ARTICLE IN PRESS

Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239

www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro

Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and practices in transgenic

Bt cotton in small producer systems in Northern China
Puyun Yanga,, Malcolm Ilesb, Su Yana, Flavia Jolliffec
a
National Agro-Technical Extension & Service Centre, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100026, China
b
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
c
Institute of Mathematics, Statistics, and Actuarial Science, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, UK
Received 8 June 2004; received in revised form 30 June 2004; accepted 19 July 2004

Abstract

Farmers in Northern China were interviewed during the 2002 season concerning their knowledge, perceptions and practices on Bt
cotton. Farmers have some awareness of insect pests in Bt cotton, especially on the resurgence of sucking pests such as red spider
mites and aphids, but 60% of farmers overestimated damage by Helicoverpa armigera, the cotton bollworm in Bt cotton. Farmers’
knowledge was very poor on the identification of diseases and natural enemies of pests in cotton. Farmers’ knowledge and
perceptions of Bt cotton were not significantly associated with their gender or formal education. All the farmers in the survey had
adopted Bt cotton during the 5-year period since seed became commercially available in 1997. Their reasons for adoption were
either; to save labour, to reduce pesticide applications, to obtain higher yields or to make cotton growing more profitable. Farmers
used more than 7 varieties of Bt cotton and 29% of the seed used was home-retained. Pesticide was sprayed intensively on Bt cotton
with an average of 12.7 applications per season. The results indicate that farmers were still over-utilising pesticides in the control of
pests in Bt cotton. Farmers in small producer cotton systems need further training in the identification of pests, natural enemies,
basic ecology and integrated pest management strategies to ensure sustainable production of Bt cotton.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Farmer knowledge; Pest management; Bt cotton; Helicoverpa armigera

1. Introduction destroying yield. CBW is susceptible to Bt cotton as is

The rapid development of biotechnology provides
options in addressing problems of agricultural produc-
tion in developing countries and involve better stress
resistance or tolerance (James, 1999; Huang et al., 2002).
Transgenic Bt cotton containing a truncated form of the
Bt gene Cry IA(c) from the bacteria Bacillus thuringen-
sis HD-1 was introduced into China in 1994, and it
began to be commercially cultivated in 1997 (Piao et al.,
2001; Xia et al., 1995). The cotton bollworm (CBW), the
caterpillar of the noctuid moth Helicoverpa armigera, is
the single most important pest of cotton in China,
feeding directly on the cotton fruiting structures and
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yangpy@agri.gov.cn (P. Yang).
the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), which is
important in many areas. Other pest caterpillars, such as
the leaf-feeding caterpillars of genus Spodoptera, are not
fully susceptible. Pests from other insect groups (aphids,
thrips, beetles, Lygus bug, mites, grasshoppers and
others) are not controlled at all by the current Bt
cottons. Nonetheless, the success of Bt cotton in control
of CBW led to an explosion in Bt cotton planting in
Eastern and Northern China. Farmers’ adoption of Bt
cotton in Northern China has increased to over 90% of
the cotton area; 1.07 million hectares in 2000 (Wu et al.,
2002) and to over 2.4 million hectares in China as a
whole in 2002.
The entry of Bt seed into Chinese small-scale cotton
producer systems offered both challenges and opportu-
nities for the reduction of pesticide use without

