prepare this mixture. (Interview 38, 19.11.2013)
I am still not using any pesticides. I am regularly preparing some natural medicines for pests that are
occurring on the leaves of cotton. I am mixing tobacco, ginger, garlic and green chilly with water in a tank. For
one acre I need approximately 10 tanks of this mixture and I apply it immediately– 10ml of it – on the cotton
crops. This knowledge I have learned from my grandparents. (Interview 43, 22.11.2013)
We used to prepare Panjagaviam. We were preparing it for 2 reasons: for a natural compost, but if
mixing with water it could also be very good nutrient for the cotton plants. I personally was using it for three
years – but I was not satisfied. I was putting it or on the soil or mixing it with the water and applying it on the
leaves for better cotton growth. I also used to use locally available mixtures for preventing the pests – I was
mixing Neem tree leaves with Adatoda12 leaves, Nuna13 leaves and Pungam14 leaves and mixing it with cow’s
urine and then taking some quantities out from there and applying it. But I am not using these techniques
11 Neem tree or Azadirachta indica is a tree native to India and Indian subcontinent typically growing in tropical and semi-tropical regions. Its fruits and seeds are the source of neem oil. 12 Adatoda is a Tamil name for Justicia adhatoda, a medical plant native to Asia. 13 Nuna is a Tamil name for Morinda coreia tree. 14 Pungam is a Tamil name for Derris indica tree.
73
anymore, because it is so much work, you need to search for the leaves, collect them… I didn’t completely
forgot about the old methods, but unfortunately I am not following them anymore. (Interview 39, 20.11.2013)
I am not using pesticides. I am preparing my own natural medicines if needed. I am collecting Neem
tree leaves, Neem tree fruits, Irkl leaves, plus water and cow’s urine – all locally available things – and then I
do a mixture of it and wait for 20 days to be ready. I am applying this natural medicines 2 times when needed.
This preparation of natural medicines needs to be done already when we begin sowing the seeds, so in order to
be ready when the pests occur. The smell of Neem will stay on the leaves for very long time. (Interview 46,
24.11.2103)
6.2.1 USE OF MACHINERY
In Kolakkanatham all farmers prepared their fields with a tractor before sowing cotton seeds.
A tractor was rented from one of the few people in the village that owned one. The same was
in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur. In these two villages bullocks and a simple plough for
preparing the land were still being used by a farmer or two.
Photo 6.4 Nearby field on the way from Kanthasamypuram towards Palaniyur (November 2013)
6.2.2 CROP-LIVESTOCK INTEGRATION
In the past farmers were regularly using cost-free manure to maintain the fertility of their soil.
This was possible because they used to own cattle. Today 44% of the respondents in
Kolakkanatham didn't have any cows, goats or hens, so they didn't have access to cost-free
manure.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur only one farmer didn’t own cows, goats or hens.
Manure used to be and still is an essential chemical-free, organic fertilizer that is revitalizing
the organic matter and providing necessary nutrients. It is a by-product of owning cattle and
free of any additional costs.
74
6.2.3 SOIL FERTILITY MAINTENANCE
In Kolakkanatham soil fertility was maintained by applying manure, compost or chemical
fertilizers. Eight farmers (or 32% of the respondents in this village) didn't use manure or
compost, but were applying solely chemical fertilizers. The brands of fertilizers most
commonly used among these farmers were Juria, Potash, Complex and DAB.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur five farmers (25% of the respondents in these two
villages) didn't use manure or compost anymore, but were only applying chemical fertilizers.
The brands of fertilizers most commonly used among these farmers were Complex and
Pactambus.
Graph 6.11 Soil Fertility maintenance in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.12 Soil Fertility maintenance in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
While at first farmers were emphasizing only application of the fertilizers before sowing the
cotton seeds (first six farmers interviewed in Kolakkanatham), later on it became clear, that
no 32%
yes 48%
buying bio compost
12%
(not known) 8%
Did farmer use cost-free manure, compost for maintaining soil fertility in Kolakkanathan last year? (n=25)
no 25%
yes 75%
Did farmer use cost-free manure, compost for maintaining soil fertility in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur last year? (n=20)
75
farmers were applying them more than just once. There was no farmer that would use only
manure or bio-compost for the purpose of soil fertility maintenance in Kolakkanatham village.
The majority of the farmers, 60% of the respondents in this village (15 farmers) were
applying fertilizers three or four times per season.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur farmers were using chemical fertilizers to a lesser extent
than in Kolakkanatham and were much more aware of possible negative consequences of
excessive usage for soil fertility in the long run. The majority of the farmers (75% of the
respondents in these two villages) were applying chemical fertilizers one time per season.
Three farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur were not applying chemical fertilizers at
all.
Graph 6.13 Use of chemical fertilizers in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.14 Use of chemical fertilizers in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
While discussing about the quantity of fertilizers applied per season or about the number of
packages of fertilizers 15 applied per acre in a season, the majority of the farmers in
Kolakkanatham (60% of the respondents in this village or 15 farmers) were applying at least
5 packages of fertilizers or more. 15 One package of fertilizers weights 50kg.
0
6 4
13
2
no use of fertilisers 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times
How many times farmer applied fertilisers on the field in Kolakkanatham last year? (n=25)
3
15
2 0 0
no use of fertilisers 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times
How many times farmer applied fertilizers on the field in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur last year? (n=20)
76
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the majority of the farmers (80% of the respondents in
these two villages or 16 farmers) were using less than 3 packages of fertilizers per acre in a
season.
Graph 6.15 Quantity of chemical fertilizer’s application in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.16 Quantity of chemical fertilizer’s application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
Generally speaking intensive cultivation practice with heavy application of fertilizers
eventually cause decline in soil fertility. ‘If synthetic fertilizers are used without also
applying organic manures, they eventually affect organic matter content, soil life and soil
structure.’ (Eyhorn, 2007:25) In the long term farmers need to continuously increase
fertilizer’s inputs.
0 0
2
3
4 4
5 5
1 1
no use offertilizers
1 to< 2 2 to< 3 3 to< 4 4 to< 5 5 to< 6 6 to< 7 7 to<8 8 not known
How many packages of fertilizers farmer was applying in total per acre in Kolakkanatham last year? (n=25)
3
8 8
0 0
1
0 0 0 0
no use offertilizers
1 to < 2 2 to < 3 3 to < 4 4 to < 5 5 to < 6 6 to < 7 7 to <8 8 not known
How many packages of fertilizers farmer was applying in total per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur last year? (n=20)
77
6.2.4 SEEDS
Regarding the cotton seed varieties available in Kolakkanatham village, there were no other
varieties of seeds available to the farmers except genetically modified (GM) ones. All 25
farmers, we spoke to in this village were cultivating GM cotton seeds. Paradoxically, none of
the farmers knew much about GM seeds and about the difference with regular seeds. Bt
cotton or Bollgard was the name farmers were most often referring to when talking about
new seed varieties.
All the farmers in Kolakkanatham were buying GM cotton seeds in local shops. On the
majority of the GM seed packages it was written only ‘research hybrid cotton’. It seemed that
the most popular GM cotton seeds in Kolakkanatham village were Rasi16 cotton seeds.
The diversity of cotton seeds farmers were using in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur was
bigger than in Kolakkanatham. Although half of the respondents in these two villages was
already shifting and starting to cultivate GM seeds, there were still farmers growing (not
genetically modified) LRA high yielding varieties cotton seeds. Among farmers growing GM
cotton seeds Dyna brand seeds seemed to be most popular. Interesting enough, four of the
farmers cultivating GM cotton, also continued growing LRA cotton seeds on part of their
land.
In Kolakkanatham none of the farmers remembered the type of the seeds they were growing
before GM cotton seeds came into the village. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur on the
other hand farmers remembered that before Bt-cotton the farmers used to cultivate LRA and
Karangani (old traditional variety) cotton seeds on their lands. The fact that the farmers in
these two villages were still cultivating a greater variety of cotton seeds than in
Kolakkanatham was probably related to the fact that there was no input shop located inside
these two villages or in a short walking distance. The farmers were buying seeds mostly in
Oddanchatram or Dindigul.
16 Rasi Seeds in collaboration with Monsanto Company developed transgenic Bt cotton hybrids. This was accomplished by
transferring gene of Bt through breeding methods into Rasi cotton germplasm. Government of India approved these seeds for
south zones in 2004. Since than 20 different products under Bt and BG (Bollgard) came on the market.
78
Graph 6.17 Brands of cotton seeds cultivated in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
*Jackpot, Ankur, Mahycho, Mallika, Rasi are all GM cotton seeds.
Graph 6.18 Brands of cotton seeds cultivated in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
*Mallika and Dyna are GM cotton seeds. LRA hybrid cotton seeds are not GM but are high yielding varieties
cotton seeds. They have been available in India since green revolution. MC5 and SWIN 5 cotton seeds are also
hybrid varieties of seeds.
When I further on went asking how come that farmers decided to start growing genetically
modified cotton seeds in Kolakkanatham, the prevailing answers were;
because of advertisement;
local shop owner's advice:
other farmer’s advice; and
good yields.
RASI COTTON SEEDS 75%
JACKPOT (Kaveri seeds)
3%
ANKUR COTTON SEEDS 14%
MAHYCHO COTTON SEEDS
4%
MALLIKA (Nuziveedu seeds)
4%
Which type of cotton seeds did the farmer grow in Kolakkanahtam? (n=25) (more than one answer is possible)
MALLIKA (Nuziveedu seeds) 11%
DYNA (Vibha seeds) 31%
LRA hybrid cotton 42%
MC5, SWIN5 8%
unknown 8%
Which type of cotton did the farmer grow in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur? (n=20) (more than one answer is possible)
79
Photo 6.5 & 6.6 The ways how new types of GM cotton seeds were advertised with the posters
While asking the farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur what contributed most to
change the varieties of the seeds, the answers that occurred most often were:
because of other farmer’s advice;
because of bigger yields; and
bigger cotton balls.
The influence of advertisements and local shop advice apparently didn’t affect farmer’s
choice to a large extent in these two villages.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur farmers told us that Karangani cotton seeds that have
been grown traditionally in this area were replaced by the LRA high yielding variety cotton
seeds with the advance of the green revolution in India. The reasons why farmers decided to
stop cultivating Karangani cotton seeds were: smaller cotton balls, shorter cotton yarn, lower
prices for the cotton when selling it to the ginning mills, labour scarcity and complaints of the
hired labour as this type of cotton was harder to pick. But here one should note, that
Karangani cotton seeds were part of a set of agricultural practice of the past that differed from
the practice acquired for cultivating LRA cotton seeds that followed. When cultivating
Karangani cotton seeds, farmers were able to reproduce the seeds by themselves, application
of fertilizers was very low or non existent and there was no need for use of pesticides as there
were no pest attacks. Karangani cotton seeds also didn’t need additional water supply as they
were resilient to drought occasions.
