Thursday, October 15, 2015

WATCH : Save our rice - Suma Josson


Published on Oct 6, 2015
This film is by Suma Josson, on the conservation of traditional paddy seeds by farmers in the three states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in India. Through their voices and those of scientists, small farmers and environmentalists, the film looks at the ecological benefits of these paddy seeds, organic farming, and the traditional knowledge systems. It is produced by Save Our Rice and Create.

NEWS: In India’s poorest district Nabarangpur, MNC seed majors are growing deep roots



Adivasi, Dalit farmers in Nabarangpur choose hybrids over traditional varieties.
The Indian Express

Written by Harish Damodaran | Nabarangpur (odisha) | Updated: October 15, 2015 8:56 am

It is India’s poorest district with over 70 per cent Adivasi and Dalit population — and yet a booming market for multinational and large domestic seed companies.

The likes of Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, DuPont-Pioneer, Tata-Metahelix, US Agriseeds, Shriram Bioseed, JK Seeds and Advanta are reckoned to have sold 600-650 tonnes of hybrid paddy seeds in Nabarangpur district this kharif season. At an average of six kg planted per acre, these would have covered more than one lakh acres, or 40 per cent of Nabarangpur’s estimated paddy area of 100,684 hectares (2.5 lakh acres) this kharif season. This is way above the 5 per cent share of hybrids in the country’s cultivated rice area.

“Traditional/local varieties account for barely a tenth of the district’s total paddy area today. The balance 90 per cent is under open-pollinated high-yielding varieties (HYV) developed by public sector institutions and privately-bred hybrids. Within the 90 per cent, there could be a roughly 60:40 split between HYVs and hybrids,” says Sushil Haldar, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Nabarangpur.

Such high levels of hybrid penetration may seem counterintuitive in a poor and backward district, dominated by Adivasi tribal communities such as Bhatra, Gond and Kandha.
It is even more pronounced in maize, where hybrid seeds coverage for Nabarangpur is 100 per cent, as against the national average of 60 per cent. In 2013, when acreages peaked, multinationals led by Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Limagrain and Syngenta — besides Shriram Bioseed, Kaveri Seeds and the Thailand-based Charoen Popkhand — reportedly sold 1,300-1,400 tonnes of hybrid maize seeds in the district. At 8 kg per acre, these would have got planted in 160,000-175,000 acres.
The widespread adoption of hybrid technology may owe partly to aggressive marketing by firms — clearly noticeable from the posters of various hybrid seed brands plastered across walls and roadside trees across the district.

But that isn’t the sole reason.

“With Sopori (an indigenous rice variety), I get only 10-12 quintals of paddy per acre, whereas it is 18-20 quintals from Pooja (an HYV bred by the Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack) and 25 quintals from Dhaanya (the hybrid brand of Tata-Metahelix),” says Prabhunath Pujari, who has a five-acre farm near the Kosagumuda block headquarters. This Adivasi grower has, in the current season, planted Pooja paddy in three acres and the Dhaanya DRH-748 hybrid in the remaining two acres.

Higher yield apart, farmers also cite lower labour requirement as a major advantage with hybrid paddy.

“Since the seed rate is six kg per acre, you can have a plant-to-plant distance of 10 inches and it takes only 10 labourers to transplant one acre in a day. In the case of varieties, you need to plant 20 kg, which means a spacing of just four inches between plants which requires four times the labour,” says Praful Kumar Nayak, who has a 25 acre farm in Badambada village of Kosagumuda block.

Nayak, who belongs to the Mirgan Dalit caste, grows Bayer CropScience’s Arize-6444 Gold hybrid and a publicly-bred HYV, MTU-1001, on 10 acres each. On the five remaining acres, he cultivates Haldigoti, a traditional paddy purely for his family’s consumption. “It costs Rs 1,600 to plant six kg of hybrid paddy seeds, compared to Rs 320 for 20 kg of MTU-1001. But this is compensated by higher yields and lower labour requirement. I plant MTU-1001 only because it is more disease-resistant,” he says.

Whatever might be the driving factors, one thing is clear: Nabarangpur’s farmers have taken to hybrid technology as much, if not more, than their counterparts in ostensibly richer and less backward parts of India.

SOURCE: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/in-countrys-poorest-district-nabarangpur-mnc-seed-majors-are-growing-deep-roots/

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Pests, Pesticides and Propaganda: the story of Bt Cotton


By Dr Vandana Shiva

A whitefly epidemic has devastated the Bt cotton crop in Punjab forcing farmers to use 10-12 sprays – each costing Rs 3200. This, in addition to the high cost of Bt seeds sold by Monsanto-Mahyco Biotech. In Maharashtra, Haryana and Punjab, farmers growing non Bt, desi cotton have not been impacted by pests like Bt cotton has. And organic farmers in Punjab had no whitefly attack.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Whitefly-destroys-2/3rd-of-Punjabs-cotton-crop-15-farmers-commit-suicide/articleshow/49265083.cms

Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprise (ABLE) is clearly un-able to distinguish between science and Industry propaganda.

A scientific approach, to what is happening in Punjab, would draw the  inference that pesticides and Bt are creating pests, while non Bt seeds and organic practices are controlling them.

The second step would be to identify the ecological processes that create pests in Bt crops, and in fields using heavy doses of pesticides.

The third scientifically enlightened step would be to promote effective and sustainable pest control technologies such as ecological agriculture, and stop pushing failed and costly technologies like Bt and the pesticides that are peddled with it.

Instead of responding scientifically, the biotechnology lobby group has repeated the false claims of Monsanto – which has trapped millions of our farmers in debt and pushed hundreds of thousands to suicide. 300,000 farmers suicides should be a wakeup call for any nation.

Ecological science teaches us that pests are created by industrial agriculture through the following processes.
  1. Promotion of monocultures
  2. Chemical fertilisation of crops – which makes plants more vulnerable to pests
  3. Emergence of resistance in pests by spraying of pesticides
  4. Killing of friendly species which control pests and disruption of pest-predator balance
Bt. crops are not an alternative to these pest creating systems. They are a continuation of a non-sustainable strategy for pest control, which, instead of controlling pests, creates new pests and super pests. Monsanto advertised that Bt cotton would not need pesticide sprays, clearly a case of false advertising. The primary justification given for the genetic engineering of Bt traits into crops was that Bt will reduce the use of insecticides. A Monsanto brochure showed a picture of a few worms and stated – “You will see these in your cotton and that’s O.K. Don’t spray”. Even today, Monsanto apologists claim that Bt has reduced pesticide usage. The Punjab devastation shows this is not true.

Bt crops are pesticide-producing plants that are supposed to control pests. In the US, where Bt technology is from, Bt crops are registered as a pesticide.

Bt toxins are a family of related molecules produced, in nature, by a soil Bacterium – Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.). Farmers and gardeners have used Bacillus thuringiensis in it’s natural form, as an organic pesticide, for more than 50 years. In recent times, Bt. genes have been genetically engineered into crops, making each and every cell in the plant produce toxins, through most of its life. Naturally occurring Bt and genetically engineered Bt are not substantially equivalent. The Bt in the soil bacterium is a pro-toxin which is in an inactive state. It is therefore safe for non-target insects. It  is transformed into a toxin by enzymes in the gut of the caterpillar family of insects. In the genetically engineered plant Bt plant the expression of the toxin does not need this pathway. Bt plants contain an artificial, truncated Bt gene and less processing is required to generate the toxin. It is therefore less selective, and may harm non-target insects that do not have the enzymes to process the pro-toxin, as well as the pests like the bollworm for which it is intended. This difference in the nature of the Bt in its naturally occurring bacterial form, and its genetically engineered form in plants is the reason the non target species are being impacted while the target species evolves resistance.

