ATTRA is the national sustainable agriculture information service operated by the National Centerfor Appropriate Technology, through a grant from the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture. These organizations do not recommend or endorse products,companies, or individuals. NCAT has offices in Fayetteville, Arkansas (P.O. Box 3657, Fayetteville,AR 72702), Butte, Montana, and Davis, California.

By Martin Guerena andPreston Sullivan NCAT Agriculture SpecialistsJuly 2003

CURRENT TOPIC

ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION

Introduction

Organic cotton has provided significant pricepremiums for growers willing to meet the manychallenges inherent in its production without theaid of conventional pesticides and commercialfertilizers. Growing organic cotton is demand-ing, but with commitment, experience, and de-termination, it can be done. This publicationcovers the major steps in organic production ofcotton. It covers soil fertility, weed control op-tions, and alternative pest controls for the manyinsect problems that plague cotton. Finally, mar-keting of organic cotton is discussed as well.

Abstract: Cotton sold as �organic� must be grown according to the federal guidelines for organic crop production.Soil fertility practices that meet organic certification standards typically include crop rotation, cover cropping, animalmanure additions, and use of naturally occurring rock powders. Weed management is accomplished by a combinationof cultivation, flame weeding, and other cultural practices. A wide variety of insects attack cotton. Managementoptions include trap cropping, strip cropping, and managing border vegetation to encourage high populations of nativebeneficials. Certain biopesticides using bacteria, viruses, and fungal insect pathogens are available as insect controltools. We discuss specific insect management strategies for cutworm, cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm, pink boll-worm, armyworm, loopers, thrips, fleahoppers, lygus bugs, aphids, whitefly, spider mite, and boll weevil. Seedlingdisease, soil disease, and foliar disease management is also discussed. Pre-harvest defoliation methods that meet organiccertification are mostly limited to citric acid, flamers and frost. The publication concludes with sections on marketingorganic cotton and the economics and profitability of organic cotton production.

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................. 1Overview of OrganicProduction ..................................... 2Soil Fertility ................................... 2Crop Rotation ............................... 3Cover Cropping ............................. 3Weed Management ........................ 4Insect Management Practices......... 5Biopesticides .................................. 9Specific Insect ManagementStrategies ..................................... 10Diseases of Cotton ....................... 16Defoliation .................................. 18Marketing Organic Cotton .......... 19Economics and Profitability......... 19Summary ..................................... 19References .................................... 20Web Resources ............................. 23

©2003www.clipart.com

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 2

Organic cotton acreage declined 18% from 2000to 2001 in the seven states where most of it isgrown (Marquardt, 2002). Most of this declinecame from one large organic cotton farmer inNew Mexico who lost it all to drought and with-drew from organic cotton farming altogether. Atotal of 11,459 acres of either certified organic ortransitional organic cotton was produced in 2001.Texas produced the most organic cotton�8,338acres�with Arizona and California being thenext two highest producing states.

World production of organic cotton amounts to6,000 tons of fiber annually, or about 0.03% ofglobal cotton production. Turkey produces themost at 29%, with the U.S. being second at 27%and India third at 17% (Ton, 2002). Demand fororganic cotton is highest in Europe (about 3,500tons or 58% of the total) and the U.S. (about 2,000tons or 33%) (Ton, 2002). Demand in the U.S.increased at an annual rate of 22% between 1996and 2000 (Organic Trade Association, 2001; citedby Ton, 2002).

Overview of Organic Production

Growing cotton organically entails using culturalpractices, natural fertilizers, and biological con-trols rather than synthetic fertilizers and pesti-cides. A systems approach to organic produc-tion involves the integration of many practices(cover crops, strip cropping, grazing, crop rota-tion, etc.) into a larger system. Through goodsoil and biodiversity management, farms canbecome increasingly self-sufficient in fertility,while pest problems are diminished, and somepests are even controlled outright. A diverserotation, using legumes and other cover crops,is at the heart of good humus and biodiversitymanagement in an organic cropping system.Cotton, for example, would be but one of sev-eral crops an organic farmer would grow. Formore complete coverage of general organic cropproduction, we recommend the ATTRA publi-cation Overview of Organic Crop Production.

In order to market a crop as �organic,� a growermust be certified through a third party. Thisprocess involves several on-farm inspections andpaying a certification fee. More on this subjectcan be found in the ATTRA publication OrganicFarm Certification and The National Organics Pro-gram. Applicants for certification are encouragedto become familiar with provisions of the FinalRule posted on the USDA�s National OrganicProgram Web site, http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.

Organic production begins with organicallygrown seed. If certified organic seed cannot belocated, untreated seed may be used as long as itis not derived from genetically modified plants.Most certifiers will accept proof that growershave tried unsuccessfully to buy organic mate-rial from at least three different suppliers as evi-dence of unavailability. Federal organic regula-tions also address composting and the use of rawmanures. These may have implications for cot-ton production when used as fertilizer.

Soil Fertility

Mineral nutrition of crops in organic systemscomes from proper management of soil organ-isms that are responsible for releasing nutrients.Rather than feeding plants with fertilizer, organicfarmers feed the soil and let the soil organismsfeed the plants. The biological activity in the soilcan be likened to a digestive process wherebyorganic food sources are applied to the soil andthen digested by soil organisms to release nutri-ents for the crop. Soil mineral levels are built upthrough the application of animal manure, com-post, soluble rock powders, and deep-rootedcover crops that bring up nutrients from deepwithin the soil. Plant nutrition is supplementedwith foliar fertilization in some situations. Soilfertility, levels of organic matter, minerals, pH,and other measurements can be monitored withregular soil tests. The overall cropping sequencefosters a system in which a previous crop pro-vides fertility benefits to a subsequent crop�suchas a legume cover crop providing nitrogen to afollowing corn crop. Much more detailed soil-fertility information is available from ATTRA inthese publications: Sustainable Soil Management,Manures for Organic Crop Production, SustainableManagement of Soil-borne Plant Diseases, andSources of Organic Fertilizers and Amendments.

Throughout this publication, we use ex-amples from conventional farming that illus-trate principles relevant to organic cottonproduction.

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 3

Crop Rotation

Crop rotation is a traditional agricultural prac-tice involving the sequencing of different cropson farm fields; it is considered fundamental tosuccessful organic farming. Rotations are aplanned approach to diversifying the whole farmsystem both economically and biologically,bringing diversity to each field over time.

Rotations can benefit the farm in several ways.Planned rotations are one of the most effectivemeans of breaking many insect pest and plantdisease cycles in the soil. Likewise, many prob-lem weeds are suppressed by the nature and tim-ing of different cultural practices. Rotations alsoaffect the fertility of the soil in significant ways.The inclusion of forage legumes, in particular,may serve as the primary source of nitrogen forsubsequent crops.

Rotation is an important means of controlling anumber of cotton pests, including nematodes.Even basic corn-cotton rotations have been foundeffective in reducing some species of nematodes(Anon, 1993). A minimum of two years plantedto non-host species is the standard recommen-dation.

A long-term cotton study at Auburn, Alabama,showed that using winter annual legumes pro-duced cotton yields equivalent to those grownusing fertilizer nitrogen. The study found an 11%yield increase for a 2-year cotton-legume-cornrotation compared to continuous cotton grownwith legumes each year. Adding conventionalnitrogen fertilizer boosted the two-year rotationcotton lint yields in this study another 79 poundsper acre. A three-year rotation of cotton-vetch,corn-rye (fertilized with 60 pounds of conven-tional N/acre), followed by soybeans, producedabout the same cotton yields as the two-year ro-tation (Mitchell, 1988).

Cover Cropping

Cover crops are crops grown to provide soil coverand erosion protection. At the same time, covercropping may accomplish a number of other ob-jectives, including providing nitrogen to the sub-sequent cotton crop when tilled into the soil,improving tilth by adding organic matter, and

serving as a catch crop when planted to reducenutrient leaching following a main crop.