Now I am buying LRA cotton seeds each year, but Karangani cotton seeds were reproduced by
ourselves. I used to go to the local mills, where they parted cotton seeds from the yarn, so next time I would
collect my own cotton seeds from them. Karangani cotton seeds lasted for 2 years, if you planted it one year,
next year the soil could also give cotton plants. Karangani seeds were also good for no-rain conditions, for
80
drought. In the past the cotton plants were also used for nutrient food for cows, goats and also humans could
get oil from the cotton seeds. These were old varieties of cotton seeds, our parents, grandparents were using
them and reproducing them. But it is also true that Karangani cotton plants had smaller cotton balls, the
labourers didn’t like to pick them. Also the mill owners were giving lower prices for cotton from Karangani
seeds than for cotton from LRA hybrid seeds, because the yarn length of Karangani cotton was shorter.
(Interview 39, 20.11.2013)
According to the farmers, we were speaking with in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur it is
only with the cultivation of LRA high yielding varieties that the problems with the pests
started occurring. But LRA seeds, on the other hand, were giving more yields, the cotton
balls were bigger, the yarn longer and these were primarily the reasons of replacing them
with Karangani cotton seeds. But LRA cotton seeds also needed to be bought each year, the
farmers' seed reproduction techniques were not applicable anymore and chemical fertilizer
application was recommended. Furthermore after some years of cultivating LRA seeds the
pesticide application started increasing because of pest outbreaks.
15 years ago I started growing LRA cotton seeds, I was growing them for next 10 years. Before that I
used to grow Karangani cotton seeds that supposedly came from Cambodia. I remember that my parents were
growing these seeds since I was a child. Karangani cotton plants had much deeper roots, they were able to stay
longer in the soil. But because of the labour scarcity and much lower prices for 'Karangani' cotton, these seeds
are not sown anymore today. Karangani seeds used to be re-produced by the farmers themselves. You might
have used some fertilizers while cultivating them, but no pesticides were needed. These seeds were also rain-fed
seeds, no additional water was needed.
For LRA cotton seeds on the other hand we need more water and we need to buy them every year. When I
started cultivating these seeds, I started applying additional water also. But later on while growing LRA cotton
and MC5 cotton seeds a lot of diseases and pests came on my fields. At that time I was applying pesticides ten
times per season, once weekly, but without any effect. (Interview 57, 5.12.2013)
The reasons why some farmers decided to start growing genetically modified cotton seeds in
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur didn’t differ much from the reasons why farmers started
growing LRA cotton seeds in the past. Some farmers were saying, that the yields are bigger,
some mentioned lower use of pesticides, some replied that it was an advice from other
farmers, the agricultural expert's advice or input seller’s information.
Dyna or Bt- cotton seeds give more yields, more than LRA cotton seeds. Their cotton balls are bigger,
but we also need to apply more pesticides. We are applying pesticides 3 times per season, but when we were
cultivating LRA cotton seeds we were applying it only one time. For growing LRA cotton seeds rain was enough,
81
while for cultivating Dyna seeds we need to provide additional water with irrigation facilities. Dyna seeds also
need fertilizers, while we were not applying fertilizers for LRA cotton seeds at all. (Interview 56, 5.12.2013)
LRA cotton seeds brought a lot of diseases, pests, the pesticide usage was very high, at the final year of
growing LRA cotton I was applying pesticides 12 times per season. At that time I was growing cotton on 4 acres
of land, the yield was also not very good. Now with Dyna cotton seeds the yield is very good, also I am using
less pesticides – they told me that only 3 times of pesticide application is enough, but I am applying the
pesticides 5 times per season to be sure! (Interview 49, 25.11.2013)
6.2.5 CROP DIVERSITY
The prevailing crop pattern in Kolakkanatham village was cotton alternated with maize. In
Kolakkanatham 80% of interviewed respondents were growing solely maize on the rest of
their land beside cotton. While four farmers were growing solely cotton on their land.
Graph 6.19 Crop pattern in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
While asking farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur what kind of crops they were
growing on the rest of their land beside cotton, 13 farmers in these two villages mentioned
that they were growing maize on the rest of the land, but only two of them said maize was the
only crop they grow beside cotton. There were only two farmers in these two villages
growing solely cotton on their fields.
maize 80%
maize, lemon trees 4%
only cotton 16%
What kind of crops did a farmer grow on the rest of the land beside cotton in Kolakkanatham? (n=25)
82
Graph 6.20 Crop pattern in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
The crop pattern in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur was dissimilar from Kolakkanatham, as
farmers were growing many different crops on their fields beside cotton. Very popular crops
to grow in these two villages were Bengal grams (chick peas), tomatoes, onions, lady fingers,
Brinjal (egg plant) etc.
While asking farmers if they grow any food crops for their own use and if they are self-
sufficient, meaning that they don’t need to buy any additional food for themselves, none of
the farmers in Kolakkanatham said his/her household would produce all the food they need.
In this village 44% of the respondents didn’t grow anything except the crops they were
selling on the market. The rest of the respondents said, they were growing some small
amounts of vegetables for their own use, but the majority of the food they needed was bought.
As farmers were most often mentioning buying rice, we might add here that in the past
different types of pulses like Red Gram and Black Gram, which could still be grown in this
area, were important part of the diet and farmer's families needs. But with the expansion of
rice cultivation, rice became prevalent in the daily diet of the farmers and replaced pulses. In
Kolakkanatham rice has never been part of a prevailing crop pattern, but it is grown and can
be bought in wider areas of Perambalur district.
While discussing about the level of food self-sufficiency of farmers' households in
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur, none of the farmers said they would grow all the food they
needed on their own land. It seemed that also in these two villages many farmers (40% of the
only cotton 4%
maize 27%
bengal grams 19% tomatoes
9%
onions 8%
lady fingers 6%
brinjal 6%
others (pulses, chilly, grasses, fruit trees etc)
21%
What kind of crops did a farmer grow on the rest of the land beside cotton in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur? (n=20)
(more than one answer is possible)
83
respondents) were cultivating crops on their land exclusively for selling purposes. The rest of
the respondents were cultivating some vegetables for their own use also.
9.2.6 DISEASE AND WEED CONTROL
In Kolakkanatham crop rotation was applied by 76% of the respondents in this village. Each
year namely they exchanged the land on which they are growing cotton and maize.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur this percentage was even higher, 80% of the respondents
in these two villages exchanged the land on which they were growing cotton with the land on
which they were growing other crops.
When asking farmers in Kolakkanatham if they were using any inter-cropping techniques or
if they were growing some plants in between the rows of cotton in order to distract pests from
cotton plants or in order to invite beneficial organisms on the field, a vast majority mentioned
growing some pulses. But according to my observations I don’t think that we could refer to
this as inter-cropping practice, because it wasn’t done in a wider extent on the fields, only a
row or two of pulses in between the rows of cotton.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur farmers cultivating genetically modified cotton seeds
also grew some pulses in between the cotton rows to a smaller extent. While farmers
cultivating LRA cotton seeds usually planted Bengal gram crops in between cotton. Bengal
grams were also cultivated for selling purposes, although the capacity of fixing nitrogen in
the soil by these crops should not be overlooked (Berrada et al.: 2007). Some farmers even
said, they decided to continue growing LRA cotton seeds because they wanted to continue
cultivating Bengal gram.
6.2.7 PEST CONTROL
When asking farmers in Kolakkanatham about their pest control techniques, all 25 farmers
confirmed they were using chemical pesticides to avoid pests. Each year the pesticides were
bought in the local shops located in the village. There were at least 6 small shops where
pesticides could be bought in Kolakkanatham. The most popular type of pesticides among the
respondents reported to be TATAMIDA (one of the modern Neonicotinoisd group of
84
insecticides which according to WHO hazard classification ranks among moderately
hazardous17). The second most popular pesticide was TATA ASATAF powder.
The farmers in Kolakkanatham were most often applying pesticides themselves, but 28% of
the respondents in this village were using exclusively hired labour for pesticide application
on their fields.
When we started asking the farmers about the pest control techniques in Kanthasamypuram
and Palaniyur, 80% of the respondents in these two villages confirmed they were using
chemical pesticides. But as there were no pesticide shops in the village area, farmers were
mainly buying them in Dindigul or Oddanchatram. These farmers were using many different
varieties of pesticides like Monostar insectiside, Hot Shot Pest Killer, Ekalex etc. While
asking farmers in these two villages who applied pesticides on the cotton crops, 45% of the
respondents said, they don't want to have any direct contact with the chemicals and because
of that they hired labourers to apply the pesticides. 20% of the respondents in these two
villages were not using pesticides at all and 10% of them were occasionally helping the hired
labourers.
Graph 6.21 Pesticide application in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
17 FAO (2012) Specifications and Evaluations for Agricultural Pesticides, Imidacloprid. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Specs/Imidacloprid08.pdf
farmer 64%
farmer and labourers
4%
labourers 28%
unknown 4%
Who was applying pesticides on the field in Kolakkanatham? (n=25)
85
Graph 6.22 Pesticide application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in 2012-2013
In the beginning when asking farmers in Kolakkanatham when and how many times they
were applying pesticides on their cotton fields, they often replied that after one month since
sowing the seeds, they regularly applied the pesticides every 2 weeks, which would mean
they applied them at least six times per season. Later on I started asking more in detail and I
realized that 76% of the respondents in this village (19 farmers) were applying pesticides 5
times or more per season.
Graph 6.23 Pesticide application in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Regarding the quantities of pesticides farmers were applying on their fields, I must add that
farmers in Kolakkanatham usually mixed 10-15 ml of pesticides in a bowl of water and
applied this mixture 8-10 times on one acre of land. Most often they repeated spraying
farmer 25%
farmer and labourers
10% labourers
45%
no use of pesticides
20%
Who was applying pesticides on the field in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur? (n=20)
0 0 0
2
4 5
9
5
no use ofchemicals
1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times 5 times 6 times 7 times
How many times did farmer apply pesticides on cotton in Kolakkanatham? (n=25)
86
pesticides on cotton crops every two weeks. Some of the farmers also mentioned that when
cotton crops were bigger, they increased the level of pesticides in a bowl.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur four farmers were not using any chemical pesticides on
their land, while 50% of the respondents were using pesticides less than three times per
season. Although 20% of the respondents in these two villages were not applying any
chemical pesticides, 25% of the respondents used quite big amounts, from 250ml up to 1L
per acre within one time application.