0261-2194/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.07.012
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
230 P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239
compromising economic and ecological returns. Eco-
nomic analysis of previous studies of Bt cotton at farm
level in China, based on comparisons between Bt and
non-Bt cotton, characterized the prevailing delivery
mechanism as top down and outdated (Xia et al.,
1998; Pray et al., 2001, 2002). This approach poses
serious problems and enhances the possibility that Bt
cotton production will be unsustainable. Many ecologi-
cal and economic repercussions were experienced in the
past with attempts at implementing ‘Green Revolution’
technologies because of the lack of understanding of
farmers’ indigenous knowledge, perceptions and prac-
tices. No steps were taken to train farmers in the
appropriate use of these new technologies (Matteson et
al., 1993; Pontius, et al., 2000; Fan, 2001). It was well
recognized that over-use of pesticides by small-scale
farmers without ecological knowledge caused the
dilemma of the ‘‘three Rs’’ (resistance, resurgence of
pests and residue of pesticides) in many crops through-
out the world (Bernard and David, 2001; Matteson et
al., 1993; Pontius et al., 2002).
Small-scale producers are usually resource-poor and
consequently risk aversive. They are less tolerant of crop
pest infestation, putting high priority on the use of
measures able to solve pest problems (Bently and Thiele,
1999). Farmers in Northern China are typically small-
scale, with average cotton areas of less than 0.3 hectares
per household in 2002. They have encountered numer-
ous arthropod pests and diseases, in particular, con-
tinual outbreaks of CBW from 1992 to 1995 (Wang et
al., 1999; Yang and Jiang, 1995). Under high pest
pressure and with increasing ineffectiveness of pesticides
due to the development of pesticide resistance, these
farmers used much more pesticide per hectare on cotton
than any other crop. Even so, many failures were
experienced in controlling CBW (Pray et al., 2002;
Wang et al., 1999).
Earlier farmer studies have shown that by adopting Bt
cotton, Chinese farmers have reduced the costs of
pesticide application and labour as well as reducing
exposure to highly toxic pesticides (Xia et al., 1998; Pray
et al., 2001, 2002; Piao et al., 2001). The key questions
are ‘Will the benefits of Bt cotton continue?’, and if so,
‘‘Will they continue in the longer term?’’. To answer
these questions, one of the key areas yet to be
adequately addressed is the understanding of the extent
to which farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and practices
on Bt cotton are appropriate in terms of sustainable Bt
cotton production. The need for research and extension
institutions to understand farmers’ knowledge, percep-
tions, practices and constraints in order to implement
ecologically sound integrated pest management has been
emphasized worldwide in the past (Röling and van de
Fliert, 1998; Matteson et al., 1993; Yang et al., 2001;
Ooi, 1996), and required thorough study and analysis in
the Chinese context.
Evaluation of farmers’ knowledge, perception and
practices on the use of new technology is essential for
the development of strategies to sustain the new
technology. This kind of study on Bt cotton is also
especially important for the development of practical
IPM strategies for Bt cotton. Similar studies on
integrated pest management in non-Bt cotton (Ochou
et al., 1998), rice (Rubia et al., 1996) and vegetables
(Chitere and Omolo, 1993; Norton et al., 1999) are well
recorded, but information is lacking on Bt cotton.
This study therefore aimed at investigating farmers’
knowledge, perceptions and practices on the cultivation
of Bt cotton in Northern China, to assess any gaps in the
small producer system in order to enable the provision
of information necessary to promote the development of
IPM strategies in Bt cotton ecosystems.
Specifically we were attempting to: (1) understand the
farmers’ perceptions of the place of Bt cotton in their
farming system; (2) identify critical gaps in farmers’
knowledge of the environmental, economic and ecolo-
gical impact of Bt cotton which might be reducing their
ability to use the new technology to best advantage; (3)
propose research and farmer participatory extension
approaches which would address these gaps, and (4) use
the information obtained to promote feasible IPM
approaches in addressing the requirements of pest
control in Bt cotton.
2. Methodology
This study was conducted from April to December
2002 in Linqing county, Shandong province, China
where Bt cotton has been grown since 1997. By 2002,
virtually all cotton farmers in Shandong Province had
fully converted to growing Bt cotton. A combination of
socio-economic survey techniques: baseline surveys;
farmer recording of labour, inputs and outputs; monthly
researcher visits throughout the season and in-depth
case studies, were undertaken by an interdisciplinary
team of researchers and extension specialists.
A total of 92 cotton farmers were randomly selected
from household lists for survey from three villages. After
pre-testing and revising a questionnaire, baseline surveys
were conducted with sample farmers in May 2002, at the
beginning of the cotton season to collect recall
information on the previous season’s performance.
Most baseline survey questions were ‘open’, in order
to avoid limiting farmers’ responses. The questions
addressed farmers’ socio-economic backgrounds and
farming practices in Bt cotton, and focused on gaining
an understanding farmers’ awareness of the ecological
and economic changes brought about as a result of the
adoption of transgenic cotton.
Further interviews were carried out monthly (8 times)
through the cotton season (May to December) with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239 231

farmers maintaining individual daily records, which above. Only 14.1% farmers had less than 5 years’
focused on the economic aspects of agronomic activities education (Table 1). The farmers interviewed were
in cotton plots which were recorded in detail. For typically small holders, with farm sizes averaging
example: the date of preparing fields, seed treatments, 0.47 hectares/household, with 97.8% farmers’ land
sowing, fertilizing, transplanting, irrigation, spraying, holdings below 0.9 hectares, and the majority between
weeding and harvest, the size of plots, amount of 0.3 and 0.7 hectare (Table 1). In accordance with
precipitation and the names of varieties etc. Input costs, government regulations, all the land held by farmers
including pest control and labour inputs, were recorded, was leased from local governments on 30-year contracts.
for example: the type, name and amount of pesticide As more and more farmers are seeking temporary
sprayed, labour used for weeding, transplanting, har- jobs in cities, they sometimes sub-lease their con-
vesting, etc. The monthly interviews with the 92 sample tracted lands to other farmers. In this study 31.3%
farmers were carried out by trained extension staff. This farmers were involved in sub-contracting in this way in
allowed the records to be cross-checked prior to 2001. Farmers used most of their land for producing
computer entry and analysis. crops, and in Linqing County wheat, cotton, corn and
Information on local market prices of agro-chemicals vegetables were the major crops. Cotton was the most
including pesticides, fertilizers and plant growth regula- important cash crop, with average areas of cotton per
tors, etc. was collected regularly to determine the costs household 0.23 hectare in 2001. Acreages of cotton were
of inputs. The actual amounts of cotton hand-picked by small, with 98.9% of farmers’ growing less than 0.7
farmers from a sample area were recorded during the hectare (Table 1).
harvest season and used as the basis for estimating total
cotton production/farmer. Economic revenues in the
plots were then calculated according to these estimates,
using prevailing local prices. The costs of labour, Table 1
pesticide, fertilizers and plant growth regulators were Socio-economic background of the surveyed farmers (total respon-
also based on local market prices. dents=92)
A social case study checklist was designed to improve
Variables Summary of responses
understanding of farmers’ reactions to, and perceptions
about, Bt cotton and a sub-sample of six of the selected Gender (% total respondents)
farmers were interviewed in depth late in the cotton Male 63
season. The checklist included questions about farmers’ Female 37
perceptions of the price of seeds, health concerns about
Age (% total respondents)
products (edible cotton seed oil and blankets) and
20–29 7.6
attitudes to their pest problems. Farmers were also 30–39 25.0
asked in respect of Bt cotton which pest problems they 40–49 40.2
considered important and whether they were able to 50–59 21.7
recognize pests and manage pest problems. 60–69 5.4
Six numerators, indigenous to Linqing, and two
Highest level of Education (max. Years spent)
researchers were recruited from the county extension
oPrimary school (less than 5 years) 15.2
agency and trained to conduct the interviews. Interviews Primary school (5 years) 25.0
were conducted in the local Chinese dialect either at the Middle school (8 years) 29.3
farmer’s house or in their cotton fields. Each farmer High school (11 Years) 29.3
interview took 20–40 min. Higher education 1.1
The survey data were encoded, entered into Excel
Land holdings (Hectare/household) in 2001
sheets and verified prior to analysis. Excel 2000, SAS
o0.1 0
(Version 8) and Minitab were used in the analysis. 0.1–0.3 14.1
0.3–0.5 43.5
0.5–0.7 31.5
3. Results 0.7–0.9 8.7
40.9 2.2

3.1. Farmers’ Socio-economic background

Cotton acreage in 2001 (Hectare/household)
o0.1 14.1
Of the farmers interviewed for the study, 37% were 0.1–0.3 54.4
female and 63% were male. The average age was 43.2 0.3–0.5 25.0
years, with most of the farmers (65%) between 30 and 0.5–0.7 5.4
0.7–0.9 1.1
50 years old. Most (60.7%) farmers had some formal
40.9 0.0
education: either to middle school (8 years duration), or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
232 P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239

3.2. Cultivation of Bt cotton results indicated that the average amount of Bt cotton
seed used per hectare was 18.9 kg in 2002, of which 29%
Bt cotton was initially introduced on a trial basis into was home-retained seed and the other 71% was
China in 1994. The acreage grown has been increasing commercial seed. Home retention of seed carries the
dramatically since seeds became widely available after risk of accidental cross fertlization of varieties with the
1997. The 92 survey sample farmers from Linqing consequent loss of, or reduction in quality of, desirable
County started to adopt Bt cotton in 1997, and that agronomic traits including BT toxin expression.
voluntary adoption extended the cultivation of Bt When farmers were asked why they adopted Bt
cotton rapidly so that 67.7% of them had adopted cotton, the reasons given (multiple responses were
it by 1998, 81.5% by 1999 and all of them by 2002 allowed) were because it: saves labour, 95%; requires
(Table 2). less spraying of pesticides, 91%; yields were higher,
The farmer survey indicated that 7 varieties of Bt 88%, and it was more profitable 85% (Table 3). There
cotton were used in 2002. Two US Monsanto varieties was a consensus between the different categories of
accounted for 49% of the total; 99B was the most farmers on their reasons for adoption of Bt cotton.
popular, with 29% adoption, 33 B was the second There were no significant differences (using a 1% level
accounting for 20% adoption. The third most popular of significance) between males and females as regards
variety is Biaozhi Bt cotton; a variety developed by the any of these four reasons for adopting Bt cotton, nor
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science (CAAS). between less educated (primary school or less) and more
These accounted for 18% of adoption, followed by educated (middle school or above) farmers (Table 3).
Lumian Yan No.16, 18 and Fengang (all locally To further understand farmers’ reasons for adopting
developed varieties) which accounted for 12%, 9% Bt cotton, the 72 farmers who did not plant Bt cotton in
and 8% adoption, respectively. Other, unlabeled, Bt 1997 were asked their reasons. Of this group, 97%
varieties accounted for the remaining 4% of the area. responded that they were not certain about the
Some farmers were using home-retained seeds of Bt resistance of Bt cotton to pests, 13% of cotton farmers
cotton in the same way as for conventional cotton. The cited the high price of Bt cottonseed and 13% the non-
availability of Bt cotton seeds that year (Table 4).
Table 2
Year of farmers’ adoption of Bt cotton (total respondents=92)
3.3. Farmers’ knowledge and perceptions on Bt cotton
Year first grew Bt Number of Aggregated
cotton responses percentages of There were no significant differences between males
respondents and females as regards their awareness of pest problems
1996 0 0
on Bt cotton. Red spider mites (called holong locally)
1997 20 21.7 were cited as a problem in Bt cotton production by 40%
1998 42 67.4 of the farmers (Table 5). Almost two-thirds of farmers
1999 13 81.5 (60%) thought that CBW was still a problem in Bt
2000 4 85.9 cotton. The two education groups differed significantly
2001 4 90.2
2002 9 100
in their perceptions about the impact of CBW on Bt
cotton. Perhaps surprisingly, 82% of the more educated

Table 3
Farmers’ reasons for adopting Bt cotton by gender and education

No. (%)respondents

Category of farmer Less requirement of pesticides Higher yields Saving labour More profit

Gender
Male (n=58) 50(86) 52(90) 56(96) 46(79)
Female (n=34) 33(97) 29(85) 31(91) 30(87)
Z test
2.02(p=0.044) 0.60(p=0.549) 0.99(p=0.322)
1.16(p=0.245)

Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 34(92) 30(81) 34(92) 33(89)
Middle school or above (n=55) 50(91) 51(93) 53(96) 45(82)
Z test 0.17(p=0.868)
1.59(p=0.112)
0.87(p=0.385) 1.01(p=0.312)

