There are indications that tolerance to Bt is growing among bollworm populations in cotton, according to Dick Hardee, a researcher with USDA's Agricultural Research Service. "Over the past three years we have seen a minor shift in tolerance to Bt with the bollworm. We think they may be becoming more tolerant in some ares to Bt cotton every year."

Hardee has helped formulate a protocol for changing the refuge system in cotton for 2001. First, there would be the option of an external refuge of at least 30% non-Bt cotton. That refuge would be planted within a half-mile of the farthest Bt cotton. "This refuge," Hardee says, "could be treated with any registered non-Bt insecticide or other control measures."

Second, according to Hardee, is the 90-10 option. With this option there would be an in-field refuge of at least 10% non-Bt cotton. This refuge would be right in the center of a Bt field. These field could be treated with any registered non-Bt insecticide or other control, as long as the entire field is treated in the same manner. This means that Bt rows could not be treated independently of non-Bt rows.

"Both options are aimed at providing an area with Bt-susceptible moths, which would mate with resistant adults emerging from Bt cotton," says Hardee. In general, though, the overall agronomic practices used for non-Bt cotton would be as similar as practical to those of the Bt field, especially regarding fertilization, irrigation and crop termination, he says. As you might imagine, these protocols are running into resistance from Monsanto, some entomologists and producers, according to Hardee. "They want to maintain the status quo," he says. "Several of us have pointed out that what is prompting a lot of these suggested changes is the admitted non-compliance among some growers under the current system," Hardee says. "There has been abuse of the 96-4 option from day one, and practically everyone knows that."

Some growers have put their 4% non-Bt cotton in the lower back 40, rather than placing it close to their other fields. Even worse, according to Hardee, growers sometimes spray it, which negates the purpose of the refuge in the first place. "But let me add that over 90% of growers are complying with current rules; they are doing a good job," he says. "It's the 6 to 9%--Monsanto's own polls show ths figure--that are ruining the value of the refuge."

New protocols for planting refuges near Bt cotton are not likely to make many environmentalists happy, according to Dick Hardee with USDA's Agricultural Research Service. Hardee is one of a group of scientists who have designed new, more stringent, protocols for Bt cotton refuges for the 2001 season. While the present system calls for 4% of the cotton crop to be planted to non-Bts near your Bt crop, Hardee's new system would ask growers to plant an external refuge of at least 30% non-Bt.

Either that, or growers would be asked to grow 10% non-Bt in the middle of every field planted to Bt cotton. These new protocols are not making many growers, Monsanto and even some entomologists happy, according to Hardee. Though much stricter, the new protocols are also not likely to satisfy environmentalists critical of the genetically engineered Bt technology. Many of the suggestions coming from environmental groups are out of line and not workable, says Hardee. "Well, some groups want no more than 50% planted in any one area. And others want crops completely removed from the marketplace," he say. "We have been prodded for years to reduce our use of chemicals in agriculture. Now that we've found something we can use to reduce the total amount of chemicals applied annually, we still have complaints."

Hardee is not betting the farm that the changes he and others are suggesting will be accepted. Other groups are recommending a one-year extension of the current refuge requirements. The extension is being sought because a new generation of Bt, Bollgard 2, will be on the market from the 2001 to the 2003 seasons. "[An extension] would allow the industry time to collect more data on Bollgard 2," says Hardee. "Another year would also allow collection of more resistance-monitoring data from the field. All of this might provide more concrete information to use in making any long-term changes in refuge requirements."

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **