Abstract
The study was carried out in the states of Haryana and Punjab. These states have witnessed the adoption of Green Revolution technologies and also have undertaken Bt cotton cultivation. Based upon the random sampling technique, Mansa and Bhatinda districts from Punjab, while Sirsa, Hissar and Fatehabad districts from Haryana were selected among the predominantly cotton growing districts. A sample of 220 farmer respondents was selected for testing the questionnaire through multistage sampling. The trait selected for the study was aphid resistance in mustard, considering the importance of aphid management. Similarly, due to menace of weed in wheat, herbicide tolerance in wheat was selected as another trait. The yield potential and efficacy in management of pests (with the highest mean score of 9.67), were considered as the first and foremost criteria for selection of any Bt. hybrid followed by the germination potential; cost of seed; plant type; input requirement; suitability to farm; safety to human and cattle; irrigation intensiveness; and crop duration. There was a drastic fall (of about 32%) in the number of pesticide spray and cost on spray also reduced significantly, with adoption of Bt cotton. While the benefit–cost ratio increased by about 22%, the yield increased by nearly 36%. Adoption decision among farmers was influenced by variables such as the number of family members engaged in farming, social participation and social network. Factor analysis revealed that the major domains of risks were related to seed systems, resource systems, openness in innovation generation and regulations systems. In both the states studied, it was found that majority of farmers lacked understanding or knowledge about genetic modification of the crop; though all of them had cultivated Bt Cotton and perceived that it had led to yield enhancement and increase in income.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Almeida, C., & Massarani, L. (2018). Farmers prevailing perception profiles regarding GM crops: A classification proposal. Public Understanding of Science, 27(8), 952–966.
Anderson, J. C., Wachenheim, C. J., & Lesch, W. C. (2006). Perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods and processes. AgBioForum, 9(3), 180–194.
Bakhetia, D. R. C., & Sekhon, B. S. (1989). Insect-pests and their management in rapeseed-mustard. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 6(2), 269–299.
Bansal, S., & Arora, A. (2015). Genetically modified crops in India: An economic analysis. In: World scientific reference on Asia and the world economy (pp. 229–247).
Bhatia, V., Uniyal, P. L., & Bhattacharya, R. (2011). Aphid resistance in Brassica crops: Challenges, biotechnological progress and emerging possibilities. BiotechnologyAdvances, 29, 879–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.07.005.
Chhokar, R. S., & Malik, R. K. (2002). Isoproturon resistant Phalaris minor and its response to alternate herbicides. Weed Technology, 16(1), 116–123.
Feder, Gershon, Just, Richard E., & Zilberman, David. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255–298.
Frewer, L. J., van der Lans, I. A., Fischer, A. R., Reinders, M. J., Menozzi, D., Zhang, X., et al. (2013). Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(2), 142–152.
Gaskell, G. (2000). Agricultural biotechnology and public attitudes in the European Union. AgBioForum, 3, 87–96.
Hoban, T. J. (1998). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum, 1(1), 3–7.
Kates, R. W., Hohenemser, C., & Kasperson, J. X. (1985). Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology. Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA.
Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. S. (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 1–20). London: Sage.
Malik, R. K., & Singh, S. (1995). Littleseed canarygrass (Phalaris minor Retz.) resistance to isoproturon in India. Weed Technology, 9, 419–425.
Pullman, D., Etchegary, H., Gallagher, K., Hodgkinson, K., Keough, M., Morgan, D., et al. (2012). Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: A conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions. Genetics in Medicine, 4(2), 229–235.
Renn, O. (2008). Concepts of risk: An interdisciplinary review part 1: Disciplinary risk concepts. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 17(1), 50–66.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Sheikh, A. D., Rehman, T., Yates, C. M. (2003). Logit models for identifying the factors that influence the uptake of new ‘no-tillage’ technologies by the farmers in the rice-wheat and the cotton-wheat farming systems of Pakistan’s Punjab. Agricultural Systems, 75(1), 79–95.
Siegrist, M. (2012). Special issue on the conference ‘Environmental decisions: Risks and uncertainties’ in Monte Verita, Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 235–236.
Siegrist, M., & Bühlmann, R. (1999). Perception of different applications of gene technology: Results of an MDS-analysis. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 30(1), 32–39.
Singh, C. P., & Sachan, G. C. (1994). Assessment of yield losses in yellow sarson due to mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt). Journal of Oilseeds Research, 11, 179–184.
Sjöberg, L., Moen, B. E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research, 10(2), 665–612.
Srivastava, S. K., & Kolady, D. (2016). Agricultural biotechnology and crop productivity: Macro-level evidences on contribution of Bt cotton in India. Current Science, 110(3), 311–319.
Steur, H., Wesana, J., Blancquaert, D., Der Straeten, D., & Gellynck, X. (2017). Methods matter: A meta regression on the determinants of willingness to pay studies on bio-fortified foods. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1390(1), 34–46.
Swaminathan, M. S. (2009, August 26). GM: Food for thought. The Asian Age.
Tulloch, J., & Lupton, D. (2003). Risk and everyday life. London: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgements
The invaluable intellectual guidance of RIS, New Delhi and the financial support of MoEF&CC, Govt. of India are sincerely acknowledged. Sincere gratitude for mentorship is expressed for Dr Ranjini Warrier; Dr Sachin Chaturvedi; Dr P. G. Chengappa; Prof. Manmohan Agarwal; Prof. T. P. Rajendran; Prof. Chandrashekhar Rao; Dr. E. Hari Babu; and Dr. Ravi Srinivasan. I express gratitude for the Director, IARI, New Delhi for his guidance. I also extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Sridhar Patil, Dr. Rajender Kalra, Dr. Manmeet Kaur, Mr. Dalbeer Singh, Sri. M. P. Singh, Sri Abhay Kumar, Sri. Bhairav, Sri Arun, Ms. Smriti Singh, Ms. Rimpi, Sri Gurmeet Singh, Mr. Shantanu Rakshit, Mr. Sajesh and Ms. Priti for their kind support in accomplishment of the project work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Padaria, R.N. (2019). Socio-economic Assessment of LMOs: Insights from Punjab and Haryana. In: Chaturvedi, S., Srinivas, K. (eds) Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9511-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9511-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9510-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9511-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)