Total (n=92) 84(91) 81(88) 87(95) 78(85)

Note: multiple responses were possible as there were no limitations set up for farmers’ choices.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239 233

Table 4
Reasons given by farmers who did not plant Bt cotton in the first year (1997)

No.(%)

Category of farmer Bt cotton seed was not Price of Bt cotton seed was Not certain about its
available too high effectiveness

Gender
Male (n=43) 0(0) 0(0) 43(100)
Female (n=29) 9(3) 9(3) 27(94)
Z test
3.61(p=0.000)
3.61(p=0.000) 1.47(p=0.143)

Education
Primary school or below (n=30) 0(0) 0(0) 30(100)
Middle school or above (n=42) 9(21) 9(21) 40(87)
Z test
3.38(p=0.001)
3.38(p=0.001) 1.45(p=0.147)

Total (n=72) 9(13) 9(13) 70(97)

Note: multiple responses were possible as there were no limitations set up for farmers’ choices. Only the 72 farmers who did not plant Bt cotton in
1997 were interviewed.

Table 5
Farmers’ perception of pest incidence in Bt cotton

No (%) respondents

Category of farmer Helicoverpa aramigera Red spider mite Spodoptera spp. Aphid Whitefly

Gender
Male (n=58) 26(45) 21(36) 19(33) 16(28) 11(19)
Female (n=34) 19(56) 15(44) 12(35) 11(32) 12(35)
Z test
0.26(p=0.792)
0.58(p=0.561)
0.25(p=0.805)
0.48(p=0.632)
1.69(p=0.092)

Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 10(27) 18(49) 11(32) 11(32) 8(22)
Middle school or above (n=55) 35(64) 18(33) 20(36) 16(29) 15(27)
Z test
6.11(p=0.000) 1.35(p=0.176)
0.67(p=0.504) 0.34(p=0.734)
0.62(p=0.532)

Total (N=92) 45(49) 36(39) 31(34) 27(29) 23(25)

Note: multiple responses were possible as there were no limitations set up for farmers’ choices.

Table 6
Farmers’ recognition of natural enemies in Bt cotton (total respondents=92)

Name of natural enemy Lady bird Spiders Lacewing Frogs Others

Numbers of responses 44 8 13 9 Sparrow 7 Swallow 9

Note: multiple responses were possible as there were no limitations set up for farmers’ choices.

farmers still listed CBW as a problem in Bt cotton,
whereas only 27% of the less educated farmers had the
same perception. Amongst insects not controlled by Bt
cotton, sap-sucking aphids (nichong) were identified by
40% farmers as a problem, followed by the leaf-feeding
caterpillars of Spodoptera spp. (34%) and sap-sucking
whiteflies (25%) (Table 5).
However, the identification of mites and diseases in Bt
cotton was a serious problem for farmers. Although
they had some experience in the identification of insects,
farmers listed red spider mite as a cotton disease
referring to it as holong, implying that the cotton was
burned. Moreover no farmer mentioned the Fusarium
and Verticillum wilts in Bt cotton, which are reported to
be very severe in this region.
Farmers demonstrated only moderate levels of
awareness about natural enemies in their Bt cotton
fields. Among the 92 interviewed farmers, 23 did not list
any natural enemies, although ladybirds were identified
(44 farmers), lacewings (13), spiders (8) and frogs (9)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
234 P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239

(Table 6). Two birds, sparrow and swallow, were
reported as predators of insects by 7 and 9 farmers,
respectively.
Although parasites and pathogens can play very
important roles in cotton pest management (in the
absence of inappropriate pesticide use), the survey
indicated that no farmer reported any of these species
in their cotton fields.
About a quarter of farmers voiced reservations on the
safety of transgenic cotton when directly asked during
the surveys; 65 of the 92 farmers thought that Bt cotton
oil is safe to eat, and 72 farmers did not feel uneasy
about using quilts and blankets made of Bt cotton lint
(Table 7), appearing to indicate that most farmers were
confident about the safety of the Bt cotton.
3.4. Farmers’ practices in pest control of Bt cotton
Scientific research suggests that the major cotton pests
in this region are cotton aphids, red spider mites, CBW,
Lygus bugs, Fusarium and Verticillium wilts, seedling
disease and boll rot diseases. Farmers put considerable
effort into cotton pest management in order to maintain
yields. The survey indicates that farmers were still
extremely alert to the infestation of CBW even in Bt
Table 7
Farmers’ perceptions about the safety of Bt cotton products (total
respondents=92)
Response Do you feel uneasy Do you feel uneasy
about eating Bt about using quilts or
cottonseed oil blankets made from
Bt cotton lint
Yes 27 20
No 65 72
cotton. When CBW larvae were found out in the fields,
100% farmers took some action, 37% cotton farmers
sprayed pesticides immediately, 58% of farmers went to
fields for surveying and 12% looked at their neighbours’
action and followed that. There were no farmers who
did not spray pesticides (Table 8). There were no
significant differences in farmers’ practices in controlling
CBW in Bt cotton between the two genders or the two
educational level groups.
When farmers were asked what actions were taken by
them if other cotton pests (beside CBW larvae) were
found in their fields, they responded that they sprayed
pesticides immediately (40%) or surveyed their fields for
pests (58%). Only 2% relied on observing their
neighbours’ actions. All farmers sprayed pesticides
(Table 9). There were no significant differences between
males and females or between the two educational levels
of farmers as regards the control of pests other than
CBW in Bt cotton.
Farmers used several methods for controlling cotton
pests in Bt cotton; all farmers sprayed pesticides,
43(47%) rubbed the eggs of cotton pests or picked
larvae off plants by hand, 28% used cultivation methods
such as ploughing and irrigating the cotton fields
after harvest to destroy over-wintering CBW pupae
(Table 10). There were no significant differences between
males and females or between the two educational levels
of farmers as regards the methods used to control cotton
pests in Bt cotton.
The majority of farmers (65%) selected pesticides
following the recommendations of extension agents.
Fewer farmers read the label on the pesticide packages
(40%), were influenced by advertisements in the
media (30%), relied on their own experience (28%) or
followed the recommendations of their neighbours
(20%) (Table 11). The proportion of male farmers using

