In addition similar trend was observed with respect to productivity. Non Bt cotton (9.09 %) cultivation.The production was 8.55 lakh bales of cotton during 2001 and it has increased to 11.63 lakh bales during 2010-11. Whereas, the share of seed cost is high in Bt cotton (8.61 %) when compared to the non-Bt (4.02 %).There was no significant difference in the share of fertilizers across Bt cotton (9.70 %) and The share of pesticide cost is considerably less in Bt cotton cultivation (15.42 %) when compared to the non Bt cotton cultivation (22.56 %). (1.68 in Bt cotton versus 1.26 in non-Bt cotton). The higher profitability of Bt cotton was also reflected in terms of benefit-cost ratio 11485.11/ha), accounting for an increase of 57 per cent. 26771.26 /ha) than from non Bt cotton (Rs. 39107.07).The net returns over total cost were much higher from Bt cotton production (Rs. 300/450 g).There was a significant difference in expenditure on plant protection chemicals (PPC’s)īetween Bt (Rs.6031.56/ha) and non Bt (Rs.9801.79/ha) farmers.The total cost of cultivation per ha including interest on working capital, land revenue,ĭepreciation charges and imputed value of family labour was worked out to be higher for Which was five-times higher than that of the local hybrid variety DCH-32 (Rs. Mentioned that Bt cotton (hybrid) seeds were initially sold at a price (Rs. 3368.2 /ha) in Bt cotton than in nonīt cotton (Rs.1746.85 / ha) farms, largely due to higher cost of Bt cotton seeds. The average expenditure on seeds was higher (Rs.
Paradigm shift in the area from non Bt to Bt cotton leading to almost 73 per cent of theīt cotton area to the total cotton area in the state. It was observed that during a period from 2006-07 to 2010-11 there was a Bt cotton in the state and study districts have shown a phenomenal increase in the area in a Whereas, only 0.01 ha of land was under mixed cropping. Most of the sample farmers (93.86 %) were growing Bt cotton as a pure crop with an average area of 0.68 ha. The total land holding was very less (26 %). The total holding was more than 74 per cent (1.23 ha). Rainfed agriculture was predominant in the study area as the proportion of rainfed area in