Fast, dense-growing cover crops are sometimesused to suppress problem weeds as a �smothercrop� or allelopathic cover. The mere presenceof most cover crops reduces the competition fromweeds. Sometimes crops are no-till planted intosuch covers. If the cover crop is not killed, it isreferred to as a �living mulch.� Some cover cropsthat have been used successfully for weed sup-pression include small grains (particularly grainrye), several brassica species, hairy vetch, andforage sorghums.

For the humid Cotton Belt, crimson clover, fieldpeas, and hairy vetch are excellent winter covercrops for nitrogen production. Also, a mixtureof hairy vetch and rye works well for overall bio-mass production. When flowering, these pro-vide nectar and pollen as alternate food forbeneficials. Hairy vetch is noted for its densespring cover and weed suppression. Cereal ryeprovides an enormous amount of biomass to thesoil and is known to attract and shelter benefi-cial insects. It also suppresses germination ofsmall-seeded weeds when left as a mulch coveron the soil surface. Natural allelopathic chemi-cals leach from the rye residue and inhibit weedgermination for about 30-60 days (Daar, 1986).Weed suppression effectively ends once the ryeresidue is incorporated. Weed suppression hasmade rye attractive as a cover crop/mulch in no-till and ridgetill systems. Mowing or a burn-down herbicide is often used in conventionalsystems to kill the rye cover crop so that no-tillplantings of field crops can be established. Aneffective organic no-till system for cotton has yetto be developed, but early indications are that itwill be. For more information on the potentialfor organic no-till see the ATTRA publicationPursuing Conservation Tillage Systems for OrganicCrop Production, which discusses progress in thisarea. It is important to mow rye at the floweringstage when the anthers are extended, and pollenfalls from the seed heads when shaken. If mow-ing is done earlier, the rye simply grows back.As allelopathic weed suppression subsides, a no-till cultivator may be used for weed control. Thisis not a proven system for organic cotton pro-duction but only presented here as food forthought about the development of future organicno-till systems.

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 4

In addition to producing nitrogen, cover cropsoften provide excellent habitat for predatory andparasitic insects and spiders. Some good insec-tary plants often used as cover crops include al-falfa, buckwheat, sweet clover, vetch, red clover,white clover, mustards, and cowpeas. Migrationof beneficials from the cover crop to the maincrop is sometimes associated with the post-bloomperiod of the cover crop. In these instances,mowing the cover crops in alternate strips mayfacilitate their movement, while the remainingstrips continue to provide refuge for other ben-eficial species. Sickle-bar mowers are less dis-ruptive to beneficials than flail mowers, rotarymowers, and mower conditioners with crimpers.

Long-term cotton cover-crop studies have alsobeen done in Louisiana (Millhollon and Melville,1991) and Arkansas (Scott, 1990). The Arkansasstudy spanned 17 years, from 1973 to 1988. Cot-ton grown after winter cover crops of rye + hairyvetch produced an average of 234 pounds moreseed cotton per acre than a control treatment ofwinter fallow. Cotton following pure vetchshowed a 129-pound increase, while yields afterrye + crimson clover had a 72-pound yield im-provement.

In the long-term Louisiana study, cotton yieldsdeclined for the first nine years when cover cropswere used, but increased steadily thereafter. Inthe final four years of the study, cotton yieldswere 360 pounds-per-acre higher followingvetch, compared to fallow + 60 pounds of fertil-izer N per acre. Averaged over the 30-year studyperiod, the highest cotton yields followed wheat+ 60 pounds of fertilizer N, hairy vetch alone,common vetch alone, or vetch + 40 pounds of N.For additional information on cover crops, seethe ATTRA publication Overview of Cover Cropsand Green Manures.

Weed Management

Cotton germinates at a soil temperature of 61° Fat a depth of about 2 in. With planting delayeduntil the soil temperature reaches 66°, the cropemerges rapidly and uniformly and is more vig-orous (Head and Willians, 1996), giving it a com-petitive edge on weeds. The delay in operationsalso allows additional growth of winter cover

crops where used. The downside of this strat-egy may include risks of increased damage fromcertain insect pests such as boll weevil, tobaccobudworm, and cotton bollworm.

Cultivation

Tillage and cultivation are the traditional meansof weed management for organic crops. Somespecific tillage guidelines and techniques forweed management include the following:

� Preplant tillage. Where weeds such asjohnsongrass are a problem, spring-tooth har-rows and similar tools can be effective incatching and pulling the rhizomes to the soilsurface, where they desiccate and die.Disking, by contrast, trends to cut and dis-tribute rhizomes and may make the standeven denser.

� Blind tillage. Blind cultivation employs fin-ger weeders, tine harrows, or rotary hoesduring the pre-emergent and early post-emergent phase. These implements are runat relatively high speeds (6 mph plus) acrossthe entire field, including directly over, butin the same direction as, the rows. The large-seeded crops like corn, soybeans or sunflowersurvive with minimal damage, while small-seeded weeds are easily uprooted and killed.Post-emergent blind tillage should be donein the hottest part of the day when crop plantsare less turgid, to avoid excessive damage.Rotary hoes, not harrows, should be used ifthe soil is crusted or too trashy. Seeding ratesshould be increased 5-10% to compensate forlosses in blind cultivation (Anon., 1991; Doll,1988).

� Inter-row cultivation. When annual weedsare the concern, cultivation is best kept asshallow as possible to bring as few weedseeds as possible near the soil surface. Whereperennial, rhizomaceous weeds are a prob-lem, the shovels set furthest from the croprow may be set deeper on the first cultiva-tion to bring rhizomes to the surface. Tinesare more effective than sweeps or duck feetfor extracting rhizomes. Later cultivationsshould have all shovels set shallow to avoid

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 5

excessive pruning of crop roots. Earliest cul-tivations should avoid throwing soil towardthe crop row. This places new weed seed intothe crop row where it may germinate beforethe crop canopy can shade it out. As the cropcanopy develops, soil should be thrown intothe crop row to cover emerging weeds.

Inter-row cultivation is best timed to catch weedsas they are germinating�as soon as possible af-ter rain or irrigation, once the soil has driedenough to avoid compaction or surface crusting.

Flame Weeding

Prior to the 1950s, before modern herbicides be-came available, flame weeders were used in theU.S. to control weeds in cotton, sugar cane, grainsorghum, corn, and orchards. Interest in flameweeding has resurfaced in recent years with ris-ing herbicide costs. Weeds are most susceptibleto flame heat when they are young seedlings 1�2inches tall or in the 3�5 leaf stage. Risk of dam-aging the cotton plants diminishes as the cottongrows and forms a bark on the stem. Broadleafweeds are more susceptible to flaming thangrasses. Grass seedlings develop a protectivesheath around the growing tip when they areabout 1 in. tall (Drlik, 1994). Consequently, re-peated flamings may be necessary on grassyweeds for effective control. Searing the plant ismuch more successful than charring. Excessiveburning of the weeds often stimulates the rootsand encourages regrowth, in addition to usingmore fuel.

Preplant flaming has commonly been referred toas the stale seedbed technique. Prepared seed-beds are flamed after the first flush of weeds hassprouted. Cotton planting follows the flamingwithout any further disturbance to the seedbed.Assuming adequate moisture and soil tempera-ture, germination should occur within twoweeks. Note that a fine-to-slightly-compactedseedbed will germinate a much larger numberof weeds.

Costs associated with flame weeding can vary.Flamers have been built for $1,200 for an eight-row unit (Anon., 1993) and for as much as $1,520for a 12-row unit (Houtsma, 1991). Commercialkits cost around $1900 for an eight-row fromThermal Weed Control Systems (see References).

These kits do not include hoses, a tank, or a toolbar. It is more cost-effective to pick these itemsup locally from a gas dealer or salvage opera-tion. An Arkansas cotton grower uses a �watershield� to help protect the cotton plants, but stillfeels flaming should be delayed until the crophas developed a woody bark on the stem (Ves-tal, 1992). Adapting flame technology requirescareful implementation. Thermal Weed ControlSystems (TWCS), Inc. of Neillsville, Wisconsin,and Flame Engineering, Inc. (FEI), of Lacrosse,Kansas, are two flame-weeding companies thatcan provide technical assistance and equipment(see References). LP gas usage depends onground speed but generally runs from 8-10 gal-lons per acre, according to sources at ThermalWeed Control. For an overview of weed man-agement strategies and options for agronomiccrops, please request the ATTRA publicationPrinciples of Sustainable Weed Management.