Table 8
Farmer’s responses when CBW larvae were found in Bt cotton

No. (%) respondents

Category of farmer Immediately spray Conduct field surveys Following neighbours Not spraying
insecticides before spraying
insecticides

Gender
Male (n=58) 23(40) 32(55) 9(16) 0(0)
Female (n=34) 11(32) 21(62) 2(6) 0(0)
Z test 0.71(p=0.477)
0.62(p=0.534) 1.55(p=0.09) —

Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 14(38) 20(54) 7(19) 0(0)
Middle school or above (n=55) 20(36) 33(60) 4(7) 0(0)
Z test 0.14(p=0.886)
0.56(0.572) 1.59(0.112) —

Total (n=92) 34(37) 53(58) 11(12) —

Note: multiple responses were possible as there were no limitations set up for farmers’ choices.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239 235

Table 9
Farmers’ responses when pests other than CBW were found in Bt cotton

No. (%) respondents

Category of farmer Immediately spray Conduct field surveys Follow neighbour’s No sprays
insecticides before spraying example
insecticides

Gender
Male (n=58) 23(40) 33(57) 2(3) 0(0)
Female (n=34) 14(41) 20(59) 0(0) 0(0)
Z test
0.14(p=0.886)
0.18(p=0.856) 1.44(p=0.15) —

Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 15(41) 23(62) 1(3) 0(0)
Middle school or above (n=55) 22(40) 30(55) 1(2) 0(0)
Z test 0.05 (p=0.959) 0.73(p=0.465) 0.27(p=0.783) —

Total (n=92) 37(40) 53(58) 2(2) —

Note: multiple responses were possible as there were no limitations set up for farmers’ choices.

Table 10
Methods used by farmers to control pests in Bt cotton

No.(%) respondents

Category of the farmers Spray pesticides Spray Bt formulations Hand picking Cultivation controls

Gender
Male (n=58) 58(100) 7(12) 29(50) 19(33)
Female (n=34) 34(100) 9(26) 14(41) 7(21)
Z test —
1.66(p=0.098) 0.83(p=0.409) 1.31(p=0.190)

Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 37(100) 7(19) 19(51) 13(35)
Middle school or above (n=55) 55(100) 9(16) 24(44) 13(24)
Z test — 0.31(p=0.754) 0.73(p=0.466)

Total (n ¼ 92) 92(100) 16(17) 43(47) 26(28)

Note: multiple responses were possible as there were no limitations set up for farmers’ choices.

Table 11
Farmer’s reasons for the selection of pesticides

No. (%) respondents

Category of farmer Own experience Pesticide package Media adverts Recommendation Recommendation
labels of extension of neighbours
agents

Gender
Male (n=58) 13(22) 30(52) 15(26) 38(66) 11(19)
Female (n=34) 13(38) 7(21) 13(38) 22(65) 7(21)
Z test
1.59(p=0.113) 3.26(p=0.001)
1.22(p=0.222) 0.08(p=0.937)
0.19(p=0.851)

Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 14(38) 13(35) 10(27) 27(73) 9(24)
Middle school or above (n=55) 12(22) 24(44) 18(33) 33(60) 9(16)
Z test 1.65(p=0.100)
0.82(p=0.410)
0.59(p=0.555) 1.32(p=0.188) 0.92(p=0.357)

Total (n=92) 26(28) 37(40) 28(30) 60(65) 18(20)

Note: multiple responses were possible.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
236 P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239

Table 12
Farmers’ pesticide applications to Bt cotton (Total respondents=92)

Category of farmers Average no. (spraying times / season) Average cost of pesticides (US$/hectare)

Gender
Male (n=58) 12.4 105.6
Female (n=34) 13.2 123.2
F (ANOVA) 1.55(p=0.22) 0.67(p=0.42)

Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 12.1 89.5
Middle school or above (n=55) 13.2 131.3
F (ANOVA) 2.57(p=0.11) 3.92(p=0.051)

Means of the whole sample 12.7 111.8

Table 13 4. Discussion
Inputs in the cultivation of Bt cotton (Total respondents=92)