Graph 6.24 Pesticide application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
6.2.8 SOURCE OF TECHNICAL ADVICE
Although 60% of the respondents in Kolakkanatham village confirmed that they were sharing
information, advice and knowledge with other farmers, we asked where they were getting
additional information and instructions on how to use input materials such as fertilizers,
pesticides and new type of seeds. The predominant answer was that advice was obtained from
local shops and advertisements of the input companies (53% of the answers), while 26% of
the answers suggested the importance of farmer’s own experience.
I am getting information about the inputs from the local shops, where they are selling fertilizers,
pesticides and seeds. Sometimes also private companies are coming giving instructions through the speakers to
us, the farmers. (Interview 20, 21.10.2013)
4
1
9
2
1 1
0 0
2
no use ofchemicals
1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times 5 times 6 times 7 times not known
How many times did farmer apply pesticides on cotton in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur? (n=25)
87
When speaking with the owner of the input shop in Kolakkanatham (Interview 35, 5.11.2013)
about his instructions on agricultural practices to the farmers;
I am getting this information from the companies, what level of fertilizer and pesticides should be used
and also how to use the Bt-cotton seeds. I am passing this advice further to farmers.(Interview 35, 5.11.2013)
Graph 6.25 Source of technical advice in Kolakkanatham
In Kanthasamypuram & Palaniur 60% of the respondents confirmed that they were sharing
information, advice and knowledge with the other farmers. When asking where they were
getting additional information and instructions on how to use input material like fertilizers,
seeds, pesticides or other natural medicines, if they might use them, the answers were
different from Kolakkanatham. In these two villages 28% of all the answers indicated the
importance of farmer’s own knowledge and experience, some even mentioned the knowledge
of their grandparents. The advertisements were much less present in these two villages,
although 30% of the answers indicated the influence and advice from cotton collectors or
input shop sellers.
Agricultural Cooperative Society
5%
advertisement 20%
agricultural experts 8%
local input shop 33%
neighbour farmers 8%
relying on own experience
26%
Where does farmer get information how to use input material in Kolakkanatham? (n=25) (more than one answer is possible)
88
Graph 6.26 Source of technical advice in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur
6.2.9 MAIN FINDINGS
Agricultural practices and technologies in the research locations differ according to several
variables. Generally speaking we can say that in Kolakkanatham cultivating cotton means
reaching as high yields as possible, no matter the level of inputs used. In Kolakkanatham 32%
of the respondents used solely chemical fertilizers for maintaining the fertility of their soil.
The level and quantities of fertilizer applications in this village were much higher than in
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur, where 75% of the respondents were applying fertilizers
only once per season.
In Kolakkanatham village only genetically modified cotton seeds were cultivated, while in
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur only 6 farmers cultivated solely GM cotton seeds. In
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur farmers continued to grow diverse variety of crops on their
fields and were not strictly following one crop pattern like in Kollakanatham, where 80% of
the respondents were cultivating only maize on the rest of their land.
Regarding food self-sufficiency there was no farmer in the research locations that cultivated
all the food needed for his/her household.
Crop rotation practice was still present and widely used in both villages, while intercropping
technique was used solely by the farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur cultivating
LRA hybrid cotton and Bengal grams in between.
Regarding pest control techniques chemical pesticides were used in both research location,
although one could still find 20% of the respondents in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur not
using any chemical pesticides at all. Moreover the awareness of harmful effects of pesticide
application was much more present in these two villages, where 50% of the respondents
advertisement 5%
agricultural expert 14%
cotton collector 5%
local input shop 25%
neighbour farmers 14%
relying on own experience
28%
grandparents knowledge 6%
unknown 3%
Where does farmer get information how to use input material in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur? (n=20) (more than one answer is possible)
89
applied pesticides on their land less than three times per season. In Kolakkanatham 76% of
the respondents were applying the pesticides more than five times per season. Furthermore it
seems that in Kolakkanatham the level of pesticide application was not decreasing, although
all the farmers were cultivating genetically modified cotton. According to the proponents
(Manjunath in Kooistra, 2006) of GM seeds a reduction in insecticide applications should
follow, but in our case not.
6.3. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF COTTON CULTIVATION
As the households’ food self-reliance and sustainable use of natural resources were already
discussed in previous part of the chapter, in this part in order to discuss farmers' livelihood
outcomes while applying a set of agricultural practices and technologies my main interest is
to estimate the cotton farmers' income of the season 2012-2013.
While transcribing the interviews for the first time, I reconstructed their sets of agricultural
activities and tried to calculate all the expenses farmers make, while cultivating cotton. Very
soon it became clear that this is not an easy task, as the majority of the farmers was not
systematically calculating all the costs or making some kind of a final estimation of the real
profit or loss at the end of each season. So, even though I tried my best to do a reliable
estimation and calculation of their expenses, I am aware of the lack of precision in this
monetary reconstruction.
The reconstruction of farmers' expenses was done through several variables that focused on
the costs of 2012-2013 cotton season.
6.3.1 SIZE OF THE LAND UNDER COTTON
According to the sizes of the farmer’s land under cotton cultivation we see that in
Kolakkanatham most farmers were cultivating cotton on 2 acres of land with some having
larger fields also. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur on the other hand cotton acreage
differed more widely.
90
Graph 6.27 Acreage under cotton in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.28 Acreage under cotton in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
After calculating the shares of the land under cotton cultivation in relation to total farmers’
land, I can add, that the majority of the farmers in the latter two villages were growing cotton
on less than half of their total size of the land. This can be further on explained with the
prevailing crop pattern in the villages.
% of the farmer's land under cotton cultivation number of farmers
< 25 % 0
from 25% to < 50% 9
from 50% to < 75% 10
from 75% to ≤ 1 6
Table 6.1 Share of the land under cotton cultivation in relation to total farmer's land in Kolakkanatham in year
2012-2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 acres
Size of the land (in acres) under cotton cultivation in Kolakkanatham (n=25)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 acres
Size of the land (in acres) under cotton cultivation in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur (n=20)
91
% of the farmer's land under cotton cultivation number of farmers
< 25 % 6
from 25% to < 50% 8
from 50% to < 75% 3
from 75% to ≤ 1 3
Table 6.2 Share of the land under cotton cultivation in relation to total farmer's land in Kanthasamypuram &
Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
6.3.2 COTTON YIELDS
I calculated the average quantity of harvested cotton in kilograms per acre in season 2012-
2013. In Kolakkanatham farmers most often reported harvesting 600-800 kg of cotton per
acre, while in the other two villages farmers most often reported to get yields of less than 200
kg of cotton per acre.
Graph 6.29 Cotton yields per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.30 Cotton yields per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
< 200 kg 200 to< 400kg 400 to< 600 kg 600 to< 800 kg 800 to< 1000 kg 1000 to< 1200 kg 1200 to< 1400 kg
Cotton yields per acre in Kolakkanatham (n=25)
0
2
4
6
8
10
< 200 kg 200 to< 400 kg 400 to< 600 kg 600 to< 800 kg 800 to< 1000 kg 1000 to< 1200 kg 1200 to< 1400 kg
Cotton yields per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur last year (n=20)
92
If we further on calculate average yield in kilograms per acre in each research locations in
year 2012-2013, we see the difference clearly. In Kolakkanatham, regarding the respondents
we were speaking to, average yield is 718,2 kg per acre while in Kanthasamypuram and
Palaniyur the average yield per acre is 308.9 kg.
6.3.3 COTTON PRICE
While speaking with the farmers about the market price for cotton after the harvest in season
2012-2013, the majority of the farmers told us that the price for cotton was between 40 and
50 rupees per kg in Kolakkanatham. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the majority of the
farmers was selling cotton for the price between 30 and 40 rupees per kg.
Some farmers were very critical about fluctuating cotton prices while speaking with us:
Last year the price for 1kg of cotton was fluctuating a lot. At one time the farmer could get 30 rupees
per kg, then 50 rupees, but at the end of the season the price increased even to 70 rupees. At that time, I didn't
have any cotton left. (Interview 55, 4.12.2013)
The government of Tamil Nadu should collect cotton directly from the farmers and should fix the price
for cotton too. Now the middle-men are fixing the price for cotton and they are earning a lot of money, buying
cotton from us and selling it again. (Interview 4, 4.10.2013)
Three days before I sold the cotton last year the price was 60 rupees for 1 kg of cotton, but when I was
selling cotton the price was 40 rupees. The fluctuations of the cotton prices are very rapid. In India there is not
enough information about the real prices for the cotton on the market. Wholesalers are the ones fixing the price
not the government. (Interview 3 1.10.2013)
In Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur we were not able to meet any cotton collector, but in
Kolakkanatham village there were some local village shops that were also collecting the
cotton at the end of the season from the farmers. First we spoke with vice-president of
Kolakkanatham village, who explained the process of cotton collection:
Local cotton collectors are cheating the farmers with prices for cotton and with measurement devices. I
have personally requested the Perambalur Collector18 that the government provide a storage place for cotton
near Kolakkanatham village, but the private shop owners used their political connections and prevented this
from happening. Of course this means a profit for them. But the government should start monitoring how the
payments and measurements are done when the cotton is collected. Perambalur Collector should at least visit
18 Collector is the chief administrator in the district government.
93
local cotton collection places. This is how some changes could be realized. (Interview 23, vice-president of
Kolakkanatham village, 23.10.2013)
We also spoke with female farmer in Kolakkanatham (Interview 9, 10.10.2013) on this matter
and she explained that local cotton collectors present a problem for the farmers, but that
farmers don't really have much choice. At least, she said, what is evolving now among the
farmers is awareness:
Slowly, while farmers' children are growing and getting more educated in reading and calculating,
farmers are becoming more and more aware of these things. They have started calculating on their own too, as
their children are helping them. Also some of the farmers have bought measurement devices, so the farmers are
able to weight the cotton on their own. When the local shop owners or local cotton collectors come, the farmers
already know the weight of their cotton yield. So in this way they can compare and know when they are being
cheated. (Interview 9, 10.10.2013)
Vice-president of Kolakkanatham also told us that local cotton collectors don't allow other
collectors to come inside the village to collect cotton;
Local cotton collectors that are living in the village are sending cotton to Namakal district. There are
many cotton whole sale merchants who are able to pay immediately for cotton and then this money is also given
very quickly to the farmers. Perambalur, on the other hand, indeed has a government owned collecting place for
cotton, but the difficulty for cotton farmers from Kolakkanatham is to transport the cotton there. Moreover the
money is not given immediately in this government owned collecting place. For this reason farmers are selling
their cotton to cotton collectors inside the village. (Interview 23, vice-president of Kolakkanatham village,
23.10.2013)
While speaking with local input sellers who also buy cotton from farmers in Kolakkanatham,
we asked how the cotton prices are set and why they fluctuate so much within a season:
Last year the price for cotton was changing from 30 to 55 rupees per 1 kg. I am collecting the cotton
from the farmers and transporting and selling it to the factories – there the prices for cotton are fixed. Factory
owners are also responsible for paying the costs of transportion. The cotton that is of good quality, that is
dominantly white, fetches higher price. But there also exists one person more between me and the factories, a
middle-man in Trichy. We cooperate and coordinate this together. Usually farmers get ½ of the money when
cotton is collected and brought to me. When the cotton is delivered to the factory and sold further on, I receive
the additional money that I give to the farmers and a complete payment for the cotton is done. (Interview 30,
30.10.2013)
94
I know the price for cotton through the newspapers. Usually the spinning mills fix the price for 1kg of
cotton. I usually call them and tell them how many produced cotton is available and then they discuss and fix the
price. Afterwards there is also a meeting of cotton collectors in the village. We fix the price together, so the
price will not differ in the village among the cotton collectors. There are three cotton collectors in the village.
(Interview 35, 5.11.2013)
6.3.4 SEED COSTS
In general the price for one package (450 grams) of genetically modified cotton seeds the
farmers were buying in Kolakkanatham, was around 850 Indian Rupees (INR). The price for
these seeds was fluctuating from 800 to 930 INR per package, according to farmers' answers.
In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the farmers were cultivating other types of cotton seeds;
farmers growing genetically modified cotton seeds were paying from 930 to 980 INR per
package and the farmers growing LRA hybrid cotton seeds used to pay from 60 to 100 INR
for 1 kg of seeds.
The calculation of the overall costs for the cotton seeds was done according to how many
packages of cotton seeds a farmer needed to buy in relation to the size of the land under
cotton and the amount of seed packages farmer chose to sow per 1 acre.
Graph 6.31 Total costs for cotton seeds per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
< 400 rupees 400 to< 800 800 to< 1200 1200 to< 1600 1600 to< 2000 2000 to< 2400
Total costs (in INR) for the seeds per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013 (n=25)
95
Graph 6.32 Total costs for cotton seeds per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012- 2013
Generally speaking in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur farmers had smaller costs with
buying cotton seeds, because not all the farmers were cultivating genetically modified and the
most expensive type of cotton seeds like in Kolakkanatham.
6.3.5 FERTILIZER COSTS
Two farmers in Kolakkanatham were not able to give us any information about the costs they
had last year with buying and applying fertilizers, while in Kanthsamypuram and Palaniyur
three farmers were not using chemical fertilizers at all. For all the other farmers I calculated
the average amount of money spend for the fertilizers per acre in season 2012-2013. This was
done as a calculation of the number of packages of fertilizers farmers were applying per acre,
frequency and amount of application, size of the land under cotton and the prices for different
types of fertilizers.
Graph 6.33 Total costs for fertilizers per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
< 400 rupees 400 to< 800 800 to< 1200 1200 to< 1600 1600 to< 2000 2000 to< 2400
Total costs (in INR) for the seeds per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012- 2013 (n=20)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
< 1400 rupees 1400 to< 2800 2800 to< 4200 4200 to< 5600 5600 to< 7000 7000 and more
Total costs (in INR) for fertilizers per acre in Kolakkanatham (n=25)
96
Graph 6.34 Total costs for fertilizers per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Farmers in Kolakkanatham were spending much more money in general for buying chemical
fertilizers than farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur. This could be explained by the
fact, that in Kolakkanatham most of the farmers were applying fertilizers three times per
season on their land, while in other two villages farmers most often applied them only once.
Also if I mention again, the quantities of fertilizers applied per acre in one time application
differ among these villages. In Kolakkanatham farmers most often reported on applying five
packages of fertilizers or more per acre, while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur farmers
most often mentioned applying two packages of fertilizers per acre in one time application.
The reasons for these variations within three villages could be that farmers in Kolakkanatham
relied much more on input seller's advice and advertisements, almost half of the respondents
in this village also didn't own cattle anymore, so they didn't have an access to cost-free
manure for maintaining soil fertility. Perhaps because of high prices of the GM cotton seeds
farmers rather apply more fertilizers in order not to risk crop failure or perhaps the soil
quality was much lower in Kolakkanatham than in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur.
0123456789
< 1400 1400 to< 2800 2800 to< 4200 4200 to< 5600 5600 to< 7000 7000 rupees andmore
Total costs (in INR) for fertilizers per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur (n=20)
97
3.6 PESTICIDE COST
It was rather difficult to calculate the total costs of pesticide usage. The farmers hardly
remembered what types of pesticides they were applying and what were the quantities or
levels of pesticide application. It became clear, especially in the case of Kolakkanatham
village that the advice and instructions for pesticide usage given from the local input sellers
were taken for granted. The awareness to be careful in using chemical pesticides or the need
to prevent excessive contacts with the chemicals by the farmers or hired workers was very
low or totally absent. Most of the farmers in Kolakkanatham were very confident in using
chemicals, some of them claiming that the more chemicals you use the better it is.
All in all I tried to calculate the costs from the information the farmers were able to give. In
Kolakkanatham one farmer was not able to give us any information on at least partial costs of
using chemical pesticides, in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur there were two farmers like
this. Besides, four of the farmers in these two villages were not using any chemical pesticides
on their cotton crops.
Graph 6.35 Total costs for pesticides per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
< 1000 rupees 1000 to< 2000 2000 to< 3000 3000 to< 4000 4000 rupees and more
Total costs (in INR) for the pesticide usage per acre in Kolakkanatham (n=25)
98
Graph 6.36 Total costs for pesticides per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Again we can see that farmers in Kolakkanatham were spending much more money for
buying chemical pesticides than farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur. This could be
explained by the fact that in Kolakkanatham most of the farmers were applying pesticides
five times per season or more, while in other two villages most of the farmers were applying
pesticides less than three times. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur four farmers were not
using chemical pesticide on their cotton crops at all.
6.3.7 LABOUR COSTS
Yes I am hiring the labourers for the work on the fields, but it is hard to predict in advance how many
labourers I will need. (Karunanithi, 22.10.2013)
Depending on the number of family members being able or prepared to work and on farmer's
financial situation, farmers were hiring labourers to work especially for weeding and
harvesting activities. Last year the price for hiring a labourer for one day was 150 INR in
Kolakkanatham. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the wage of the labourer was 110 INR
per day. Generally speaking farmers were usually hiring from two to twenty people to work
on their fields, depending also on the availability of people that day being prepared to work
on other people's land.
Calculating total costs of hiring labourers by the farmers last year was difficult. Farmers
usually hired workers for planting the seeds, applying fertilisers, weeding, applying pesticides
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
< 1000 rupees 1000 to< 2000 2000 to< 3000 3000 to< 4000 4000 rupees and more
Total costs (in INR) for the pesticide usage per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur (n=20)
99
or picking the cotton. Mostly farmers didn't have a clear overview on how much money they
spent last year on hiring the labourers, how many people they hired and for how many days
they needed help on the their fields. If I make a rough estimation after all the calculations
done, the farmers were paying in one season on average 10.000 rupees for hiring labourers
per acre of cotton in Kolakkanatham, while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur, the farmers
were paying on the average 6.000 rupees per acre for hiring labourers.
Photo 6.7 One of the farmers in Kolakkanatham with the hired labourers during the lunch break
One of the wealthiest and respected farmers in Kolakkanatham village explained his specific
way of hiring labourers when needed;
The wages of the labourers depend upon how much kg of cotton they pick. For 1kg of harvested cotton
I pay 10 rupees. The labourer can pick from 10 to 20kg of cotton per day. Sometimes I call a labourer and we
agree how much he/she will pick in a day for a certain price – it is like a contract. I am paying the labourer 150
rupees to remove the weeds. But sometimes this level for wages can be lower or higher, this depends upon many
things. Just to give an example, now it is a rainy season, so there is not so much labourers available, because
many of them also want to work on their own land. Sometimes I also need to call the labourers from the
neighbour villages: so in this case I sometimes need to pay more. (Interview 25, 28.10.2013)
6.3.8 COSTS FOR RENTING MACHINERY
All the farmers in Kolakkanatham, Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur that we were speaking
with were renting a tractor for preparing the land. One hour of renting a tractor on the average
costs from 400 to 450 INR in Kolakkanatham, while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the
price ranged from 400 to 500 INR.
Some of the farmers also didn't own the pesticide application machine, so they were hiring a
labourer who owned a machine to come each time when they needed to apply the pesticides
100
on their cotton crops. Usually farmers needed to pay additional 30 INR per 1 tank of pesticide
mixture application on their land.
Graph 6.37 Total costs for renting machinery in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.38 Total costs for renting machinery in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
6.3.9 MAIN FINDINGS
I got the estimations of farmers’ final earnings for 2012-2013 cotton cultivation season after
reducing the costs for seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, hired labour and rented machinery from
the amount of money farmers received after selling harvested cotton on the market. I haven’t
discussed these estimations with the farmers, but during the interviews I have asked each
0123456789
10
< 1000 rupees 1000 to< 2000 2000 to< 3000 3000 to< 4000 4000 rupees and more
Total costs (in INR) of renting machinery per acre in Kolakkanatham (n=25)
0123456789
10
< 1000 rupees 1000 to< 2000 2000 to< 3000 3000 to< 4000 4000 rupees and more
Total costs (in INR) of renting machinery per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur (n=20)
101
farmer to do a rough estimation of the earned money for 2012-2013 cotton season by
himself/herself. Farmer’s estimations mostly didn’t match with my final calculations.
Graph 6.39 Farmer’s personal estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.40 My estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
If I make a comparison between farmers’ personal estimations and my estimations for 2012-
2013 cotton season in Kolakkanatham, I can say, that my estimations of their total earnings
are in general lower than those in comparison with the farmers'. For example 12 farmers
expressed their belief that they earned from five to fifteen thousand INR with cultivating
cotton in 2012-2013. My estimations showed that only 8 farmers did so. Meaning that one
third of the farmers earned less than what they believed.