Insect Management Practices

Biological and cultural insect control involvesunderstanding the ecology of the surroundingagricultural systems and the cotton field andmaking adjustments to production methods thatcomplement the natural system to our benefit.To realize the full benefits of a biological ap-proach we need to move beyond asking how tokill bugs and ask the larger question: Why dowe have bugs in our cotton fields in the firstplace?

In a nutshell, we invite pest problems by plant-ing large expanses of a single susceptible crop.When cotton is the only food available, bugs aregoing to eat cotton. When we have a more di-verse farmscape involving many types of plantsand animals, the likelihood of severe pest out-breaks diminishes. For more information onfarmscaping, request the ATTRA publicationFarmscaping to Enhance Biological Control.

Many types of insects feed on cotton plants andthreaten yields. Proper identification of thesepests as well as their natural enemies is the firststep in successful management of pests. StateExtension services typically have Internet basedinformation that can help with pest and benefi-cial insect identification. Once the pest is prop-erly identified, a scouting program with regularmonitoring can help determine the pest pressures

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 6

and the densities of beneficial insects. When pestpressures reach the economically-damagingthreshold, control actions become necessary. Ifbiological controls are to be used, they must bestarted before the pests reach critical levels. Thatis why monitoring is so important.

The use of beneficial insect habitats along cropfield borders has shown to increase the presenceof beneficial insects. These habitats provide shel-ter, pollen and nectar sources, and refuge if thefields are treated with a pesticide. In the eventyou are releasing purchased beneficial insects,these field-edge habitats will encourage thebeneficials to remain and continue their lifecyclein that location, helping reduce the pest popula-tion. Some pests may also inhabit the field-edgehabitats; therefore, these habitats should be moni-tored along with the crop field. For additionalinformation, request ATTRA�s Biointensive Inte-grated Pest Management and Farmscaping to En-hance Biological Control.

Though not completely organic, the SustainableCotton Project�s BASIC program (Biological Ag-riculture Systems in Cotton) offers California

growers strategies designed to save money andreduce the need for pesticides, chemical fertiliz-ers, and water. The BASIC program utilized thefollowing strategies in their 2002 program thatshowed a 73% reduction in pesticide use overthe Fresno County average (Figure 1). In Figure1, the �enrolled acreage� had the free monitor-ing, habitat plantings, and insect releases pro-vided to them. �Basic growers� had imple-mented the principles on their own fields butwithout the direct involvement of the basic pro-gram staff. Regular IPM, intensive monitoring,beneficials, and beneficial habitat can reducepesticide use whether you are organic or conven-tional. For pesticide use questions or analysisquestions, contact Max Stevenson at:maxstevenson@yahoo.com

1. Intensive MonitoringFields enrolled in the program were moni-tored weekly. Monitoring included an over-all picture of the field and the local condi-tions, the levels of pests and beneficials,farmscape observations, the status of the ad-jacent beneficial habitat, and any unusualsightings or areas for concern. Farmers were

Lbs/acre pesticide active ingredient Cotton Fresno 2002

(of 12 targe ted pe sticides)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Fre sno Countyaverage

BASIC growers, allacreage (Fresno

only)

BASIC enrolledacreage (Fresno

only)

Pest

icid

e A

ctiv

e In

gred

ient

(lb

s/ac

re)

2532 f ields255,373 acres

103 f ields8,151 acres

11 fields625 acres

Figure 1. Pesticide reductions resulting from the BASIC program in California.

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 7

given a copy of the monitoring form, and theoverall results were published bi-weekly ina newsletter.

2. Strip Cutting of Alfalfa Intercropped with CottonOne of the �best management practices� pro-moted by the BASIC program has been thestrip cutt ing of alfalfa. This practiceprevents the immigration of certain speciesat harvest time and keeps one of the maincotton pests, Lygus Hesperus, from moving outof the alfalfa (its preferred host) into the ad-jacent cotton. BASIC field staff and mentorgrowers were also able to provide technicalsupport for growers wanting to implement asystem of strip cutting.

3. Bezzerides Weed CultivatorA Bezzerides cultivator was tried by a BA-SIC grower during the 2002 season. The cul-tivator works in the planted row where con-ventional cultivators can�t reach. Traditiona-lly, this is the area where chemical herbicidesare used to eliminate competing weeds. Thetrial was not considered a success, since thecultivator also removes cotton plants alongwith the weeds, and the growers who testedthe equipment felt that it was not significantlybetter than their existing cultivators.

4. Beneficial Habitat PlantingSeventy percent of the growers enrolled inthe 2002 BASIC program planted beneficialhabitat adjacent to their enrolled fields. Thehabitat was intended to attract and hold natu-rally occurring beneficials. The remainingthirty percent of the enrolled fields were ad-jacent to alfalfa fields where strip cutting waspracticed.

5. Beneficial Insect ReleasesReleases of beneficial insects were also uti-lized during the growing season. Thousandsof lacewings and predatory mites were re-leased to augment the naturally occurring in-sects. When growers see a pest problem start-ing to develop in their fields they want fastaction and so will often turn to a chemicalspray. Releasing insects helped them feel likesomething was being done, while the natu-ral enemies took over the pest control.

For additional information on the SustainableCotton Project or the BASIC program, contact

Marcia Gibbs at marcia@sustainablecotton.org,or see the Web site at http://sustainablecotton.org.

Trap Cropping

A trap crop is planted specifically to attract pestinsects. It is then sprayed with some type of in-secticide, in conventional management, or left todetain the pests from the cotton crop, or the en-tire trap crop is tilled under to kill the pest in-sects. Early-sown cotton has been used as a boll-weevil trap crop. Using fall-planted-cotton trapcrops to reduce the number of over-winteringboll weevils was first proposed as early as thelate 1800s (Javaid and Joshi, 1995). Both earlyand fall cotton trap crops are effective at attract-ing boll weevil adults and can be enhanced byadding pheromones such as Grandlure� to thetrap crop. The concentrated weevils can then bekilled with organically accepted insecticides,which are limited to a few botanicals andbiologicals. Crop consultants James and LarryChiles were able to reduce the cost of boll weevilcontrol by 30% using trap crops of early and late-planted cotton. Even with the cost reduction,they were able to maintain good yields of 1000to 1200 pounds per acre. They planted a trapcrop of cotton in early April, 30 days before thenormal cotton planting time, and a late-plantedtrap crop on August 10. A weevil attractantpheromone was used to lure boll weevils to thecotton trap crops. The trap crops were sprayedfor weevils whenever populations were high.This technique reduced the number of earlyemergent weevils infesting the main crop andreduced the number of weevils overwintering toattack the next year�s crop. In a Mississippi study,Laster and Furr (1972) showed sesame (Sesamumindicum) to be more attractive than cotton to thecotton bollworm. Robinson et al. (1972) reportedmore predators on sorghum than on cotton in hisOklahoma strip cropping study. Lygus bug mayalso be kept out of cotton by using nearby alfalfaas a trap crop. Unmowed or strip-mowed alfalfais preferred by that pest over cotton (Grossman,1988).

Strip Cropping

Strip cropping takes place when harvest-widthstrips of two or three crops are planted in thesame field. The most common strip crop grownwith cotton is alfalfa. Increasing the diversity of

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 8

crops increases stability in the field, resulting infewer pest problems, due to natural biologicalcontrols. Crop rotation is one means of intro-ducing diversity over time. Strip intercroppingcreates biodiversity in space.

Strip cropping cotton fields with alfalfa gener-ally increases beneficial arthropod populations.Among the most notable are carabid beetles thatprey on cutworms and armyworms (Grossman,1989). Alfalfa has been found to be one of thebest crops for attracting and retaining beneficialinsects. Strip-cutting alfalfa (i.e., cutting only halfof the crop in alternating strips at any one time)maintains two growth stages in the crop; conse-quently, some beneficial habitat is available atall times. In some cases alfalfa is mixed withanother legume and a grass.