Category Costs (US$/hectare) Percentage of the
(Means7Sd) total (%)
Seeds 61.2733.6 9.7
Fertilizer 271.27213.4 43
Pesticide 111.87102.5 17.7
Labour 186.67129.2 29.6
Note: labour costs were based on 9 RMB Yuan (equal to 1.089 US$) /
workday (a man works 8 h/day in local labour market).
pesticides after reading pesticide labels, was significantly
greater than the proportion of female farmers
(p=0.001).
Farmers sprayed pesticides to control cotton pests
12.7 times on average during the 2002 season, within a
wide range of 6–22. Pesticide costs in Bt cotton were still
as high as 111.8 US$/hectare on average (Table 12).
There were no significant differences between either the
spraying frequency or the costs of pesticides by farmers’
gender or education.
3.5. Farmers’ practice in the cultivation of Bt cotton
Farmers’ variable inputs for cultivating Bt cotton
were seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and labour. The survey
showed that fertilizer costs were the largest element,
accounting for 43% of the total variable costs, followed
by labour costs, accounting for 29.6%. Pesticide costs
were higher than seed costs in spite of the higher cost of
Bt seed (Table 13).
The average yield of seed cotton was 3951 kg/hectare
and the gross margin of cotton production was 947 US$/
hectare (Table 14). There was a significant difference
between the mean gross margin of males and that of
females (p=0.026, two-sided test) with the gross margin
for males being greater than that of females).
The study has shown that although in the first year
seed was available (1997), 21.7% farmers planted Bt
cotton, the majority (78.3%) did not adopt because they
had doubts about the effectiveness of the resistance of Bt
cotton to CBW. After this, however, farmers’ adoption
increased continually until by 2002 all farmers in the
sample were growing Bt cotton. The farmers’ process of
adoption of Bt cotton revealed by this study reflects the
process of the adoption of new technologies in the
Chinese small producer farming system in the 1990s.
Chinese farmers have become independent decision
makers in agriculture since the implementation of
household responsibility systems twenty years ago
(The household responsibility system has been imple-
mented as a national agricultural policy since 1979,
replacing the commune farming system which existed in
China before that date). Most farmers now make their
own decisions about what to plant, what varieties to use,
etc. In this way, Chinese farmers are similar to small
farmers in other developing countries. Previous studies
in China (Pray et al., 2002) showed that government and
private seed companies strongly promoted Bt cotton. At
the same time, pesticide companies were trying to
discourage farmers from growing Bt cotton, so as to
support the purchase of pesticides (Pray et al., 2002).
However, this study has revealed that farmers’ main
reasons for adopting Bt cotton was to save labour (97%
farmers), reduce pesticide applications (91%), get high
yields (88%) and grow cotton more profitably (85%).
The responses of farmers in this study are consistent
with other recent farmer surveys in Shandong and Hebei
provinces (Huang et al., 2002; Pray et al., 2001, 2002).
Farmers have some awareness of insect pests in Bt
cotton, especially about the resurgence of sucking pests
such as red spider mites and aphids. Previous studies
(Xia et al., 1995, 1998) indicated that Bt cotton
demonstrated high efficacy in controlling CBW in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239
Table 14
The economic efficiency of Bt cotton cultivation (Total respondents=92)
Category of farmer Mean yield of seed cotton (Kg/hectare)
Gender
Male (n=58) 4108.5
Female (n=34) 3683.4
F (ANOVA) 2.46(p=0.12)
Education
Primary school or below (n=37) 3711.2
Middle school or above (n=55) 4162.2
F (ANOVA) 2.97(p=0.088)
Means of the whole sample 3951.4
Note: land rent was 200 RMB Yuan/Mu (equal to 363 US$/hectare). The cotton price was 4.2 RMB Yuan/KG seed cotton (equal to 0.5081 US$/ Kg
seed cotton) in the local market. Gross margin=(yield  cotton price)
(land rent + total variable inputs (including seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and
labour).
laboratory, cage and field experiments, although cater-
pillar survival levels varied with crop stage and plant
structure. To date, there has been no unambiguous
report of field resistance to Bt cotton in China or
elsewhere, for any pest species. However, theoretical
considerations make it likely that, under constant
selection pressure from the transgenic plants, evolved
resistance may become sufficiently common to be
recognizable in the field afer approximately 20 genera-
tions. In Shandong Province, this would represent 6–7
years of continuous Bt cotton growing i.e. c.2003-4.
In this study, 60% of farmers thought that CBW was
still a problem in Bt cotton, revealing differences
between farmers’ knowledge and scientific study. This
may be an aftermath of the long period during which
farmers endured outbreaks of CBW attacks in their
cotton in the mid 1990s. Another reason might be that
many farmers confused the larvae of CBW with those of
Spodoptera spp. At present Bt cotton varieties with Cry
IA(c) gene are not resistant to Spodoptera spp. Xia
(1998) reports that the larvae populations of Spodoptera
spp. were abundant in Bt cotton fields at some stages of
crop growth and that to farmers their sizes and colours
may have looked very similar to those of CBW (Xia et
al., 1995,1998). However, farmers were also not aware
of the infestations of Lygus bugs, which were reported to
have become key pests in Bt cotton in Northern China
(Wu et al., 2002).
Farmers’ knowledge of natural enemies in Bt cotton
was inadequate. For diseases, farmers’ knowledge
appears to be non-existent with no farmers mentioning
them during the survey, and yet other field studies have
shown that Fusarium and Verticillum wilts in Bt cotton