012345678
loss no profit < 5 5 to< 10 10 to< 15 15 to< 20 20 to< 25 25 and more
Farmer's personal estimations of earnings (per acre) of 2012-2013 cotton season in Kolakkanatham (n=25)
in thousand Rupees
0
2
4
6
8
loss no profit < 5 5 to< 10 10 to< 15 15 to< 20 20 to< 25 25 and more
My estimations of earnings (per acre) of 2012-2013 cotton season in Kolakkanatham (n=25)
in thousand Rupees
102
Graph 6.41 Farmer’s personal estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur
in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.46 My estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur in year 2012-
2013
If I make a comparison between farmers’ personal estimations and my estimations for 2012-
2013 season in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur and if my calculations are not mistaken, I
can repeat that many farmers were not aware that they were making loss while cultivating
cotton on their fields. Seven farmers didn’t have any idea about estimating their earnings for
2012-2013 cotton season and only five farmers expressed their worries by saying they didn’t
get any profit last year or that they were facing loss. According to my calculations twelve
farmers were facing loss in these two villages.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
loss no profit < 5 5 to< 10 10 to< 15 15 to< 20 20 to< 25 25 and more not known
Farmer's personal estimations of earnings (per acre) of 2012-2013 cotton season in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur (n=20)
in thousand Rupees
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
loss no profit < 5 5 to< 10 10 to< 15 15 to< 20 20 to< 25 25 and more not known
My estimations of earnings (per acre) of 2012-2013 cotton season in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur (n=20)
in thousand Rupees
103
According to my calculations therefore almost one third of the farmers in Kolakkanatham and
two thirds of the farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur were facing losses in year
2012-2013. Of those farmers in Kolakkanatham who did not make a loss were generally
getting higher profits than farmers in other two villages. Most of the farmers also agreed, that
the input costs for cultivating cotton are increasing and that cotton yields of the last year
season were not good because of rain scarcity.
Since I have started growing genetically modified cotton seeds the yields are higher, but so are the
expenditures. This year I reduced the land under cotton, because last year I was not satisfied with the income.
The soil fertility is declining and so are the yields. (Interview 55, 4.12.2013)
All the costs (inputs, tractor rent, hiring labourers) are increasing. Ten years ago we were not renting
a tractor, but preparing the land with plough and cattle. We needed to pay for this only 200 rupees. Also at that
time the total costs of the seeds was only 300 rupees. These days all the prices are going up. (Interview 9,
10.10.2013)
104
7. CONCLUSIONS
Seventh chapter is a concluding chapter, where I present theoretical reflections, answers to
my main research questions and other sub-questions and at end discuss on areas for further
studies.
7.1 THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS
SRLA offered a very solid basis for approaching my research problematic. It was a valuable
tool that offered an insight into multi-layered interactions agricultural reality is made of. But
for the purpose of my research combining SRLA with the concepts of Agro-ecology seemed
necessary for defining sustainability of agricultural practice itself. Field level principles of
Agro-ecology were used for defining variables according to which agricultural practices and
technologies were reconstructed. Agro-ecology also offered valuable criteria when risk and
opportunity context was discussed. It seems that SRLA alone could not offer tools and
concepts needed for discussing social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability
regarding the evolution of agricultural technology that was the primary concern of my thesis.
Otherwise wider criteria for risk and opportunity evaluation would be missing apart from
solely economic one.
The limitation of SRLA is according to these study related to the assumption 'that agriculture
is no longer a major source of sustainability in rural livelihoods' (Amekawa, 2011: 142).
Agro-ecology approach in this respect represents a paradigm shift in studying agricultural
reality of the farmers as it is not solely interested into increasing efficiency of the farm. Most
of all it is concerned with the environmental sustainability aspect of agricultural practices and
technologies itself addressing key forces of agricultural crisis caused by the long-term
conventional agricultural management. According to Agro-ecology monocultures, excessive
use of off-farm inputs controlled by the agribusiness, intensifying agricultural practices and
high capital requirements are the key forces causing global agricultural crisis. The debt trap
the farmers are caught in is seen as a result of the high costs of inputs and machinery on one
hand and ecological basis of declining yields on the other hand - or the very reduction of
functional biodiversity of agro-ecosystems. Agro-ecology suggests the design of complex
agricultural systems in which 'ecological interactions and synergisms between biological
105
components replace inputs to provide the mechanisms for sponsoring soil fertility,
productivity and crop protection' (Altieri & Rosset, 2008: 289).
7.2 ANSWERS TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The first sub-question framed in chapter 3 was:
What is the socio-economic profile of farmers applying various agricultural practices and
technologies in growing cotton?
Socio-economic profiles of cotton farmers in Kolakkanatham, Kanthasamypuram and
Palaniyur differed according to education levels, selected crop pattern, crop diversity,
participation in educational workshops on chemical-free farming activities and road
infrastructure. In Kolakkanatham generally speaking farmers possessed lower levels of
formal education, the cotton-maize was the prevailing crop pattern, crop diversity on the
fields was small but the village road infrastructure was much better than in comparison to
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur. In these two villages farmers had higher levels of
education, were cultivating more diverse crops on their fields and there was no dominant crop
pattern among the cotton farmers that we were speaking with. Also some of the farmers in
these two villages (one third of the respondents) were involved in educational activities about
chemical free cotton farming organized recently by the local NGO. But as mentioned before
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur were not easy accessible by the road.
The second sub-question was:
How do various agricultural practices and technologies used by farmers growing cotton
differ?
Agricultural practices and technologies in Kolakkanatham, Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur
differed according to the types and levels of inputs used. In Kolakkanatham the level and
quantity of fertilizers and pesticides applied on the fields per acre was much higher than in
Kanthsamypuram and Palaniyur. Also the farmers in Kolakkanatham were growing only
genetically modified cotton seeds and the cotton-maize crop pattern was a prevailing one. In
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur half of the respondents already started cultivating
genetically modified cotton seeds, some of them keep continuing to grow hybrid varieties of
cotton seeds besides. While crop rotation was still being practiced in all the villages,
106
intercropping techniques were used only in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur by farmers
growing LRA cotton hybrids and Bengal grams in between. Generally speaking farmers in
Kolakkanatham were trying to achieve as high yields as possible, while farmers in
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur had much higher awareness of possible harmful effects of
intensifying level of agricultural practices in the long run. Also the crop-livestock integration
was much better in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur as 90% of the respondents were owning
cattle, while in Kolakkanatham already 44% of the respondents were not owning cattle
anymore. In Kolakkanatham 53% of the answers were also indicating advice and information
from local input shops and advertisements as their sources of advice regarding the level of
inputs used. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur this percentage was much lower. In
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur a shift towards chemically intensive agricultural practice
was recognized by some farmers as being the easier choice in comparison to chemical-free
agricultural practices and technologies of the past. In Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur input
traders and local shops were not present inside the village, so the farmers relied much more
on their own knowledge and past experience in comparison to Kolakkanatham.
The third sub-question was:
How do farmers perceive risks and opportunities in applying various agricultural practices
and technologies while growing cotton?
Farmers in Kolakkanatham were expressing worries about rising costs of cotton production in
terms of higher prices for cotton seeds but also other inputs like fertilizers and pesticides.
Some farmers also recognized the risk in declining fertility of their soil and rising demands
for inputs in comparison to previous years. In addition the dependency on input traders for
inputs, loans and selling cotton was expressed during conversation with some of the farmers
in Kolakkanatham. But the biggest risk being most often expressed by farmers in all locations
was scarcity of rain in previous years, that was causing fluctuations of the yields. In
Kanthamypuram and Palaniyur cultivating genetically modified cotton seeds was
acknowledged as an opportunity to reach bigger yields and profits, while in Kolakkanatham
there was no other cotton seeds available from the local input shops, so the farmers didn't
really have a choice anymore in deciding which cotton seeds they will cultivate. Also in
Kolakkanatham highly chemically intensive farming was recognized as an opportunity to
reach higher yields and profits, although farmers rarely calculated and estimated their real
107
earnings at the end of the season. Farmers in Kolakkanatham also expressed their worries
about fluctuating cotton prices that were causing much of the fluctuations in their profits from
the cotton cultivation. But in some cases cotton farmers were also blaming middle-men for
lower cotton prices and frauds in weighing their cotton yields.
The fourth sub-question was:
What are the comparative livelihood outcomes among farmers using various agricultural
practices and technologies in growing cotton?
The economic performance of cotton cultivation differed among the research locations like
intensifying level of agricultural practices did. The average yield in Kolakkanatham was 718
kg of cotton per acre, while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the average was 309 kg of
cotton per acre. Here I must add that capital requirements for cotton cultivation were much
higher in Kolakkanatham as only one farmer spend less than 800 INR per acre on seeds, 80%
of the respondents were spending more than 2.800 INR per acre on fertilizers, 32% of the
respondents spend more than 2.000 INR per acre for the pesticides, not to mention the costs
for hired labour and machinery. Farmers in Kanthamypuram and Palaniyur had much lower
capital requirements for cotton cultivation as almost half of the respondents were spending
less than 800 INR per acre for the seeds, 80% of the respondents spend less than 2.800 INR
per acre for fertilizers and none of the farmers spent more than 2.000 INR per acre for
pesticides.
All in all we can say that prevailing agricultural practices and technologies in Kolakkanatham
offer the farmers involved into cotton cultivation much greater opportunities but also risks.
According to my calculations eight farmers in Kolakkanatham earned 5 to 15 thousand INR
from cotton in year 2012-2013 and five farmers earned more than 15 thousand INR. In
Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur on the other hand only three farmers earned 5 to 15
thousand INR from cotton in year 2012-2013 and three farmers earned more than 15
thousand INR.
Generally speaking farmers were not calculating their expenses and profits at the end of the
cotton seasons, so many were not aware of the final earnings or their loss. According to my
calculations almost one third of the farmers in Kolakkanatham and two thirds of the farmers
in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur that we were speaking to, were facing loss with
108
cultivating cotton in year 2012-2013. In Kolakkanatham only one farmer expressed his
worries about last year's loss and only two farmers in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur did so
too.
The four sub-questions combine into the main research question, which was formulated as:
What are the comparative risks and opportunities met by the farmers applying various
agricultural practices and technologies in growing cotton in Perambalur and Dindigul
Districts in Tamil Nadu, India?
Risks and opportunities met by the farmers applying various agricultural practices and
technologies while cultivating cotton will be discussed from three aspects of sustainability:
environmental, economic and social.
Already mentioned by the farmers themselves is the risk of rain scarcity. Hybrid LRA
cotton seeds and genetically modified Bt cotton seeds are not resistant to drought conditions
like traditional Karangani cotton seeds used to. In the time of unfavourable conditions the
scarcity of the rain results in lower cotton yields, especially if farmers grow cotton on rain-
fed fields, without having any irrigation facilities available.