In a conventional cotton management study,Stern (1969) interplanted 300�500 foot cottonstrips and 20-foot wide alfalfa strips to comparepest control needs with monoculture cotton. Theintercropped field required only one insecticideapplication, while the monoculture cotton hadto be sprayed four times. The practice was aban-doned in this specific case, however, due to modi-fications to irrigation systems and extra labor tocut alfalfa, which did not compensate for the re-duced pesticide costs.

Dr. Sharad Phatak of the University of Georgiahas been working with conventional cottongrowers in Georgia testing a strip-croppingmethod (Yancy, 1994). Phatak finds that plant-ing cotton into strip-killed crimson clover im-proves soil health, cuts tillage costs, and allowshim to grow cotton without any insecticides andonly 30 pounds of commercial nitrogen fertilizerper acre. Working with Phatak, farmer BennyJohnson reported saving at least $120/acre on his16-acre clover-system test plot. There were noinsect problems in the trial acres, while beet ar-myworms and whiteflies were infesting nearbycotton and required 8 to 12 sprayings. This sys-tem may have some applicability in an organiccotton system. In the study, cotton intercroppedwith crimson clover yielded 5,564 pounds of seedcotton per acre, compared with 1,666 pounds ofseed cotton in the rest of the field (Yancy, 1994).Boll counts were 30 per plant with crimson clo-ver and 11 without it. Phatak identified up to 15different kinds of beneficial insects in these strip-planted plots.

Phatak used a crimson clover seeding rate of 15-pounds per acre that produced around 60 poundsof nitrogen per acre by spring. By late spring,beneficial insects were active in the cover crop.At that time, 6- to 12-inch planting strips werekilled with Roundup� herbicide (not allowedin an organic system). Fifteen to 20 days laterthe strips were lightly tilled and the cottonplanted. The cover crop in the row-middles wasleft growing to maintain beneficial insect habi-tat. Even early-season thrips, which can be aproblem following cover crops, were limited orprevented by beneficial insects in this system.When the clover is past the bloom stage and lessdesirable for beneficials, they move readily ontothe cotton. The timing coincides with a periodwhen cotton is most vulnerable to insect pests.Following cotton defoliation, the beneficials hi-bernate in adjacent non-crop areas.

Phatak emphasizes that switching to a whole-farm focus while reducing off-farm inputs is notsimple. It requires planning, management, andseveral years to implement on a large scale. It isjust as important to increase and maintain or-ganic matter, which stimulates beneficial soilmicroorganisms.

Managing Border Vegetation

Weedy borders are particularly infamous assources of insect pests. Current recommenda-tions suggest mowing them prior to establish-ment of cotton. Mowing after weeds haveformed flower buds will tend to drive plant bugsinto the cotton field (Layton, 1996).

Grassy weed species harbor lepidopterous pestsgenerally. A specific weed, wild geranium, is animportant spring host of tobacco budworm andshould be discouraged in border areas.

More diverse field borders with habitat plantspecies support some crop pests but also sustainbeneficial insects that prey on pest populations,particularly during non-crop seasons. Manag-ing the vegetation in these areas as habitat forbeneficial insects counterbalances the threat frominsect pests. The strategy entails planting or oth-erwise encouraging the growth of plants thatprovide alternative food sources (nectar, pollen,alternate prey), moisture, shelter, and perchingsites preferred by beneficials. Plant species thatare aggressive and invasive, or are known hosts

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 9

to major crop diseases or insect pests, should beavoided. Descriptions of crops, cover crops, andwild plants that are known to attract certain ben-eficial insects and information on designing land-scapes to attract beneficial organisms can befound in ATTRA�s Farmscaping to Enhance Bio-logical Control, which is available on request.

Natural Disease Organisms as Pest Control

A naturally occuring fungal disease of aphids isknown to occur under conditions of high infes-tation. In Mississippi, this historically occursbetween July 10-25 (Layton, 1996). Fungal dis-eases commonly attack and suppress populationsof lepidopterous pests, most notably the cabbagelooper and beet armyworm. Suppression of thesepests by natural disease organisms is encouragedby developing dense crop canopies, which alsoassists in weed control. However, these are alsoconditions that encourage plant diseases andmay not be desirable where cotton diseases arerampant.

Early Crop Maturation

Early maturing crops are more likely to escapedamage from late-season infestations of bollweevil, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, ar-myworms, loopers, and other pests. The use ofshort-season cotton is the most obvious meansof doing this. Excessive nitrogen use, late irriga-tion, and excessive stand density can result indelayed maturity and increased exposure to thesepests, and should be avoided (Layton, 1996).

Biopesticides

B.t. (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a naturally occurringbacteria that produces a toxin effective in con-trolling many caterpillars. The toxin causes pa-ralysis of the worm�s digestive tract. Worms maycontinue to live for some hours after ingestion,but will not continue to feed. B.t. strains havebeen formulated into a number of commercialproducts under various trade names. B.t. de-grades rapidly in sunlight, requiring careful tim-ing or repeated applications.

B.t. must be ingested in sufficient amounts bythe caterpillar to be effective. Consequently, anunderstanding of the feeding habits of the pestsis necessary, so that proper formulations are used

and timing of applications is optimal. Spray for-mulations are most effective against armywormsand those species feeding on exposed leaf sur-faces. B.t. sprays are very effective against to-bacco budworm and moderately effective againstcotton bollworm (Layton, 1996). Because of theirfeeding habits, granular bait formulations aremore effective for control of cutworms. Carefulinspection of specific product labels will assurethat the product has been formulated for the pestto be controlled.

HNPV (Heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus) is acommercially produced disease organism thatattacks budworms and bollworms. It has less ofa track record in the Southeast than B.t., but basedon preliminary observations it appears to be aviable biological pesticide (Steinkraus, 1992;Anon., 1996). When using any biopesticide, becertain the formulation is cleared for use in or-ganic production.

Beauveria bassiana is an insect-disease causingfungus that has been formulated and is availablecommercially. It works on several insect larvae,including cutworms and budworms. It worksbest during periods of high humidity. More onthis natural control method can be found belowin the Specific Insect Management Strategies sec-tion.

Insecticidal Soap

Evolved from a traditional organic gardeningtechnique, insecticidal soaps control insect pestsby penetrating the cuticle and causing cell mem-branes to collapse and leak, resulting in dehy-dration. Several commercial formulations of in-secticidal soap have been successfully used tocontrol aphids, spider mites, white flies, thrips,leaf hoppers, plant bugs, and other pests. Soapshave limited effects on chewing pests such asbeetles or caterpillars. Applied as sprays, thesebiodegradable soaps work by contact only andrequire excellent coverage to be fully effective(Harmony Farm, 1996; Ellis and Bradley, 1992).

Insecticidal soaps will kill many beneficial insectsand must be used with that in mind. Phytotox-icity has also been demonstrated, particularly oncrops with thin cuticles (Ellis, 1992). Differentvarieties of cotton will have different plant char-acteristics. Therefore, it is advisable to test the

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 10

soap solution on your plants on a small strip todetermine whether any harm will result. Avoidapplication of soap during the heat of the day,because the plant is then under extreme stress,and you want the soap to remain on the plant aslong as possible, not evaporate rapidly. Late dayapplications will stay on the plant longer, increas-ing the chances of contact with target pests.Water hardness will affect the efficacy of soap,because calcium, iron, and magnesium will pre-cipitate the fatty acids and make the soap use-less against the target insects. The best way todetermine how well your water will work is thesoap-jar test. Let a jar full of your spray solutionsit for 20 minutes, then look for precipitates inthe soapy-water solution. Product labeling mustbe studied to determine suitability to crop andpest in each particular state and region.

Specific Insect Management Strategies

Cutworms

Cutworms wreak havoc during seedling estab-lishment in many cotton-growing areas. Cut-worm species include the variegated cutworm,Peridroma saucia; black cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon;granulate cutworm, Feltia subterranea; and armycutworm, Euxoa auxiliaris. They are active atnight, feeding and chewing through the stemsof the seedlings. In the day they burrow under-ground or under clods to avoid detection. Toinspect for cutworms, dig around the damagedareas during the day or come out at night with aflashlight to catch the culprits in the act. Prob-lem areas are usually found near field bordersand in weedier areas.

Cutworms have many predators and parasitesthat can help control their numbers. Some ofthese parasites and predators can be purchasedor harnessed naturally through planting or con-serving habitat for them.

Understanding the biology of beneficial organ-isms is imperative in order to use them effectivelyas pest control agents. For example, insect para-sitic nematodes like Steinerema carpocapsae or in-sect-infecting fungi like Beauveria bassiana requireadequate humidity to be effective. Other preda-tors include spiders, minute pirate bugs, damselbugs, and lacewing larvae. Birds also prey oncutworms, so do not assume that the birds in thefield are causing the seedling damage.

If natural pesticide applications are necessary,choose one that is least disruptive to the naturalenemies. The application of a rolled oats withmolasses bait containing Bacillus thuringiensis ornighttime spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis is ef-fective. Again, early detection and applicationduring the early developmental stages of the lar-vae (1st and 2nd instar) make these biorationalpesticides more effective. Pheromone traps willindicate when mating flights are occurring, andthrough degree-day calculations one can estimateegg laying and hatching. For information on de-gree-day calculations contact your local Exten-sion agent.

Thyme oil serves as a toxicant, insect growthregulator, and antifeedant to cutworms(Hummelbrunner and Isman, 2001). Mock limeor Chinese rice flower bush, Aglaia odorata, in-hibits larval growth and is insecticidal to the cut-worms Peridroma saucia and Spodoptera litura(Janprasert et al,1993). No commercial productsusing tyme oil, mock lime, or Chinese rice flowerare known to us at this time. Azadirachtin, theactive ingredient in neem, has similar effects onvarious insects and is used in the form of neemcakes to control soil pests in India. Certis USAproduces Neemix Botanical Insecticide. Its ac-tive ingredient, Azadirachtin, is registered forcutworm, looper, armyworm, bollworm, white-fly, and aphid control on cotton.

Cotton bollworm and tobacco budworm

The tobacco budworm, Heliothus virescens, andcotton bollworm, Heliothus zea or Helicoverpaarmigera, attack cotton in similar ways, damag-ing bolls, squares, and blooms, and feeding onplant terminal buds, causing branching that de-lays maturity. On mature damaged bolls, onefinds holes with excrement or frass surroundingthe boll. These holes provide entry to secondaryorganisms that can cause decay. Besides cotton,other bollworm hosts include alfalfa, beans, corn,peanuts, sorghum, soybeans, peppers, sweetpotatoes, tobacco, and tomatoes. Wild hosts in-clude toadflax, deergrass, beggarweed,groundcherry, geranium, and sowthistle. Infeeding preference tests, 67% of females preferredcommon sowthistle, about 5% preferred cotton,and 28% did not discriminate. Commonsowthistle was also the most preferred by newlyhatched larvae among the five host plant typespresented in a multiple-choice test. (Gu and

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 11

Walter, 1999). This suggests some possible man-agement strategies using sowthistle as a trapcrop.

This bollworm �complex� has many natural en-emies that can be harnessed through the use ofbeneficial habitats or purchased from insectaries.Generalist predators such as assassin bugs,bigeyed bugs, damsel bugs, minute pirate bugs,lacewing larvae, collops beetles, and spiders willfeed on the eggs of bollworm or on the larvaethat are in early stages of development. Para-sites like the wasps Trichogramma spp., Chelonustexanus, and Hyposoter exiguae, and the parasiticfly Archytas apicifer, parasitize eggs, larvae andpupae. These groups of natural enemies are usu-ally enough to keep bollworms below economi-cally damaging thresholds. In conventionalfields where broad-spectrum insecticides areused, these natural enemies are so depleted thatcontinuous spraying is required to keep boll-worms and other pests in check.

Cultural practices that keep bollworm numbersdown include managing the cotton field to ob-tain an early harvest and avoiding over-fertiliz-ing or over-watering. Tillage significantly low-ers bollworm populations by disrupting emer-gence from the overwintering stage. Minimumtillage operations may favor bollworm popula-tions, except in the South, where minimum till-age favors fire ant colonization (Monks andPatterson, no date). Fire ants are effective preda-tors of many cotton pests, including bollworm.

For sprays of Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) to be ef-fective, they need to be timed so that the boll-worm larva is in its early stages of development(1st or 2nd instar). Night spraying will prolongthe exposure to the B.t., since ultraviolet rays ofthe sun break it down. The use of Beauveriabassiana as a biopesticide can be effective againstbollworm only when temperature and humidityrequirements are met. Research from China in-dicates that the ideal temperature and humidityfor high bollworm kill using Beauveria bassiana is77oF with humidity between 70-95%. Mortalitydrastically decreased when humidity droppedbelow 70% (Sun et al., 2001). Nuclear polyhe-drosis virus, another biopesticide, is a disease-causing virus for use on the bollworm complexand is available commercially in a product callGemstar LC� from Certis USA. Azadirachtin,

the principal active ingredient in many neem-based products, also shows promise as a growthregulator and anti-feedant against the cottonbollworm (Murugan et al., 1998).

Pink bollworm

Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella�or pin-kies, as they are commonly called�is a signifi-cant cotton pest in the Southwest. They have alsobeen found in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, andFlorida. Pinkies damage cotton by feeding onbuds and flowers and on developing seeds andlint in bolls. Under dry conditions, no measur-able yield reduction occurs until 25 to 30% of thebolls are infested; at this level the infested bollshave more than one larva. With high humidity,it takes only one or two larvae to destroy an en-tire boll, because damaged bolls are vulnerableto infection by fungi that cause boll rot (Rude,1984). Damaged bolls will have a pimple or wartthat develops around the hole where pinkieshave entered. Unlike cotton bollworm or tobaccobudworm, pinkies do not deposit frass or fecesat the base of the entrance hole.

Cultural practices to reduce pink bollworm num-bers consist of ceasing irrigation sooner thannormal, early crop harvest, shredding crop resi-due after harvest, plowdown of cotton residueto six inches, and winter irrigation if cotton willfollow cotton on the same field (not a wise prac-tice in organic production). Okra and kenaf arealternate hosts to pink bollworm and must alsobe eliminated from an area. These techniquesare used in area-wide eradication efforts. Area-wide sterile release programs through the Ani-mal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)of the USDA is a biological control method alsoused in eradication efforts.

Pink bollworm eggs are very small, making themsusceptible to many natural enemies, includingmites, spiders, minute pirate bugs, damsel bugs,bigeyed bugs, and lacewing larvae. A numberof parasitic wasps such as Trichogramma bactrae,Microchelonus blackburni, Bracon platynotae, andApanteles ornone attack pink bollworm. Studieshave shown that the use of the insect-feedingnematodes Steinernema riobravis and S. carpocapsaeon pink bollworm larvae in the fields achieved alarval mortality rate of 53 to 79% (Gouge et al.,1997).

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 12

The success of insect-killing fungi like Beauveriabassiana depends on the timing of the applica-tion to correlate with hatching and early stagesof development of the pink bollworm, as well asoptimum humidity for the fungi to infect.

Other strategies to reduce pink bollworm popu-lations include the use of mating pheromonedisruptors. Several products, such as Biolures®,Checkmate®, Frustrate®, and PB Rope®, areavailable in the U.S. Pink bollworm mating dis-ruption trials recorded higher yields (1864 lbs/acre) than control fields with no mating disrup-tion (1450 lbs/acre) (Gouge et al., 1997).

Armyworms

Beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua, and fall ar-myworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, can both feed oncotton and on rare occasions cause yield reduc-tions. Beet armyworms can cause yield reduc-tions in cotton if populations are high enoughnear the end of the season. Armyworms hatchin clusters, with the small worms spreadingthrough the plant over time, feeding on leaves,squares, flowers, and bolls. They skeletonizeleaves and bracts, trailing frass and spinningsmall webs as they go. The egg clusters are cov-ered with white cottony webbing, making themeasy to spot. Outbreaks are attributed to favor-able weather conditions and the killing off ofnatural enemies.

Natural enemies are assassin bugs, damsel bugs,bigeyed bugs, lacewing larvae, spiders, the para-sitic flies Archytas apicifer and Lespesia archippivora,and the parasitic wasps Trichogramma ssp.,Hyposoter exiguae, Chelonus insularis, and Cotesiamarginiventris.

Nuclear polyhedrosis virus is a disease-produc-ing virus that infects beet armyworm. It is avail-able in the product Spod-X LC (Certis). Bacillusthruingiensis on young worms is effective if ap-plication is thorough. Laboratory and green-house tests showed that caffeine boosted the ef-fectiveness of the B.t. against armyworms up to900 percent (Morris, 1995). Its use is most prom-ising against pests that are weakly susceptible toB.t. itself. Recipe: dissolve 13 oz. pure caffeinein water; add the solution to 100 gallons of stan-dard B.t. spray; apply as usual. (Morris, 1995).Caffeine can be obtained from most chemical-

supply houses and is also available in pill formfrom most pharmacies. Organic growers inter-ested in this approach should ask their certify-ing agency about the appropriateness of thistreatment in a certified organic system.

Many other crops are hosts to armyworms, asare the weeds mullen, purslane, Russian thistle,crabgrass, johnsongrass, morning glory,lambsquarters, nettleleaf goosefoot, and pig-weed. These last three are preferred hosts thatcan serve as indicators of the populations or bemanaged as trap crops.

Loopers

The cabbage looper, Trichoplusia, feeds on leafareas between veins causing a net-like appear-ance but rarely cause significant damage, becausenatural enemies control them. If the enemies arelacking in number, severe defoliation of cottonplants by loopers may cause problems with bollmaturation. Defoliation before bolls mature canreduce yields drastically.

Loopers feed on all the crucifers, crops andweeds, and on melons, celery, cucumbers, beans,lettuces, peas, peppers, potatoes, spinach, squash,sweet potatoes, and tomatoes. Other hosts in-clude some flowers, like stocks and snapdrag-ons, and tobacco. Some weed hosts includelambsquarters, dandelion, and curly dock.

Natural enemies are assassin bugs, bigeyed bugs,damsel bugs, minute pirate bugs, lacewing lar-vae, spiders, and numerous parasitic wasps, suchas Trichogramma pretiosum, Hyposoter exiguae,Copidosoma truncatellum, and Microplitis brassicae.The parasitic fly Voria ruralis also contributes tolooper control. Trichoplusia ni NPV (nuclear poly-hedrosis virus) sometimes is responsible for sud-den looper population decline, especially afterrainfall. Bacillus thruingiensis is effective whenthe problem is detected early.

Thrips

Thrips damage seedlings by rasping and suck-ing the surface cells of developing leaves, result-ing in twisted and distorted young leaves. Theyare rarely a problem and are usually kept in checkby minute pirate bugs, parasitic wasps, preda-cious mites, and other thrips. The western flower

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 13

thrip can be a beneficial insect when it feeds onspider mites on a full-grown plant. The beanthrip, Caliothrips fasciatus, feeds on older cottonleaves and sometimes causes defoliation. Insec-ticidal soap is the least toxic pesticide for thripsbut should not be applied on hot sunny daysbecause it may burn the plants. Research hasdemonstrated that cotton varieties with hairyleaves are less injured by thrips than smooth-leafvarieties (Muegge et al., 2001)

Wayne Parramore of Coolidge, Georgia, stripcrops cotton into lupine, providing him with ni-trogen, soil erosion control, and a beneficial in-sect habitat to control thrips (Dirnberger, 1995).When the lupine is 36 inches tall, a strip is tilled14 inches across the seedbed. A Brown plow infront of the tractor with a rotovator in the backexposes the center strip, warming it up for theplanting of cotton. The remaining lupine is hostto aphids, thrips, and their natural enemies. Itprevents weeds and grasses from growing upand it reduces soil erosion. The remainder oflupine that is tilled in later provides a second shotof nitrogen to the cotton. The Parramores reportthat strip tilled cotton-lupine required only twoinsecticide applications. They later determinedthat they could have done without the secondspraying in the lupine field, based on a check-plot comparison. Neighboring conventionalfields took five spray applications.

Fleahoppers

The cotton fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus,is a small bug measuring about 1/8 inch, with

black specks covering its yellowish-green body.The whitemarked fleahopper, Spanagonicusalbofasciatus, is the same size and resembles thepredatory minute pirate bug, Orius sp. andAnthocoris sp.. Fleahoppers cause damage bystinging the squares, which then drop from theplant, reducing yields. In 1999 the cotton flea-hopper was the most damaging insect in cotton,responsible for nearly a third of the total reduc-tion in yield caused by all insect pests in the U.S.Total U.S. insect losses represented more thantwo million bales that year. (Williams et al.,2000). Fleahopper infestations usually occur infields near weedy and uncultivated ground ornear weedy borders. Some of these weeds, likefalse ragweed, Parthenium hysterophorus, wollycroton or goatweed, Croton capitatus, and horse-mint, Monarda punctata, release volatile com-pounds that have been shown to be preferred byfleahoppers over cotton (Beerwinkle andMarshall, 1999). Once the weeds start to matureand dry out, the pests will move to the cotton.This information can help with monitoring andestablishing a trap crop system. Natural enemiesof fleahoppers include assassin bugs, bigeyedbugs, damsel bugs, lacewing larvae, and spiders.A study done in east Texas showed that spiderswere three times better than insects as predatorsof the cotton fleahopper (Sterling, 1992).

Lygus or tarnished plant bug

These bugs are represented by the species Lygushesperus, L. elisus, L. desertinus, and L. lineolaris.The first three species are found in the South-west, and L. lineolaris is found in the rest of thecotton belt. They pierce stems and suck plantjuices, causing damage to flower buds (squares),young bolls, and terminal buds. Because almostany plant that produces a seed head can be a ly-gus host, this pest has a wide range. Cotton isnot the preferred host of lygus, but once the sur-rounding vegetation starts to dry up, they willmove into irrigated cotton and feed on succulentplant parts. Alfalfa is a preferred host to lygusand can be grown in strip intercrops with cottonto assist in lygus control. The classic habitatmanipulation system where alfalfa is strip har-vested or where borders are left uncut demon-strates that lygus can be kept away from cottonduring critical square formation. The alfalfa alsoharbors numerous natural enemies of lygus,keeping their populations in check. These natu-

In Parramore�s own words:

�By having these crop strips in my field, I haveinsects evenly distributed � nonbeneficialsfeeding beneficials. Now when the cotton getsbig enough for the legume to die, where arethe beneficials gonna be? They�re not goingto be all around the edges of the field andslowly come across the field; they�re all overthe field already. They�re in the middle wherelupine is still growing inches away from cot-ton plants. We�re looking at a savings andincrease in production of approximately$184.50 per acre.�

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 14

ral enemies include the tiny wasp Anaphes iole,which parasitizes lygus eggs, and predators likedamsel bugs, bigeyed bugs, assassin bugs, lace-wing larvae, and spiders. If lygus populationsare reaching economically damaging levels, thena pesticide application is warranted. Check withyour organic certifier to determine which pesti-cides are allowed. Botanical insecticides such aspyrethrum, sabadilla, and rotenone are optionsbut may be prohibitively expensive. Insecticidalsoaps can reduce the lygus nymph population.Keep in mind that these treatments will also af-fect the natural enemies and may cause second-ary outbreaks of pests like aphids and mites.