had actually been very severe in Northern China during
the 90’s (Xia et al., 1995, 1998). It is well documented in
the literature that farmers commonly misdiagnose
disease problems, possibly because their symptoms are
237
Gross margin (Net profits) (US$/hectares)
1024.1
815.3
5.14(p=0.026)
941.3
951.9
0.01(p=0.91)
946.9
inconspicuous and difficult to interpret, at least in other
regions (Bentley and Thiele, 1999). A significant number
of farmers were also unaware of the natural enemies
present in their cotton fields, and no farmer reported
any species of parasite or pathogen of pests. Farmers
were weak in identification of the role of natural
enemies; such gaps in farmers’ knowledge also support
the need for training of farmers in basic pest ecology for
the management of pests in Bt cotton.
Farmers used more than 7 Bt varieties in the three
surveyed villages in 2002, and 29% of the seeds used
were home-retained. To date, Monsanto and several
Chinese research institutes have developed more than 10
Bt cotton varieties (Pray et al., 2002), although with the
expansion of Bt cotton, some non-approved varieties
were also developed by local research institutions.
Farmers’ use of non-approved Bt varieties, together
with home-retained seeds of potentially poor quality
(through intervarietal crossing) poses the possibility of
accelerating the development of resistance of the CBW
to Bt toxin. The study revealed that 17% of farmers
sprayed Bt formulations (containing a mix of Bt toxins
some of which are cross resistant to Cry1A(c), some not)
on Bt cotton, a practice which also enhances the risk of
faster development of Bt resistance in the CBW.
The study showed that farmers’ use of pesticides on Bt
cotton was still very intensive. Although some survival
of CBW larvae on Bt cotton is to be expected, especially
late in the season when toxin expression levels are lower,
very few sprays (perhaps 1–4) should have sufficed for
economic control. Additional sprays are highly unlikely
to be cost-effective. Farmers, then, are still over-utilising
insecticides on Bt cotton. The reasons for over use of
pesticides on Bt cotton might be that farmers were
overestimating yield loss caused by CBW in Bt cotton;
probably by recalling high infestation years rather than
taking an average over years (Waibel, 1986) and many
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
238 P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239
other studies (eg. Heong and Escalada, 1999; Pontius, et
al., 2002). Although it is reasonable for a small farmer to
be risk averse, it is clear that further research is needed
to identify the field density of CBW in Bt cotton at
which it is economically sensible to spray insecticide.
This needs to be undertaken for the different stages of
cotton growth. For example, there may be little point is
spraying an infestation in small, late-season, bolls which
will not be brought to a harvestable stage, but a similar
infestation earlier in the season might call for remedial
action.
The results of this study suggest that Chinese
extension systems face a challenge for quality training
of farmers in the appropriate use of new technologies.
After the ‘reforms’ of the early 1980s, the centralized
top-down extension approach faced great difficulties
because farmers then owned the land and were
smallholders. In this situation, individual farmers will
usually decide how they will farm; whether to divide the
fields into smaller parts, or sub-contract to other
farmers, which crops to grow, as well as the related
farming practices. The farming ecological system
changes, becoming more diversified in terms of the
range of crops, cultivation practices and cropping
patterns. Pest management decision-making has thus
become more complex because pest levels may vary
significantly over quite short distances. Pests can easily
build up differently in different fields and at different
times. To minimize the risks, a natural reaction for
many farmers is to rely on calendar and preventive
spraying with chemical pesticides (Wang et al., 1999;
Yang and Jiang, 1995). So even with Bt cotton, although
farmers are spraying much less than they were, they are
still spraying pesticides excessively for CBW control.
The study shows that formal education and gender
were not significantly associated with farmers’ knowl-
edge and practice on cultivation of Bt cotton. It appears
to show that farmers’ indigenous knowledge on Bt
cotton is drawn mainly from their previous practices,
and that they simply transfer the experience and
knowledge developed on conventional cotton to Bt
cotton. This certainly presents potential problems for Bt
cotton cultivation in the future. Previous studies have
indicated that phenotypic development of Bt cotton is
very different from conventional cotton varieties,
including the formation of yield components, popula-
tion dynamics of pests and natural enemies, etc. (Xia et
al., 1995, 1998; Shoemaker, 2001). This may imply the
introduction of different cultivation practices to those
used with conventional cotton, from the rational use of
fertilizers, through pruning and de-topping, to pest
scouting and changed intervention criteria, etc.
It is clear that Chinese cotton farmers require training
in the identification of pests and diseases and of natural
enemies. Understanding the basic ecology of the
components of the system is vital if Bt cotton and
additional pest management measures are to be effi-
ciently deployed.
Recent farmer field school (FFS) training on inte-
grated pest management involving adult, non-formal,
education using the learning-discovery approach, has
focused on filling gaps in farmers’ knowledge about Bt
cotton and misconceptions about pest management
(Pontius et al., 2002; Röling and Van de Fliert, 1998).
If the curriculum of FFS is carefully designed specifi-
cally to address the needs of Bt cotton, farmer graduates
should be able to use Bt cotton in a sustainable way.
