2006-9-8 1

Managing Pest Resistance in Fragmented Farms:

An Analysis of the Risk of Bt Cotton in China
and its Zero Refuge Strategy and Beyond

Fangbin Qiao1, Jikun Huang2, Scott Rozelle1 and James Wilen1

1 University of California, Davis

2 Chinese Academy of Sciences

Presented at the “Economic Consideration of Biosafety and Biotechnology Regulations in India: A

Policy Dialogue”

August 24-25, 2006, The Claridges, New Delhi, India

Authors note: The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Economy and Environment Program
for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) and National Science Foundation of China (70021001 and 70333001).

2006-9-8 2
 Introduction
• The development of Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) crops has been the most successful
application of agricultural biotechnology
2002: 20% cotton
9% maize

• One of the major worries lurking behind

this success is pest resistance.
2006-9-8 3
 Introduction – cont.
To counter the threat of resistance – refuge strategy.

Bt field Non-Bt field

Resistant Susceptible
Mating
Pests Pests

Slow down the buildup of the

resistance in the pest population
2006-9-8 4
 Introduction – cont.
• Refuge policy
– Refuge requirement in the US, 5% non-spray or 20%
spray
– All the other Bt countries follow
– Except for China: 0% refuge

• Question: all the empirical studies is in US, is it

really suitable for all the other Bt countries?

2006-9-8 5
 Objective
• Is US-styled refuge policy appreciate for all
Bt countries, including developing countries?

• If not, what is the optimal refuge policy to

manage pest resistance in a developing
country?

2006-9-8 6
 Why China?
• One of the leaders in the creation and use of
Bt crops in the world:
– Largest Bt cotton planting country
• 3.7 million ha in 2004, 66% of all the cotton
– 0% refuge policy

• Empirical data

2006-9-8 7
 Main topics
• Cotton, Cotton Bollworm and Cropping System in
China

• The Model

• Simulation Result

• Conclusion and Discussion

2006-9-8 8
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton and Bt cotton in China

2006-9-8 9
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton and Bt cotton in China – cont.
4000
Yel l ow Ri ver va l l ey
Yangt s e Ri ver val l ey
Nor t hwes t
3000
(1000 tons)

2000

1000

0
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2006-9-8 10
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton and Bt cotton in China – cont.

Sown area of Bt & non-Bt cotton in China, 1997-2004 Bt cotton adoption rate, 1997-2004
6000

100
80
4000

60
(1,000 ha)

(%)
40
2000

20
0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

non-Bt cotton Bt cotton Hebei Shandong Henan

2006-9-8 11
Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton and Bt cotton in China – cont.

• Yellow River Valley cotton production region became the

largest cotton production after the 1980s

• However, production decreases since early 1990s

• Pest problem, especially the cotton bollworm is the most

important pest

• Bt cotton spread rapidly in China, especially in

Yellow River Valley

2006-9-8 12
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton bollworm

2006-9-8 13
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton bollworm - cont.

Actual loss (%) of grain and cotton Potential loss (%) of cotton

China Yellow River Valley

Cotton Grain Cotton Grain China Yellow River

Valley

1990 5 3 8 4 24 35

1992 14 2 29 3 45 93

1997 6 2 9 3 35 62

2006-9-8 14
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton bollworm - cont.

• The CBW is the most important pest in China’s cotton production

regions, especially in Yellow River Valley (YRV)

– Without spray: potential yield loss:

• Official estimation: 24-50% (China), 35-93% (YRV)
• Some farmers even say: 100% in YRV

– With spray: in 1992

• 14% in China
• 29% in YRV
• More than 50% in some place in YRV

2006-9-8 15
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton bollworm - cont.

Resistant factor of cotton bollworm to

pyrethroid from 1981 to 1995, China Resistance of cotton bollworm to Bt toxin in the lab

180 120
160 100

(resistant factor)
140
80
120
60
100
80 40

60 20
40 0
20 1 5 9 10 13 14 15 16 18 25 30 33 36 38 44
0 (generation)
1981 1985 1987 1995

2006-9-8 16
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cotton bollworm - cont.

• The CBW developed resistance to any

conventional pesticides in only 10/20 years

• More pesticides use

– Per hectare pesticide cost in 1995 price ($/ha)
• 31 in 1980 to 101 in 1995

– Share (%) of pesticide cost in total material costs of crop

production
• 13% in 1980 to 22% in 1995

2006-9-8 17
Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system

• Cotton bollworm (CBW) is the most important pest,

especially in Yellow River Valley

• CBW developed resistance to conventional pesticides

(field data), and Bt toxin (lab data)

• Should China plant non-Bt cotton as refuge?

– Yes, all the other Bt countries did
– No, special cropping system (natural refuge crops)

2006-9-8 18
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cropping system in Yellow River Valley

2006-9-8 19
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Cropping system in Yellow River Valley – cont.

2006-9-8 20
Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
no field evidence of buildup of resistance to Bt toxin

Cotton bollworm Pink bollworm

Region N.China N. Carolina Arizona

Initial (year) 0.0095 (1998) 0.00043 0.16

(2000) (1997)
Final (year) 0.0022 (2000) 0 0.075
(2001) (2001)

2006-9-8 21
 Cotton, cotton bollworm and cropping system:
Natural refuge crops

• CBW can easily find nature refuge crops:

– 1st generation: wheat only
– 2nd and 3rd generations: soybean, peanuts, weeds, fruit trees, etc.
– 4th generation: soybean, peanuts, weeds, fruit trees, etc. + CORN

• Is planting non-Bt cotton as refuge economic? – need

quantitatively analysis

2006-9-8 22
 The model: biological part
• Susceptibility to Bt toxin (or conventional pesticide) is considered as
the good “resource”

• Two-locus four-allele model

• Susceptible gene to Bt toxin
• Susceptible gene to conventional pesticide

• The susceptibility (X) and resistant (x) alleles to Bt toxin at locus one,
and the susceptibility (Y) and resistant (y) alleles to conventional
pesticide at locus two divided the total pest population into nine types
of pests with different genotypes.