Some farmers were also already mentioning declining fertility of their soil and raising
demands for off-farm inputs. According to agro-ecologists the farmers that are applying
conventional agricultural practices and technologies in the long-term very often start facing
the problem of dead, sterile, chemically poisoned soil with little organic matter. Cultivating
monocultures, genetic uniformity, elimination of natural enemies by pesticide usage are the
main causes of steady erosion of the productive base through unsustainable agricultural
practises. Symptomatic of the biologically unhealthy soil lacking sufficient amount of organic
matter is declining efficacy of fertilizers and the need to increase the quantity levels.
Besides water and soil fertility the third main pillar of agricultural production that is being
under increasing pressure is agricultural biodiversity. ‘Evidence from the green revolution
leaves no doubt that the spread of modern varieties has been an important cause of genetic
erosion, as massive government campaigns encouraged farmers to adopt these varieties and
abandon many local varieties’ (Tripp in Altieri, 1998: 11). As increasing areas are sown with
a smaller number of varieties, this is causing a genetic uniformity in rural landscapes. This in
particular ‘is a source of risk for the farmers, as the varieties may be more vulnerable to
109
disease and pest attack and most of them perform poorly in marginal environments’
(Robinson in Altieri, 1998: 11). If the agricultural systems and landscapes are diverse, they
are much more resilient to shocks and stresses with various plants, insects and other
organisms ‘helping to control pests and keep soils fertile’ (DFID in Eyhorn, 2007: 20).
Although genetically modified cotton should increase farmer's yields due to effective control
of the bollworm pests and reduce insecticide application, farmers in Kolakkanatham
cultivating Bt-cottons seeds were also applying pesticides on the average (76% of the
respondents in this village) more than 5 times. On one hand we can say that Bt cotton crop 'is
susceptible to many pests and diseases beside bollworm attacks. Although Bt cotton can
withstand bollworm attack, it is not free from other sucking pests that are commonly seen in
the early and middle stages of the crops' (Narayanamoorthy, 2006: 2719). On the other hand
it is important to note that 'resistance build-up in pest populations or growing importance of
secondary pests may potentially lower the benefits of Bt-cotton over time (Kathage & Qaim,
2012: 11654). Furthermore it is important to keep in mind that Bt-technology is not the only
option for reducing chemical pesticide usage in cotton production. Integrated pest
management that is knowledge and labour intensive was widely used to cut down chemical
pesticide use in the past. According to agro-ecologists what is most important is not to focus
on particular technologies 'but on assemblage of technologies that incorporate crop diversity,
legume-based rotations, integration of animals, recycling and use of bio-mass and residue
management' (Altieri & Rosset, 2008: 291) in order to avoid making agro-ecosystems
dependent on high chemical inputs too vulnerable.
Many of the farmers also said, that production costs are increasing in terms of
increasing prices for inputs needed for cultivating cotton. Generally speaking Bt technology
can influence cotton profits mainly through changes in the yields, changes in pesticide costs
and changes in seed costs. The average yield in Kolakkanatham was 718 kg of cotton per acre,
while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur the average yield was 309 kg per acre. In
Kolakkanatham 15 farmers were spending more than 1.000 INR per acre for the pesticides,
while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur only two farmers did so. Also the expenses for the
seeds were higher in Kolakkanatham where 24 farmers were spending more than 800 INR per
acre, while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur only 8 farmers did so. Cultivating Bt cotton,
generally speaking, increases the reliance on off-farm inputs as well as production costs, but
also increases yields.
110
Besides risk of crop failure due to weather conditions mentioned above, farmers are also
confronted with uncertainty whether cotton cultivation will be profitable for them at the end
of the season. 'Getting indebted in years when revenues are not sufficient to cover production
costs is one of the biggest threats to the cotton farmers' (Eyhorn, 2007: 129). A major risk
factor determining farmers' income is cotton price. Some of the farmers we were speaking to
complained about the fluctuations of the cotton prices and said they sometimes store the
cotton harvest and wait for cotton price to raise when they are not in a hurry to sell their
cotton.
In Kolakkanatham only 20% of the answers indicated farmers are borrowing money
from institutional resources such as bank or ACS, while in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur
only 4% of the answers indicated borrowing from ACS. Although pawnbroking seems to be
the most often used method of borrowing money in all the villages, local money lenders and
local input shop traders are also sources for borrowing money. In Kolakkanatham 44% of the
respondents had borrowed from local money lenders, while in Kanthasamypuram and
Palaniyur 75% of the respondents did so. In Kolakkanatham where local input shops are
present inside the village agribusiness agents and traders also act as new agricultural lenders.
For some of the farmers they are a source of credit, a source of agricultural inputs and
information how to use them and at the end of the season also buyers of their produce - cotton.
Since the onset of the green revolution 'productivity has been privileged over all other aspects
of agriculture and of rural social structure itself' (Vasavi, 2012:46). The transformation of
agriculture has been based on 'privileging the norms of productivity over ecological
specificity, individual farmer's success over collective empowerment and income growth over
equitable distribution of resources' (Vasavi, 2012:46). During this process long-evolved local
knowledge has lost importance, agriculture as a practice shifted from the local, ecological
embeddedness to a form of uniformity, commercialization of production, growing
homogenisation and promotion of the market orientation. Our two research locations has
shown this process very evidently. At the end what could be added is only, if the farmers
were more aware of the responsibilities that markets and fluctuations of input costs are
introducing to them through the changing condition of their main activity, they would
probably be more careful and precise in following their expenses.
111
7.3 AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY
For assessing the long-term performance of new agricultural technology and evaluating
changes in agricultural practices that accompany the adoption of genetically modified species
it is crucial to monitor the same field units and households over a prolonged period of time. It
would be valuable to go back to the same research locations and respondents after some years
and conduct similar study in order to observe changes evolving.
This is particularly relevant since questions such as dependency of the cotton yields on the
rain, declining fertility of the land, rising demand for off-farm inputs and potential resistance
build-up of bollworm pests against Bt-toxin were raised by respondents.
Furthermore another bigger sample should be included in the research, where farmers would
be applying only chemical-free agricultural practices and technologies in order to make the
comparison among different agricultural practices more evident. Also some simple
measurements should be done to evaluate the quality of the soil on the fields included.
112
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abhilash, P.C., & Singh, N. (2009). Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 165(1), 1-12.
Adato, M., Meinzen-Dick, R.S. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research
on poverty using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. EPTD Discussion Paper 89.
Washington, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Aktar, W., Chowdhury, A., & Sengupta, D. (2009). Impact of pesticide use in agriculture:
their benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2(1), 1-12.
Altieri, M. (1989). Agroecology: A New Research and Development Paradigm for World
Agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 27, 37 – 46.
Altieri, M.A. (1998). The environmental risks of transgenic crops: an agro-ecological
asessment. Pesticides and You, Spring/Summer, 10-15, Retrieved from:
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pesticidesandyou/Spring%20and%20S
ummer%2098/The%20Environmental%20Risks%20of%20Transgenic%20Crops.pdf,
(date of access: 22.4.2013).
Altieri, M., & Rosset, P. (1999). Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world. AgBioForum,
2(3&4), 155 – 162.
Altieri, M. (2002). Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor
farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 93, 1–
24.
Altieri, M., & Toledo, V. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing
nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant
Studies, 38(3), 587 – 612.
113
Amekawa, Y., Sseguya, H., Onzere, S., & Carranza, I. (2010). Delineating the
Multifunctional Role of Agroecological Practices: Toward Sustainable Livelihoods
for Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture,
34(2), 202 -228.
Amekawa, Y. (2011). Agroecology and Sustainable Livelihoods: Towards an Integrated
Approach to Rural Development, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35(2), 118 –
162.
Axinn, W.G., & Pearce, L.D. (2006). Mixed Methods Data Collection Strategies. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Baffes, John (2011). Cotton Subsidies, the WTO, and the ‘Cotton Problem’. The World
Economy, 34(9), 1534-1556.
Becker, H.S. (1998). Tricks of the Trade: how to think about your research while you are
doing it. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press.
Berrada, A.F., Shivaku, B.G., & Yaduraju, N.T. (2007). Chickpea in cropping systems. In S.
Yadav, R. Redden. W. Chen, & B. Sharma (Eds.), Chickpea Breeding and
Managment. Retrieved from:
http://www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/fcrops/1289__NOHUT.pdf, (date of access: 14.2.2015).
Birthal, P.S. (2003). Economic Potential of Biological Substitutes for Agrochemicals.
National Centre for agricultural Economics and Policy Research.
Central Institute for Cotton Research. All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project.
(2012). Annual Report 2012-13. Retrieved from:
http://aiccip.cicr.org.in/CD_12_13/2_PC_report.pdf, (date of access: 2.2.2015).
Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice. NYU School Of Law. (2011). Every thirty
Minutes: Farmer Suicides, Human Rights and the Agrarian Crisis in India. Retrieved
from: http://www.chrgj.org/publications/docs/every30min.pdf, (date of access:
19.6.2013).
114
Cleaver, H.M. (1972). The contradictions of the Green Revolution. The American Economic
Review, 62(2), 177–186.
Dalrymple, D.G. (1985). The Development and Adoption of High-Yielding Varieties of
Wheat and Rice in Developing Countries. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 67(5), 1067-1073.
Davies, C.A. (2008). Reflexive Ethnography. New York, USA: Routledge.
Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management,
39(1), 118 – 128.
Ellis, F. (2000) Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing countries. New York, USA:
Oxford.
Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s – 2000s.
Development Policy Review, 19(4). 437 – 448.
Eyhorn, F. (2007). Organic farming for sustainable livelihoods in developing countries? The
case of cotton in India. Zurich, Switzerland: Vdf.
FAO. (2005). Fertilizer use by crop in India. Retrieved from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0257e/A0257E00.htm#TOC. (date of access:
2.2.2015).
Falck-Zepeda, J., Cohen, J., Meinzen-Dick, R. & Komen, J. (2002). Biotechnology and
Sustainable Livelihoods – Findings and recommendations of an International
Consultation. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).
Gill, A., Singh, L. (2006). Farmer’s Suicides and Response of Public Policy: Evidence,
Diagnosis and Alternatives from Punjab. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(26),
2762 – 2768.
Gliessman, S. (2012). Agroecology and Shifting Paradigms. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 36(5), 499 – 499.
Gupta, P.K. (2004). Pesticide exposure – Indian Scene. Toxicology, 198(1), 83 - 90.
115
Harris, J., Jeyaranjan, J., & Nagaraj, K. (2010). Land, Labour and Caste politics in Rural
Tamil Nadu in 20th Century: Iruvelpattu (1916 – 2008). Economic & Political Weekly,
45(31), 47 – 61.
Harris-White, B., & Janakarajan, S. (2004). Rural India Facing the 21st Century. London,
England: Anthem Press.
Harris-White, B., & Shah, A. (2011). Resurrecting Scholarship on Agrarian Transformations.
Economic & Political Weekly, 46(39), 13 – 18.
ICAC. (2010). Cotton: Review of the world situation. 63(6), Retrieved from:
http://www.denib.gov.tr/files/downloads/icac/erev_august10.pdf, (date of access:
7.2.2015).
ICAC. (2010). Factors influencing the use of pesticide in cotton in India. Retrieved from:
https://www.icac.org/seep/documents/reports/2010_india.pdf, (date of access:
9.2.2015).
ICAC. (2012). Cotton: Review of the world situation. 65(5) Retrieved from:
https://www.icac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ERev_june.pdf, (date of access:
11.2.2015).
India. Government of India. Ministry of Agriculture. Agriculture Census Division. (2014).
Agriculture Census 2010-2011. Retrieved from:
http://agcensus.nic.in/document/agcensus2010/completereport.pdf, (date of access:
22.1.2015).
India. Government of India. Ministry of Agriculture. Department of Agriculture &
Cooperation. (2013). Agriculture Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://agricoop.nic.in/Agristatisticsnew.html, (date of access: 10.2.2015).
India. Government of India. Ministry of Agriculture. Department of Agriculture &
Cooperation. Directorate of Economics and Statistics. (2013). Agricultural Statistics
at a Glance. Retrieved from: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Publication12-12-
2013/Agricultureat%20a%20Glance2013/page24-89.pdf, (date of access: 26.1.2015).
116
India. Government of India. Ministry of Agriculture. Plant Protection Information Network.
(2010). Statistics of Pesticides. Retrieved from:
http://ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides_Cont.htm, (date of access: 19.1.2015).
India. Government of India. Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. Department of Fertilizers.
(2014). Indian Fertilizer Scenario 2013. Retrieved from:
http://fert.nic.in/sites/default/files/Indian%20Fertilizer%20SCENARIO-2014.pdf ,
(date of access: 4.2.2015).
India. Government of Tamil Nadu. Agricultural Department (2013, April). Performance
Budget 2013-2014. Retrieved from:
http://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/files/documents/Agriculture.pdf, (date of access:
18.1.2015).
India. Government of Tamil Nadu. Dindigul District. (n.d.) Dindigul Profile. Retrieved from:
http://dindigul.nic.in/, (date of access: 15.3.2015).
India. Government of Tamil Nadu. Perambalur District. (n.d.) District at Glance. Retrieved
from: http://www.perambalur.tn.nic.in/District_at_Glance.html, (date of access:
26.3.2015).
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward Definition of Mixed
Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Kathage, J., & Qaim, M. (2012). Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
109(29), 11652-11656.
Kooistra, K., Pyburn, R., & Termorhuizen, A. (2006). The Sustainability of cotton.
Consequences for man and environment. Report, 223.
Kouser, S., & Qaim, M. (2011). Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder
agriculture: A panel data analysis. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 2105-2113.
Krishna, A., & Pieterse, J.N. (2008). Hierarchical Integration: The Dollar Economy and the
Rupee Economy. Development and Change, 39(2), 219-237.
117
Kumaraswamy, S. (2012). Sustainability issues in agro-ecology: socio-ecological perspective.
Agricultural Sciences, 3(2), 153 – 169.
Kumbamu, A. (2006), Ecological Modernization and the ‘Gene Revolution’: The Case Study
of Bt Cotton in India. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 17(4), 7-31.
Kumbamu, A. (2012). The Agri-food Sector’s Response to the Triple Crisis: Sustaining local
social initiatives in Andhra Pradesh, India. Development, 55(1), 104-111.
Kunwar, J., & Shiva, V. (2005). Farmers suicides in India. New Delhi, India: Research
Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.
Lerche, J. (2011). Agrarian Crisis and Agrarian Questions in India. Journal of Agrarian
Change, 11, 104 – 118.
Madison, D.S. (2005). Critical Ethnography. London, England: Sage.
McKinney, K. (2012). Troubling notions of farmer choice: hybrid Bt cotton seed production
in western India. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(2), 351-378.
McMichael, P. (2006). Peasant prospects in the neoliberal age. New Political Economy,
11(3): 407-418.
McMichael, P. (2000). The power of food. Agriculture and human values, 17, 21-33.
Mendez, V.E., Bacon, C.M., & Cohen, R. (2013). Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary,
Participatory and Action-Oriented Approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, 37(1), 3 – 18.
Narayanamoorthy, A., & Kalamkar, S.S. (2006). Is Bt Cotton Cultivation Economically
Viably for Indian Farmers? An Empirical Analysis. Economic and Political Weekly,
41(26), 2716-2724.
O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. London, England: Routledge.
Parayil, G. (1992). The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change.
Technology and Culture, 33(4), 737 – 756.
118
Parayil, G. (2003). Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene
Revolution from modernization to globalization. Research Policy, 32(6), 971 – 990.
Patnaik, U. (1996). Export-Oriented Agriculture and Food Security in Developing Countries
and India. Economic and Political Weekly, 31 (35/37), 2429-2449.
Patnaik, U. (2005). The agrarian market constrain in India after fourteen years of economic
reforms and trade liberalisation. Journal of South Asian Studies, 28 (2), 233-247.
Pemsl, D.E., Voelker, M., Wu, L., & Waibel, H. (2011). Long term impact of Bt cotton:
findings from a case study in Chine using panel data. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability. 9(4), 508-521.
Prabu, M.J. (2013, October 17). A sustainable model for small and marginal ryots. The Hindu,
pp. 15.
Prabu, M.J. (2013, December 5). Creating a transparent market for cotton growers. The
Hindu, pp. 9.
Pray, C. E. (1981). The Green Revolution as a case study in transfer of technology. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 458(1), 68-80.
Prithiani, R. (2013, October 7). Potash market: India to gain from global shake-up. The Hindu,
pp.14.
Pyati, A.T. (2013, September 3). Desi cotton set for a revival. Deccan Herald, pp.2.
Qaim, M. (2003). Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections. World
Development, 31(12), 2115-2127.
Qayum, A., & Sakkhari, K. (2003). Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long
impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh.
Hyderabad, India: AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity and Deccan Development
Society.
Reddy, D.N., & Mishra, S. (Eds.). (2010). Agrarian Crisis in India. New Delhi, India: Oxford
University Press.
119
Rosset, P., & Altieri, M. (2008). Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental
contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society & Natural Resources: An
International Journal, 10(3), 283 – 295.
Saravanan, S.P. (2013, October 9) Children of Bt-cotton. The Hindu, pp.18.
Schensul, S.L., Schensul, J.J., & LeCompte, M.D. (1999). Essential Ethnographic Methods –
Observations, Interviews and Questionnaires. USA: Altamira.
Scoones, I. (2005). Science, agriculture and the politics of policy, The case of bio-technology
in India. New Delhi, India: Orient Longman.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working
Paper 72, Brighton, England : Institute for Development Studies.
Scoones, I. (2007). Sustainability. Development in Practice, 17(4/5), 589 - 596.
Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant
Studies, 36(1), 171-196.
Sharma, V.P., & Thaker, H. (2011). Demand for Fertilizer in India, Determinants and
Outlook for 2020. Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management.
Shiva, V. (1993). The Violence of the Green Revolution. London, England: Zed Books.
Singh, S. (2004). Crisis and Diversification in Punjab Agriculture Role of State and
Agribusiness. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(52), 25 – 31.
Stone, G.D. (2011). Field versus Farm in Warangal: Bt Cotton, Higher Yields and Larger
Questions. World Development, 39(3), 387-398.
Swaminathan M.S. ( 2013, November 1) Many strides in food security. The Hindu, pp.13.
Tang, Q., Bennett, S. J., Xu, Y., & Li, Y. (2013). Agricultural practices and sustainable
livelihoods: Rural transformation within the Loess Plateau, China. Applied
Geography, 41, 15-23.
120
The Cotton Corporation of India. (2014). Area, production and productivity of cotton.
Retrieved from: http://cotcorp.gov.in/statistics.aspx?pageid=5#area1, (date of access:
2.2.2015).
Trautmann, R.R. (2012). India: A Brief History of a Civilization. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Vasavi, A.R. (2009). Suicides and the making of India’s agrarian distress. South African
Review of Sociology, 40(1), 94 - 108.
Vasavi, A.R. (2012). Shadow Space, Suicides and the Predicament of Rural India. New Delhi,
India : Three Essays Collective.
Walker, K. L. M. (2008). Neoliberalism on the ground in rural India: predatory growth,
agrarian crisis, internal colonization, and the intensification of class struggle. The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 35(4), 557-620.
Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Dore, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., & David, C. (2009). Agroecology as
a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 29 (4), 503 – 515.
WWF. (2012) Cotton Market and Sustainability in India. Retrieved from:
http://awsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/cotton_market_and_sustainability_in_india.
pdf,(date of access: 25.6.2013).
121
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
LIST OF THE RESPONDENTS
N sex AGE DATE LOCATION METHODS
1 M
around 40
8.9.2013
KABINI project site, Mysore region, Karnataka
participative observation, open interview
2
F
around 40
1.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, Tamil Nadu (TN)
observation, structured interview
3
M
66
1.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
4
M
40
4.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
5
M
51
5.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
6
M
32
5.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
7
F
50
8.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
8
M
45
9.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
9
F
40
10.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
10
F M M
35 50 65
10.10.2013
Saramangalam, (TN)
observation, open (group) interview
11
M
around 40
10.10.2013
Trichy, (TN)
informal interview
12
M
53
15.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
13
M
67
15.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
14
M
around 75
16.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
15
M
around 45
16.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
open interview
16
M
55
17.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
17
M
61
17.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
18
M
58
18.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
19
M
59
21.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
20
M
62
21.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
21
M
55
22.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
22
M
62
23.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
23
M
around 50
23.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
open interview
122
24 M 41 24.10.2013 Kolakkanatham, (TN) observation, structured interview
25
M
57
28.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
26
M
35
28.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
27
M
around 40
28.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
receiving some data from administrative office
28
F
34
29.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
29
F
45
29.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
30
M
around 50
30.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, open interview
31
M
72
31.10.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
32
M
65
4.11.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, structured interview
33
M
around 55
4.11.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, open interview
34
M
around 50
4.11.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, open interview
35
M
around 40
5.11.2013
Kolakkanatham, (TN)
observation, open interview
36
M
around 40
6.11.2013
Veppanthattai (TN)
observation, open interview
37
M
around 40
6.11.2013
Veppanthattai (TN)
observation, open interview
38
M
46
19.11.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
39
M
28
20.11.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
40
M
31
20.11.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
41
M
38
21.11.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
42
M
60
22.11.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
43
M
61
22.11.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
44
F
47
23.11.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
45
M
45
23.11.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
46
M
62
24.11.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
47
F
43
24.11.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
48
M
52
25.11.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
49
M
70
25.11.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
50
M
55
26.11.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
51
M
29
2.12.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
123
52 M 33 2.12.2013 Palaniur (TN) observation, structured interview
53
M
66
3.12.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
54
F
54
3.12.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
55
M
55
4.12.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
56
F
32
5.12.2013
Kanthasamy Puram (TN)
observation, structured interview
57
M
65
5.12.2013
Palaniur (TN)
observation, structured interview
58
M
around 45
7.12.2013
Dindigul (TN)
participatory observation, open interview
APPENDIX 2
QUESTIONNAIRE
INTRODUCTION
1. Does a farmer own/lease the land? What is the size of it?
2. What is the area on which the farmer is growing cotton (acres)?
3. What kind of crop they grow on the rest of the land?
4. What about in the summer season after picking the cotton, which crop do they grow on their land?
5. Last year they were also growing cotton? On how many acres?
6. How much cotton (kg) did the farmer produce last year?
7. How long has a farmer been growing cotton?
8. Do you grow beside cotton also some pulses, oil plants on the land where cotton is grown?
9. Do you do crop rotation patterns?
10. Do you grow food for your own household?
SEEDS, FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES
11. When did you plant the seeds of cotton this year?
12. When are you planning to harvest the cotton?
13. Which type of cotton seeds do you use (hybrids /genetically modified)?
14. What about last year?
15. Did you ever reproduce seeds on your own?
16. Where do you get the seeds?
17. What is the price for seeds?
18. How much seeds do you need for your land?
19. What is the quality of these seeds in your opinion?
20. How come that you have decided to grow these seeds?
21. Do you regularly use fertilizers?
124
22. Which chemical fertilizers do you use?
23. Where do you get fertilizers?
24. Who is applying them on the field? When?
25. How much do you have to use them?
26. What is the price for fertilizers?
27. In previous years do you have to use more fertilizers or less?
28. Have you noticed any soil fertility change?
29. Did you ever have problem with pests, diseases, animals destroying crops?
30. What techniques do you use against pests? Do you use pesticides?
31. Which pesticides do you use?
32. Where do you get pesticides?
33. Who is applying them on the field? How often?
34. How much do you have to use them?
35. What is the price for pesticides?
36. Did you use more or less pesticides last year, before?
37. Have you ever do the farming without chemicals?
38. Do you use cost-free inputs (manure, compost, botanical pesticides)?
39. Do you think farming without chemicals is possible for a farmer to be able to survive?
40. Where do you get information and instructions how to use input materials?
41. Do you share the knowledge, help or information with other farmers?
42. Do you grow refugee seeds around the Bt cotton?
COSTS
43. How many family members regularly work on the field?
44. Do you hire any additional labour, how many? When (for sowing, weeding, harvesting period)?
45. How much are the costs for hired agricultural labour altogether?
46. Does a household have any equipment for soil cultivation (tractor, plough, threshers, bullock carts…)?
47. Do you rent any agricultural equipment?
48. Did you rent the tractor for preparing the land before planting seeds? How much did it cost?
49. Are the costs of cotton production increasing/decreasing?
SELLING COTTON
50. Where/ how do you sell the cotton?
51. How much did you earn for the cotton per kilo last year?
52. Are the prices on the market for cotton changing a lot?
53. Do you store cotton if the price for cotton is too low on the market?
54. Are you satisfied with cultivating cotton and the cotton yields?
55. Have you experienced any crop failure, loss of cotton in past years? Why?
56. Are you planning to enlarge the area growing cotton? Or you want to grow more maize instead of cotton?
125
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
57. How many members does your family has?
58. How many children are in the family?
59. How many elderly people not able to work anymore are in your family?
60. What is the age and gender of the household’s family members?
61. What is the farmer’s caste affiliation?
62. Do members of the household have any formal education ?
63. Are all the members of the household healthy? Do they suffer from any diseases/disabilities/age constraints?
64. How many contacts with the relatives do you have? Do they live in or outside the village?
65. Do you have many social contacts/friends in the village?
66. Are you a member of any organization or alliance?
67. What is your household's house type?
68. Does a household have any cows, bullocks, buffaloes, goats? How many?
69. Are there sufficient road and transport facilities? Easy access to roads?
70. Do you own or use … motorbike/ vehicle/ car/ bus?
FINANCE OF THE HOUSEHOLD
71. If needed do you borrow money? Where from whom?
72. Can a household get an institutional credit when needed?
73. Has it received it in the past?
74. Is a household indebted?
75. Have you ever lend from village money-lenders?
76. Does a household receive any regular amount of annual income (from milk sales for example)?
77. Do you also get any off-farm income (income gained outside your own farm)?
78. From whom (from family relatives), how (working as a hired labour, from other services, businesses)?
79. Does anyone is the households receive pension?
80. If you calculate, at the end of the cotton season, do you know, how much money do you earn from
cultivating cotton?
APPENDIX 3
OPERATIONALISATION TABLE
CONCEPT DIMENSION VARIABLES INDICATORS SOCIO - HUMAN CAPITAL Number of family members How many members does a family have? ECONOMIC Available labour force How many family members regularly work on the field? Does a household have permanently/seasonally
hired agricultural labour? PROFILE OF THE Agricultural skills For how long has a farmer been cultivating cotton? Do members of the household have the agricultural
knowledge and skills required for cotton cultivation practice? FARMERS Education / literacy Do members of the household have any formal education (none/primary/medium/higher)? How many
years of it? Gender & age What is the age and gender of the household’s family members? Caste & Religion What is the farmer’s religion and caste affiliation? (forward caste/ scheduled caste/ indigenous tribe) Health Are all the members of the household healthy? Do they suffer from any diseases/ disabilities /allergies/
age constraints? NATURAL CAPITAL Land Does a household own the land? Are they also leasing/renting part of the land? What is the size of it? Crop diversity What variety of crops does the farmer’s household grow? Do they produce also their own food? SOCIAL CAPITAL Family How big is the family? How many children are in the family? How many elderly people are not able to
work anymore in the family? Relatives How many contacts with the relatives does a farmer have? Do they live in or outside the village? Membership in
organization, alliance Is a farmer member of any organization or alliance?
PHYSICAL CAPITAL
House type What is the household's house type? (house with mud-walls, house with concrete and concrete roof)
Infrastructural assets Are there sufficient road and transport facilities? Easy access to roads? Does a farmer has a motorbike/ car or only using bus? Does a farmer have access to sufficient irrigation water?
Production assets Does a household have any equipment for soil cultivation (tractor, plough, threshers, bullock carts…)? FINANCIAL
CAPITAL Source of the loan Can a household get an institutional credit when needed? Has it received it in the past?
Do they ever lend from village money-lenders? Do they often depend on them? Cattle Does a household have any cows, bullocks, buffaloes, goats? How many? Regular income (other than
from crops) Does a household receive any regular amount of annual income (from milk sales for example)? Do they also get any off-farm income (income gained outside their own farm)? From whom (from family relatives), how (working as a hired labour, from other services, businesses)?
Pension Does anyone is the households receive pension?
2
CONCEPT DIMENSION VARIABLES INDICATORS AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES & TECHNOLOGIES
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Soil fertility maintenance Do you regularly use fertilizers? Which chemical fertilizers do you use? Who is applying them on the field? When? How much do you have to use them? In previous years do you have to use more fertilizers or less? Have you noticed any soil fertility change? Do you use any cost-free manure or compost for preserving soil fertility?
Seeds Which type of cotton seeds do you use (hybrids/genetically modified)? What about last year? Did you ever reproduce seeds on your own? Do you have to buy seeds every year? How much seeds do you need for your land? What is the quality of the seeds in your opinion? How come that you have decided to grow these seeds?
Crop diversity What is the area on which farmer is growing cotton (acres)? What kind of crop he/she is growing on the rest of the land? Do you do mono-cropping? Do you grow food for your own household? Have you grown more different crops in the past?
Disease and weed control Do you grow any pulses in between or around the cotton? Does a farmer do crop rotation on his/her field?
Pest control Did you ever have problem with the pests, diseases, animals destroying crops? What techniques do you use against the pests? Which pesticides do you use? Who is applying them on the field? How often? How much do you have to use them? Did you use more or less pesticides last year than before? Do you use bio-natural pest control techniques (multiple cropping, cover crops)?
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
Use of machinery Does a household have any equipment for soil cultivation (tractor, plough, threshers)? How many? Do you rent any agricultural equipment? Did you rent the tractor for preparing the land before planting seeds?
Crop livestock integration Does a household have any cows, bullocks, buffaloes, goats? How many?
The costs of off farm inputs Do you use cost-free inputs (manure, compost, botanical pesticides)? Where do you get the cotton seeds, fertilizers, pesticides? What is the price of cotton seeds, fertilizers, pesticides?
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Source of technical advice Where do you get information and instructions how to use input materials? Do you share the knowledge, help or information with other farmers?
Knowledge of agricultural practice
Did you ever do the farming without chemicals? Do you think farming without chemicals is possible for a farmer to be able to survive? Where have you learn how to farm? Have agricultural practice changed since you started farming? How?
3
CONCEPT DIMENSION VARIABLES INDICATORS LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES
FARMER'S INCOME
Crop productivity Are you satisfied with cotton yields? Have you experienced any crop failure in past years? Why? (weather conditions/not enough information how to use agricultural technology) How much cotton (kg) did you produce last year? Are you planning to enlarge the area growing cotton in the future? Have the yields of cotton change in the past years?
External Inputs What are the costs for fertilizers, pesticides, seeds? Do you use pesticides and fertilizer more often than before? Do you use locally available inputs? Do you use any cost-free inputs? When do you need to hire additional labour (for sowing, weeding, harvesting period)? How much are the costs for hired agricultural labour? Do you rent any agricultural equipment? Are the costs of cotton production (hired labour costs + input costs + other costs) increasing/decreasing?
Market Are costs for the farm inputs (seeds/fertilizers/pesticides/hired labour) fluctuating, increasing or decreasing? Is there enough labour available to hire? Are the prices on the market for cotton changing a lot? Do you store cotton if the prices are too low on the market? Are the opportunities on the market beneficial for growing cotton?