The survey highlights the need for further applied
research into the use of insecticides for bollworm control
on Bt cotton. An appropriate sampling system and
decision criteria enabling insecticide applications to be
made against CBW and other pests only when they are
necessary and economically justifiable, needs to be
developed and incorporated into the extension system
advice.
The agronomic and bollworm resistance risks asso-
ciated with farmer retention of seed should be quantified
and appropriate advice actively promoted. More com-
prehensive data on larval survival is required in order to
clarify the conditions under which resistance will
develop most rapidly. It is essential that these be taken
into account when Bt cotton management recommenda-
tions are promulgated.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the EU COTRAN
programme (ICA4-2000-10197), We are most grateful
for the contributions made by the staff in plant
protection stations of Linqing county and Shandong
Province. We also thank the farmers for their invaluable
participation, without which this study could not have
been completed.
References
Bentley, J.W., Thiele, G., 1999. Bibliography: farmer knowledge and
management of crop disease. Agric. Hum. Values 16 (1), 75–81.
Bernard, H.S., David, N., 2001. Impediments to sustainable agricul-
ture in China. In: Promoting global innovation of agricultural
science and technology and sustainable agriculture development.
International Conference on Agricultural Science and Technology,
November 7–9, 2001, Beijing, China.
Chitere, P.O., Omolo, B.A., 1993. Farmers’ indigenous knowledge of
crop pests and their damage in western Kenya. Int. J. Pest Mange.
39 (2), 126–132.
Fan, X., 2001. Agricultural science and technology and vertical
integration in agriculture in China. In: Promoting Global Innova-
tion of Agricultural Science and Technology and Sustainable
Agriculture Development. International Conference on Agricultur-
al Science and Technology, November 7–9, 2001, Beijing, China.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yang et al. / Crop Protection 24 (2005) 229–239
Heong, K.L., Escalada, M.M., 1999. Quantifying rice farmers’ pest
management decisions: Beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer
control. Crop Prot. 18, 315–322.
Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Pray, C., Wang, Q., 2002. Plant biotechnology
in the developing world: the case of China. Science 295, 674–677.
James, C., 1999. Global status of transgenic crops in 1999. ISAAA
Brief No.12. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY.
Matteson, P.C., Gallagher, K.D., Kenmore, P.E., 1993. Extension of
integrated pest management for plant hoppers in Asian irrigated
rice. In: Denno, R.F., Perfect, T.J. (Eds.), Ecology and Manage-
ment of Plant hoppers. Chapman & Hall, London.
Norton, G.W., Rajotte, E.G., Gapud, V., 1999. Participatory research
in integrated pest management: Lessons from the IPM CRSP.
Agric. Hum. Values 16 (4), 431–439.
Ochou, G.O., Matthews, G.A., Mumford, J.D., 1998. Farmers’
knowledge and perception of cotton pest problems in Cote
D’Ivoire. Int. J. Pest Manage. 44 (1), 5–9.
Ooi, P.A.C., 1996. Experience in educating rice farmers to understand
biological control. Entomophaga 41, 375–385.
Piao, Y., Yang, P., Guo, R., 2001. Status of Bt cotton and its impact
on cotton production in China. Proceedings of Regional workshop
on Bt cotton study in China, Bangkok, Thailand, May 4–5, 2001
pp. 2–3.
Pontius, J., Dilts, R., Bartlett, A., 2002. From farmer field schools to
community IPM, ten years of IPM training in Asia. FAO
Community IPM Programme. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Pray, C., Huang, J., Ma, D., Qiao, F., 2001. Impact of Bt cotton in
China. World Dev 29, 813–825.
Pray, C., Huang, J., Hu, R., Rozelle, S., 2002. Five years of Bt cotton
in China—the benefits continue. The Plant J. 31 (4), 423–430.
Röling, N., Van de Fliert, E., 1998. Introducing integrated pest
management in rice in Indonesia: a pioneering attempt to facilitate
239
large-scale change. In: Röling, N.G., Wagemakers, M.A.E. (Eds.),
1998. Facilitating sustainable agriculture. Participatory learning
and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Shoemaker, R., 2001. Economic issues in agriculture biotechnology.
Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 762, US Department of
Agriculture.
Rubia, E.G., Lazaro, A.A., Heong, K.L., Diah, N., Norton, G.A.,
1996. Farmers’ perceptions of the white stem borer Scirpophaga
innotata (Walker), in Cilamaya, West Java, Indonesia. Crop Prot.
15 (4), 327–333.
Waibel, H., 1986. The economics of integrated pest control in irrigated
rice, a case study from the Philippines. Crop Protection Mono-
graphs. Springer, Berlin 196pp.
Wang, H., Hua, X., Mou, J., 1999. The IPM of cotton bollworm.
China Agriculture Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).
Wu, K., Li, W., Feng, H., Guo, Y., 2002. Seasonal abundance of the
mirids, Lygus lucorum and Adelphocoris spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae)
on Bt cotton in northern China. Crop Prot. 21 (2002), 997–1002.
Xia, J., Wang, C., Wen, L., Ma, C., 1995. A preliminary study on the
role of transgenic Bt cotton in integrated pest management. China
Cotton 22 (8), 8–11 (in Chinese).
Xia, J., Cui, J., Ma, L., Dong, S., Cui, X., 1998. The role of transgenic
Bt cotton in integrated insect pest management. Acta Gossypii
Sinica 11, 57–64 (in Chinese with English summary).
Yang, P., Jiang, R., 1995. Review on nation-wide IPM Strategies in the
control of cotton bollworm in the year of 1994 and 1995. In
Progress Report of IPM of Cotton Bollworm. China Agriculture
Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).
Yang, P., Piao,Y., Yan, S., 2001. Cotton IPM implementation
Strategies in China, Proceedings of regional workshop on the
strategies on the implementation of cotton IPM programmes. Ho
Chi Minh City, Vietnam, September 15–19, 2001.