Boll weevil strategies

The boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis, is consid-ered by some as the primary deterrent to grow-ing cotton organically. In weevil eradicationzones, the boll weevil may be less of a concern.Conventional controls consist of applying pesti-cides to target the adults when they start feed-ing and laying eggs. For organic systems, usingthis approach with organically accepted pesti-cides would be too costly and only moderatelyeffective.

The use of short-season cotton may be part of anoverall strategy to control boll weevils with littleor no sprayed insecticides. The objective of short-season cotton is to escape significant damagecaused by the second generation of weevils,through early fruiting and harvest. For this tooccur, the population of first generation weevilsmust also be low. Crop residue management andfield sanitation is essential. Destruction of cot-ton stalks soon after harvest has long been rec-ognized as a useful practice for reducing thenumber of overwintering weevils (Sterling, 1989).

Early harvest, sanitation, and immediateplowdown are strategies that keep the overwin-tering populations low for the following season.In order for these strategies to be effective, theymust be practiced by all cotton growers in anarea. Any volunteer cotton plants that are missedcan be the source of infestation for the followingcrop season.

The boll weevil has two effective insect parasites,Bracon mellitor and Catolaccus grandis. Braconmellitor occurs naturally in North America and

can contribute to boll weevil control if conditionsare favorable and suitable habitats are available.

Catolaccus grandis is originally from tropicalMexico but has been effective in controlling bollweevils in augmentative releases done in USDAcooperative studies. The researchers achievedfrom 70 to 90% boll weevil parasitism (King etal., 1995). Releases began on July 19 at 350 fe-males per acre per week over a nine-week pe-riod. The objective was to suppress or eliminateweevil reproduction in six organic cotton fields.Similar work done in Brazil resulted in Catolaccusgrandis inflicting significant mortality on thirdinstar weevils. The use of augmentative releasesof C. grandis has a very high potential for supple-menting and enhancing available technology forsuppressing boll weevil populations (Ramalhoet al., 2000). Catolaccus grandis is currently notcommercially available.

Other alternative methods used by organic cot-ton growers in Texas against the boll weevil arepyrethrum used with diatomaceous earth, garlicoil and fish emulsion as repellants, and phero-mone traps for early detection. For more infor-mation on Texas organic cotton growers and theboll weevil eradication zones, check the Web site:http://www.texasorganic.com/BollWeevil.htm

Aphids

Aphid problems in conventional cotton are usu-ally the result of secondary pest flair ups causedby excessive spraying for a primary pest like ly-gus or bollweevil, because the broad-spectruminsecticides also kill the beneficial insects.Aphids are usually kept below economicallydamaging levels by predators like the ladybug,syrphid fly larva, lacewing larva, minute piratebug, and the parasitic wasp Lysiphlebus testaceipes.The damage caused by aphids and other ho-mopterans, like whiteflies, comes from their hon-eydew excretion that contaminates the lint andcauses sticky cotton. A study conducted inGeorgia�s coastal plain indicates that aphids areinitially suppressed by the insect-eating fungusNeozygites fresenii, and were kept at low levelsthereafter by parasitoids and predators, mostnotably the small lady beetles of the Scymnusspp., preventing further outbreak (Wells, 1999).

The choice of cotton varieties influences the abun-dance of cotton aphids and their associated

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 15

biological-control agents. A study comparingcotton varieties found lower aphid densities oncotton varieties exhibiting the smooth-leaf char-acteristics. Parasitism and predation may havereduced cotton aphid population growth earlyin the season. Disease-causing fungal infectionwas the primary cause of an aphid populationreduction that occurred during the week afterpeak aphid abundance, and continued diseaseactivity combined with predation maintainedaphids at a low density for the remainder of theseason (Weathersbee and Hardee, 1994).

Nitrogen management is an important tool incontrolling aphid infestations, though less eas-ily done without commercial fertilizers. Studieshave shown that excessive or poorly timed fer-tilizer-N application will promote tender andsucculent plant growth that attracts aphids. InCalifornia, experiments showed that cottonaphids reached higher densities in high nitrogenfertilized plants (200 lbs. N/ac.) than in low ni-trogen fertilized plants (50 lbs. N/ac.) (Cisnerosand Godfrey, 2001). This increase in aphid pres-sure has also increased insecticide application,from an average of 2-3 to 4-6 or more per seasonin recent years in many areas (Godfrey et al.,1999).

The concept of induced resistance in plants hasgenerated much interest in alternative pest con-trol circles recently. Plants can be treated withsubstances that induce resistance to plant pests.One of these substances, jasmonic acid, has beenused on cotton to determine the effect it has oncotton aphid, two spotted spider mites, and west-ern flower thrips. Preference was reduced bymore than 60% for aphids and spider mites, andby more than 90% for thrips on jasmonic-acid-induced leaves compared with control leaves(Omer et al., 2001). The effective ingredient fromjasmonic acid is an essential oil isolated from theextracts of the jasmine plant, Jasminumgrandiflorum. The release of plant volatiles asso-ciated with the application of jasmonic acid alsoattracts natural enemies. Other plant resistanceinducers include salicylic acid (aspirin) and saltslike potassium phosphate and potassium silicate.Amino acids such as beta-aminobutryic acid andbotanicals such as the extract of giant knotweed,Reynoutria sachalinensis, can produce systemicresistance (Quarles, 2002). Milfana® is a com-mercial product made from giant knotweed ex-

tract. Check with your certifier before applyingany of these products.

Whitefly

Whiteflies are similar to aphids in that they piercestems and suck plant sap then excrete honeydewthat contaminates the lint. The adult whiteflysresemble tiny white moths, the nymphs are morelike scale insects. They are found on the under-sides of cotton leaves, and when their numbersare high enough, the honeydew falls to leaf sur-faces below where sooty mold forms, turning theleaf black. Whiteflies are usually kept in checkby natural enemies, unless broad-spectrum pes-ticides are applied for a key pest. If most preda-tors and parasites are killed, then the potentialfor devastating outbreaks exists. Beneficial in-sects that prey on whiteflies are lacewing larvae,lady beetles, minute pirate bugs, and bigeyedbugs. Parasites include Ecarsia formosa, Ecarsiameritoria, Encarsia luteola, Encarsia pergandiella,Eretmocerus haldemani, and Eretmoceruscalifornicus. Some of these parasites are specificto the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodesvaporariorum, or the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisiatabaci, or the bandedwing whitefly, Trialeurodesabutilonea, or the silverleaf whitefly, Bemisiaargentifolii. Some of these beneficials parasitizemore than one whitefly species. These nymphsare what most predators and parasites attack.

If whitefly populations near threshold levels, useinsecticidal soap or �narrow range� oil (checkwith your certifier to determine which oils areallowed) to reduce primarily the nymph andpupa stage of the whitefly. Botanical insecticideslike neem can reduce adult populations and alsoact as an insect growth regulator affecting thepupal stage. Other botanical insecticides suchas pyrethrum can help reduce the adult popula-tion. Insect-eating fungi such as Beauveriabassiana are slow acting and require adequatehumidity. An effective sprayer that has enoughpower to cover both sides of the leaf surface isneeded, and at least 100 gallons of water per acreis necessary to have sufficient coverage.

In conventional cotton, nitrogen fertilizer man-agement is also a factor in whitefly populationlevels and the amount of honeydew produced.A California study demonstrated that increasinglevels of nitrogen fertilizer increased densities of

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 16

both adult and immature whiteflies during theirpeak population growth on cotton. Higher ni-trogen treatments also resulted in higher densi-ties of honeydew drops produced by the white-flies (Bi et al., 2000).

Spider mite

Spider mites, Tetranychus spp., are tiny arachnids(related to spiders, ticks, and scorpions) that livein colonies, spinning webs and feeding undercotton leaves. Spider mites have modified mouthparts that pierce the cells of the leaf to consumeits contents. On the leaf�s upper surface yellowspots appear when the feeding is moderate. Oncethe plants are infested, the yellow spots turn red-dish brown. If the infestation is severe, mitescan cause defoliation and affect yields. Spidermite populations are usually suppressed by natu-ral enemies, unless a broad spectrum insecticideapplication occurs to disturb this balance. Insectpredators of spider mites include minute piratebugs, damsel bugs, bigeyed bugs, some midges,lacewing larvae, dustywings, spider mite de-stroyers, lady beetles, sixspotted thrips, and west-ern flower thrips. Other mites that prey on spi-der mites are Amblyseius ssp., Galendromus spp.,Metaseiulus spp., and Phytoseiulus ssp. Whenscouting for mites, a hand lens is necessary todistinguish the pest mites from the predatorymites. Spider mites tend to be sedentary, whiletheir predators are very active.