The false claim of substantial equivalence by the Biotechnology industry has blocked the scientific research that would assess the difference. Science has been substituted by Propaganda.

Genetically engineered Bt. crops are being touted as a sustainable pest control strategy while their failure is evident. Bt. crops are neither effective nor ecologically sustainable. Instead of controlling pests, Bt crops are creating pests, as is evident from the outbreak of whitefly which destroyed more than 60% of the Bt cotton crop in 2015. Since Bt was introduced in India, pests that had historically never affected non Bt cotton have become major cotton pests. Massive outbreaks of aphids, jassids, army bugs, mealy bugs have compelled farmers to use more pesticides than before. When I sued Monsanto in 1999 for its illegal introduction of Bt cotton into India without the mandatory approval from the GEAC, the data from the open field trials that they were compelled to submit to the Supreme Court revealed that even at the trial stage Bt was increasing aphids and jassids by 300%. Clearly this was overlooked in the assessment by the GEAC.

In a peer-reviewed study, Swiss scientists found that Bt crops are more vulnerable to pest attacks because genetic engineering disrupts the metabolic processes in plants that contribute to resisting insects. 

Evidence for such disruption of metabolic pathways by GM plants has been found in many lab studies and synthesised in a meta analysis through systems biology (found here)
The Royal Society has found that the processes of genetic modification to resist the bollworm makes Bt cotton more susceptible to non target pests such as aphids, because the plant has been induced to express Bt toxin in every cell through genetic engineering. Bt cotton contains reduced levels of induced terpenoids, which help the plant resist other pests.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130042

Not only is Bt contributing to new pests, it is unable to control the target pest, the bollworm. In 1996, 2 million acres in the US were planted with Monsanto’s Bt. transgenic cotton called Bollgard. Bollworms were found to have infested thousands of acres planted with the new breed of cotton in Texas. The genetically engineered cotton did not survive the cotton bollworm attack. Monsanto was sued by 25 farmers over Bt. cotton planted on 18,000 acres, which suffered boll worm damage, following which, the farmers had to use pesticides in contrast to the corporate propaganda that genetic engineering meant an end to the pesticide era.

A second process through which Bt is contributing to increasing the pest problem, instead of reducing it, is by inducing Bt-resistance in pests and creating super pests.

The Bt. crop strategy is not a sustainable method for pest control because Bt plants continuously release toxins. Constant long-term exposure of pest populations to Bt encourages survival of individual pests that are genetically resistant to the toxin. As Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, state in their report Now or Never – “over many generations, the proportion of resistant individuals in pest populations can increase, reducing the efficacy of the Bt. toxin as pesticide.”

Scientists have estimated that widespread use of Bt. crops could lead to the loss of Bt’s efficacy against certain pest populations in as far as two to five years (Fred and Bruce, 1998). In India, the pink bollworm has developed resistance to Bt, and Monsanto is selling an even more expensive Bollgard II, which has stacked Bt genes. This too will contribute to evolution of resistance since the genetically engineered Bt crops continuously express the Bt toxin, throughout its growing season. Continued exposure to Bt toxins promotes development of resistance in insect populations, rendering Bt ineffective at the one job it is supposed to do.

The fact that the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) of the U.S. requires refugia of non-engineered crops to be planted near the engineered crops, reflects the reality of the creation of resistant strains of insects. Due to this risk of pest resistance, the EPA offers only conditional and temporary registration of varieties producing Bt. The EPA requires 4% “refugia” with Bt. cotton i.e. 4% of planted cotton is conventional and does not express the Bt. toxin. It therefore acts as a refuge for insects to survive and breed, and hence keeps the overall level of resistance in the population low. Even at a 4% refugia level, insect resistance will evolve in as little as 3 – 4 years. Even though Monsanto claims it has adhered to the regulations in India, it is common knowledge that the implementation of refugia has never been done. Additionally, the biosafety regulations have never been followed for Bt in India.

The failure of Monsanto’s Bollgard cotton in large areas in the U.S. shows the risks of extrapolating from trials on small plots to large scale commercial planting. A second lesson from the 1996 U.S. planting is that it is not easy to force farmers to leave refugia, at their own costs, in order to manage pest resistance. The extra costs of leaving 20 per cent land to non-Bt cotton to be sprayed with conventional insecticides should be internalised in assessment of the benefits of Bt cotton.
Scientists have recommended that 50 per cent area be planted with non-Bt cotton when farmers plant Bt cotton (Fred and Bruce, 1998). If farmers should not be planting more than half their acreage with Bt cotton, why should they be planting it at all?

One of the most significant reasons contributing to the pesticide treadmill has been the death of beneficial insects, and the emergence of resistance. More than 500 species of insects have become resistant to conventional insecticides, and there is empirical evidence that they can also adapt to Bt toxins (Fred Gould and Bruce Tabashnik,  1998  Bt cotton Resistance Management in Mellon and Rissler “Now or Never”).

Bt is destroying ecosystem sustainability and biodiversity, by killing beneficial organisms. Engineering a toxin into a plant can have its own hazards. Plants engineered to manufacture their own pesticides can harm organisms other than their intended targets. Soil inhabiting organisms, that convert organic matter into nutrients for the plants, can be harmed by the toxin preventing the regeneration of soil nutrients.

The full impacts of Bt crops have not been looked at, though indications are emerging that genetically engineered Bt is harmful to beneficial insects such as bees and ladybirds. Research at the Scottish Crop Research showed that ladybirds fed on aphids that were fed transgenic potatoes – laid fewer eggs and lived half as long as ladybirds on a normal diet (Brich et al, 1996/97).
Research from Cornell, in 1999,  found  that the Monarch butterfly -Danaus plexippus -was killed by ingesting milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt cotton  (Losey J.E.: Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, Vol 399, 20 May 1999: 314)

Research done on impact of Bt cotton on soil micro organisms showed a 22 % decline of beneficial micro organisms within 4 years.

These impacts on non-target species falsify the claims that the Bt toxin in Bt cotton only effects the cotton bollworm.
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n7/full/nbt0706-749.html

The myth that GMO crops reduce pesticide use is also not true.
Two applications of genetic engineering account for most commercial planting, Bt crops and Ht crops. Herbicide tolerant crops account for 63 % of the cultivation of GM crops.
Bt crops have led to increase of pesticide use because of new pests , and pest resistance in the boll worm. As the directorate of plant protection shows, pesticide use has increased with increase of Bt cotton cultivation.

http://ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides.htm
Herbicide tolerant crops are designed to make crops resistant to herbicide spraying to allow for increased herbicide sales and use.
http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/pesticide-use-rises-as-herbicide-resistant-weeds-undermine-performance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/

Bt threatens Ayurveda and other Medical Practices.
Besides this, the Bt cotton will have a direct impact on the practitioners of the Indian system of medicines. The cotton seeds, roots, flowers, leaves, oil and cotton is used internally as well as externally in different ailments in the Indian system of medicines. The cotton seeds are used for increasing milk secretion; the use of Bt cotton seeds can cause serious health hazards to the mother and the child. Similarly, the roots are used during labour to enhance the uterine contraction. The ash of the cotton is taken to check bleeding from wound. The leaves are given as diurative. The introduction of Bt cotton in Indian varieties, safe from contamination until now, will have a dangerous effect on the traditional medical practices and the use of its seeds, leaves, roots, oil will be fatal for the patients.

India is the home of cotton diversity. We should use the biodiversity of cotton to our advantage to create ecological strategies of selecting pest resistance varieties, using integrated pest management and avoiding the risks of hazardous pesticides as well as the risks of genetically engineered crops. Instead, the ICAR is pushing for Bt in straight varieties of cotton which would contaminate all standing crops of non-Bt cotton, leaving farmers vulnerable to litigation and crop failure.

Scientific assessments tells us the GMO experiment with our seeds and crops must be stopped. Propaganda on behalf of the biotech seed industry, which in also the pesticide industry, will of course keep repeating that pesticides and Bt crops are a silver bullet. It is just that Monsanto gets the silver, Farmers get the bullet.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Compilation on Natural way to keep mosquito away..

Dengue / Malaria is on rise these days. Instead of going the toxic route
or release of irreversible GM mosquitoes, let us adapt the
natural ways to keep mosquitoes away.
Hope you find following compilation useful;
> What attracts mosquitoe and how to repel them
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...
> Natural Insect pest control
http://eartheasy.com/live_natpest_c...
>Growing Mosquito repellent plant - Citronella

>
6 Plants Proven To Repel Mosquitoes  lavender, basil, catnip, Lemon balm, citronella grass, marigolds, 


> http://www.esvasa.com/?q=natural-mosquito-repellant  
Do add to it and also share your experiences on these methods 
Compiled by Tejal Vishweshwar

Friday, October 2, 2015

EVENT : ८ ते ११ ऑक्टो. २०१५ (४ दिवस)- झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक शेती शिवार





























विशेष करून विदर्भ/मराठवाडयातील शेतकऱ्यांनी चुकवू नये अशी सुवर्ण संधी:
कृषी-ऋषी श्री सुभाष पाळेकारांसोबत झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक शेती शिवार फेरी आणि कार्यशाळा. (पिके: संत्रा, मोसंबी व भाजीपाला) 

तारीख:  ८ ते ११ ऑक्टो. २०१५ (४ दिवस)
स्वरूप: २ दिवस प्रत्यक्ष शिवार फेरी + २ कार्यशाळा
शुल्क: रु. १५००/- प्रती व्यक्ती (नाष्टा, भोजन, निवास आणि २०० कि. मी. शिवार फेरीच्या प्रवासासाहित)
स्थळ: ता. काटोल जि. नागपूर 
संपर्क: मनोज - ९८२२५१५९१३  
हेमंतसिंग - ९१३०००१२१३ /७५८८६९०६८८

प्रवास आणि निवास व्यवस्थेसाठी नाव नोंदणी अत्यंत आवश्यक आहे. 


धन्यवाद!
मिलिंद - ९८९०६६४३२१
दीपक - ९८५०४३००८५


EVENT : VanUtsav Forest Festival (17to22 Oct 2015)

Six days of learning, sharing and music at Vanvadi

Dear All,
The Vanvadi Vanutsav this year is from Saturday, Oct 17 to Thursday, Oct 22 (Dussera), ie 6 days.

Held every October, the vanutsav is a confluence of young and old – to celebrate nature, community and creativity. Self-organised, with shared responsibility, it has an ‘open agenda’ format, where participants themselves offer to conduct any activities, workshops or discussions. These are announced on common wall charts, indicating date and time. People join what they like.

This year, we are trying to get some advance confirmations of workshops/activities, so that we can announce these to interested people. We propose to schedule the workshops and interactions on various aspects of land care and self-reliance over the 3 week days, Monday 19th to Wednesday, 21st Oct. The more popular, multi-generational activities and workshops will be offered over the Saturday- Sunday weekend (Oct 17-18), and on the last day (Dussera), Oct 22, when greater attendance of diverse age groups, visiting for a day or two, is expected.

From October 19 to 21, we plan to have sessions on subjects like how to get started on land; soil, forest and biodiversity regeneration; rainwater harvesting; natural/organic farming; permaculture; SRI; composting; bio-char; live hedges; seed saving; renewable energy; and ecological construction with local materials. Some of these will be conducted by experienced friends, including Vasantbhai Futane, Bernard (Auroville), Clea (Goa), Jacob Nellithanam, Ravi Venkat, Arjun ‘Dobigha’, and Sanjay Patil. A few more are yet to confirm. Other sessions may follow a format of open discussion. Do let us know if you would like to conduct a session.

We hope to collaboratively document summaries of these sessions – to serve as a continuing open learning resource.
O n Oct 17-18 (weekend), and on Oct 22
(Dussera), we expect to have a wider variety of workshops/activities (about 2-3 hours each) like: forest food walks, millet recipes and songs, small-space kitchen- gardening, traditional folk games, natural healing, swimming, jewellery making and other hand crafts, clay/cob sculpting, bird watching, star-gazing, story-telling, nature collages, etc. We welcome you to conduct any session you like, and preferably let us know in advance, so that we can inform others too.

There would also be community cooking, and a few hours of singing, music and dance every evening on all 6 days. (So do bring along your music instruments and song books!) The big music feasts to look forward to will be on: Saturday, October 17, 7 pm to 12 midnight; Oct 18, 7 am to 10 am; Oct 21, 7 pm to 12 midnight; and Oct 22 (Dussera), 7 am to 10 am.

Vanvadi is a collective organic forest farm (more forest than farm) in the foothills of the Sahyadris, between Mumbai and Pune, about 100 km from Mumbai, and 10 km from Neral station. It aspires to evolve into an ecological forest village community. Presently, it offers only rustic accommodation (roof and mud floor!) in a lovely natural environment, without grid electricity or piped water. Staying at Vanvadi is like a nature camping experience! We have shared sleeping arrangement for about 30 people in two dwellings. Sleeping under the open moonlit/starlit sky would also be quite pleasant in mid October. Those who have tents (or can borrow/hire one) are strongly encouraged to bring them along, and preferably inform us in advance. But please do bring along a sleeping bag or at least 2 sheets and a mat, as the nights may begin to get a little cold. (In case you need better organized private accommodation, please indicate, and we may be able to inform you of a few possibilities not far from Vanvadi.)

Voluntary Contributions:
In order to meet costs and support the work at Vanvadi, we request a voluntary contribution as suggested below. However, less or more – whatever you are comfortable with – would be equally appreciated. (Please do not let money be a deterrent!)
Cash contributions are deposited anonymously in a common collection bag slung on a pole/tree.
Suggested contributions: For 2 or more days – Rs 500 per day per adult, and Rs 250 per day per child;
For one day (24 hours) – Rs 600 per adult, and Rs 300 per child.
Any additional contribution would be a most welcome support in sustaining and nurturing Vanvadi as a natural community space!
Contributions in kind – for the vanutsav – are also welcome (eg organic/wholesome/local food); but please coordinate with us.

Basic Responsibilities:
In view of the potential hazards of a forest environment, all participants need to take full responsibility to look after themselves, and especially any children accompanying them. (Each child should be accompanied by an adult.)
The rock pool is over 18 feet deep, and for swimmers only; but a few shallower, waist-deep water-bodies are also available for non-swimmers and learners.

Keeping the Vanvadi space free of plastics and city litter is a strict rule. Any non- biodegradables you bring should be carried back. We also discourage chemical soaps, detergents, toothpaste, etc. and encourage any natural equivalents. (Do bring if you can!) Respect for the place, local people, fellow participants; and sharing vanutsav work, is generally expected.

Registration:
We can accommodate limited numbers. Advance registration will help secure your place, and keep you updated. Please email us soon at: vanutsav@gmail.com, preferably by September 30, informing us the names and ages of confirmed participants, and the dates on which they would attend. We also request a brief introductory para, mentioning any workshops/activities you may like to conduct. An update informing directions to Vanvadi, contact phone numbers, and the workshops/session being offered, will be sent out by October 3, 2015 to those who have registered.

We look forward to see you!

For registration and details:
Mayuree Pandit: mayuree.m@gmail.com 9930432804
Zui : zuimansata@gmail.com
022 23542420
Faiza: aziaf@riseup.net +91 9820683281
Sanjiv: sanjiv.valsan@gmail.com +91 9892212133
Bharat: bharatmansata@yahoo.com +91 9967371183


SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/events/808132829295107/