• Two treatment (Bt cotton and conventional pesticide) divided all the
land into four type: Bt cotton with CP spray; Bt cotton without CP
spray; Non-Bt cotton with CP spray; Non-Bt cotton without spray and
natural refuge crops

2006-9-8 23
 The model: biological part
• Three state variables:
– Dynamic of total pest population
– Dynamic of the fraction of the susceptible gene to Bt toxin in the
total pest population
– Dynamic of the fraction of the susceptible gene to conventional
pesticide in the total pest population

• two control variables:

– Bt cotton
– Conventional pesticide spray

• renewable resource model

2006-9-8 24
 A simple sketch figure of the biological part
of the model
New pests

Bt field Non-Bt refuge Natural

Refuge
Spray No-Spray Spray No-Spray crops

death

2006-9-8 25
 The model: biological part
Nine genotype pests, their fractions in the total pest population, and
mortality rate in different fields

2006-9-8 26
 The model: regulatory part

• A social planer minimize the total cost:

– Damage cost caused by the pests
– Control costs of Bt cotton
– Control costs of conventional pesticide

• Subject to change of the total pest population and

the change of the resources.

2006-9-8 27
 The model
t =T
Min V ( D t ) = DCTN t * α + cbt * q t + ccp * [ q t * dbt t + (1 − q t ) * dnbt t ] + δ V ( D t +1 )
t =1
0 ≤ qt ≤1

geno = 9
D t +1 − D t = g * D t * (1 − D t ) − ∑ MR
geno =1
t
geno
, Dt=0 = D 0

geno=3 geno=6
wt +1 − wt = (1 −wt ) * (wt2 * g * Dt * (1 − Dt ) − ∑ MRtgeno ) + (0.5 − wt ) * (2 * wt * (1 − wt ) * g * Dt * (1 − Dt ) −
geno=1
∑MR
geno=4
t
geno
)

geno=9
+ (wt ) * ((1 − wt ) 2 * g * Dt * (1 − Dt ) − ∑ MR
geno=7
t
geno
), wt =0 = w0

geno=1, 4,7 geno=2,5,8

vt +1 − vt = (1 −v t ) * (vt2 * g * Dt * (1 − Dt ) − ∑ MRtgeno ) + (0.5 − vt ) * (2 * vt * (1 − vt ) * g * Dt * (1 − Dt ) − ∑ MR t
geno
)

geno=3,6,9
+ (v t ) * ((1 − vt ) 2 * g * Dt * (1 − Dt ) − ∑ MR t
geno
), vt =0 = v0

2006-9-8 28
 Parameters

• Biological parameters: calculating using data from

Institute of Plant Protection of the Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences , and their
publications

• Economic parameters: calculating using data from

Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences, and their
publications
2006-9-8 29
 Parameters: default value
Default Source
value
Economic parameters
Unit damage cost caused by the $1030/ha Calculated based on data collected by
CBW IPPa
Bt cotton planting cost $143/ha Calculated based on data collected by
CCAPb
Conventional pesticide spray cost $252/ha Calculated based on data collected by
CCAPb
Discount rate 0.036 The people’s bank of China

Biological parameters
Initial resistant (to Bt toxin) gene 0.001 Gould, 1998; Livingston et al., 2002
frequency
Initial resistant (to conventional 0.50 Ru et al., 2002; Wu, 2000
pesticide) gene frequency
Mortality rate of susceptible pest 0.90 Wu et al., 2000; Livingston et al.,
to Bt toxin in Bt field 2002; Storer et al. 2003; Mike Caprio,
2000
Mortality rate of susceptible pest 0.90 No data
to conventional pesticides if
spray
Fitness cost of resistant pests to 0.05 Livingston et al., 2002
Bt toxin
Fitness cost of resistant pests to 0.05 No data
conventional pesticides
Dominance of susceptible gene 0.75 Private discussion with Wu
(to Bt toxin) in heterozygote
Dominance of susceptible gene 0.75 No data
(to conventional pesticide) in
heterozygote

The threshold value for spray 0.28 Guo (1999?)

Natural growth rate 0.68 Calculated by the author using field
date
a
IPP is the Institute of Plant Protection of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science.
b
CCAP is the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

2006-9-8 30
 Simulation result

• Optimal refuge size for

– 10-year plan: 0%

– 15-year plan: 0%

2006-9-8 31
 Simulation result

2006-9-8 32
 Simulation result:
20-year plan
Cost of zero refuge policy and optimal dynamic refuge
policy for 20-year plan

Optimal dynamic Cost saving from zero refuge policy

Zero refuge policy policy to optimal dynamic refuge strategy

Average cost Average cost In absolute value In percentage

(US$ per ha per year) (US$ per ha per year) (US$ per ha per (%)
year)

176.83 174.37 2.46 1.39

2006-9-8 33
 Simulation result:
20-year plan – cont.

• Transaction costs are ignored in the model

– Cost associated with enforcement
– Monitoring cost

• Monitoring cost: US $ 6.97 per hectare per

years >> US $ 2.46

2006-9-8 34
 Conclusion and discussion
• China does not need to re-think its zero refuge policy

• Does not mean zero refuge is right

– if Bt corn is commercialized
– if Bt rice is commercialized

• Other developing countries: need quantitative analysis

because of
– Nature of the pest
– Nature of the cropping system

2006-9-8 35