Insecticidal soaps, �narrow range� oils, neem-based products such as Trilogy®, and sulfur areacceptable miticides in organic production (checkwith certifier regarding specific products). Ap-plication instruments must thoroughly cover theleaves� undersides, and products that are dilutedmust be applied in high volumes (more than 100gallons of water per acre) to achieve completecoverage.

Cultural controls include keeping dust downalong roads that border cotton fields. This is usu-ally done by reducing traffic along those roadsor watering down the roads. Reducing waterstress on the cotton plants helps prevent mitebuild up. Pima cotton varieties are less suscep-tible to mites than highland varieties (Anon.2001).

Diseases of Cotton

Diseases in plants occur when the pathogen ispresent, the host is susceptible, and the environ-ment is favorable for the disease to develop.Eliminating any one of these three factors willprevent the disease from occurring. Organismsresponsible for cotton diseases include fungi,bacteria, nematodes, and viruses. If these organ-isms are present, then manipulation of the envi-ronment and the host, to make it less susceptible,helps to better manage diseases on cotton in asustainable manner.

Soil health and management is the key for suc-cessful control of plant diseases. A soil with ad-equate organic matter can house uncountablenumbers of organisms such as bacteria, fungi,amoebae, nematodes, protozoa, arthropods, andearthworms that in conjunction deter harmfulfungi, bacteria, nematodes and arthropods fromattacking plants. These beneficial organisms alsohelp in creating a healthy plant that is able toresist pest attack. For more information, see theATTRA publication Sustainable Management ofSoil-Borne Plant Diseases.

The leaf surface can also host beneficial organ-isms that compete with pathogens for space. Adisease spore landing on a leaf surface has to finda suitable niche for it to germinate, penetrate, andinfect. The more beneficial organisms on the leaf,the greater the competition for the spore to finda niche. Applying compost teas adds beneficialmicroorganisms to the leaf, making it more dif-ficult for diseases to become established. Formore information on foliar disease controls, seethe ATTRA publications Notes on Compost Teas,Use of Baking Soda as a Fungicide, Organic Alterna-tives for Late Blight Control on Potatoes, and Pow-dery Mildew Control on Cucurbits.

Seedling diseases

These diseases are soil-borne fungi and are asso-ciated primarily with Rhizoctonia solani, Pythiumspp., and Thielaviopsis basicola. Cool wet soils,deep seed placement, soil compaction, and cooltemperatures contribute to seedling disease de-velopment. Spreading compost and using greenmanure crops, especially grasses, can reduce the

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 17

pathogen levels in the soil. Various organismshave been researched as potential biologicalcontrols, these include Burkholderia cepacia,Gliocladium virens, Trichoderma hamatum,Enterobacter cloacae, Erwinia herbicola,rhizobacteria, and fluorescent pseudomonads asseed treatments. (Zaki et al., 1998; Lewis andPapavizas, 1991; Howell, 1991; Nelson, 1988;Demir et al., 1999; Laha and Verma, 1998).

Of these organisms, Burkholderia cepacia is avail-able commercially in a product called Deny®.Another microorganism, Bacillus subtilis, soldunder the trade name Kodiak®, is recommendedas a seed inoculant for controlling damping offfungi. The following organisms have been usedas soil treatments with varying levels of success:Stilbella aciculosa, Laetisaria arvalis, Gliocladiumvirens, and Trichoderma longibrachiatum (Lewisand Papviazas, 1993; Lewis and Papviazas, 1992;Sreenivasaprasad and Manibhushanrao, 1990).

Soil diseases

The three most important fungal soil diseasesthat cause economic damage are Fusariumoxysporum, Phymatotrichum omnivorum, and Ver-ticillium dahliae. Nematodes are soil-dwelling,microscopic, worm-like animals. Only a few spe-cies are damaging to cotton. They will be classi-fied in this publication as a soil disease.

Fusarium alone rarely causes economic problems,but when associated with nematodes, it forms acomplex in which the nematode damage weak-ens the plant, making it susceptible to the fun-gus. Organic matter and its associated microor-ganisms can serve as an antagonist to this dis-ease. The use of Bacillus subtilis products(Kodiak®) as a seed inoculum is recommended.The strategies for nematode control will be dis-cussed further on in this publication.

Texas root rot, caused by Phymatotrichumomnivorum, is found in the alkaline soils of Texasand the Southwest. It is difficult to control andoccurs on more than 2,300 broadleaf plants(Goldberg, 1999). This fungus is active in hightemperatures and in low organic-matter soils, soadding compost or incorporating green manurecrops will increase organic matter and microor-ganism competition. Avoid growing cotton onground that is known to harbor this disease.

Verticillium wilt caused by Verticillium dahliae iswidespread, attacking many other agronomic,horticultural, and ornamental crops, as well assome weeds. It is persistent in the soil becauseof survival structures called microsclerotia.These microsclerotia are produced throughoutthe infected plant and when the crop is disked,these seed-like structures are also incorporatedinto the soil. Cultural controls include resistantvarieties (Pima cotton is tolerant), rotation withgrass crops, management for short season pro-duction, and avoiding excessive nitrogen and ir-rigation. Soil solarization done 6-11 weeks be-fore planting was effective in one study wherethe pathogen was reduced to negligible levels(Basalotte et al., 1994).

There are many types of nematodes in soils, mostare beneficial, and a few are cotton pests. Wherenematode infestations are heavy, sampling andlaboratory analysis can be used to determine thelength of rotations and the non-host crops to use.If the problem is root-knot nematodes, rotationto resistant soybean varieties or sorghum is apossibility. Rotation to wheat, corn, grain sor-ghum, or resistant soybeans is possible if thenematodes are the reniform species (Lorenz,1994; O�Brrien-Wray, 1994). Nematodes that at-tack cotton are the root knot nematode,Meloidogyne incognita, reniform nematode,Rotylenchulus reniformis, and the Columbia lancenematode, Hoplolaimus columbus. In sustainableproduction systems, nematodes can be managedby crop rotation, resistant varieties, and culturalpractices. Eventually a �living soil� will keepharmful nematodes and soilborne fungi undercontrol (Yancy, 1994). Crop rotation is a goodstrategy, but make sure to identify the type ofnematode you have and rotate with a crop thatis not an alternate host for that nematode. Forexample, the reniform nematode also feeds onvetch, tobacco, soybeans, tomatoes, and okra, sothese crops are not suitable for rotation with cot-ton for reniform nematode reduction. Checkwith your seed supplier to identify varieties re-sistant to the nematodes present in your field.Cultural practices include cover cropping withplants that are antagonistic to nematodes, suchas rapeseed or marigolds, planting cotton on soilsthat are less sandy, controlling weeds, incorpo-ration of chicken litter and other manures, andsolarization. For more information, see theATTRA publication Alternative Nematode Control.

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 18

Boll rots

Boll rots are a problem in areas with high hu-midity and rainfall and where bolls are startingto open or have been damaged by insects. Mostpathogens are secondary invaders relying on in-sect damage for access. Diplodia spp., Fusariumspp., and other fungi have been associated witha basal type of rot where bracts are infected first,followed by invasion through nectaries and thebase of the boll (Anon., 1981). Other organismsthat infect cotton bolls are Alternaria macrospora,Puccinia cacabata, and Xanthomonas, which arealso responsible for foliar diseases. The boll-rotorganism of most concern is Aspergillus flavus,which produces aflatoxins in the cottonseed.Aflatoxins are carcinogens to some animals andto humans. It contaminates cottonseed oil andcottonseed meal, which then cannot be used forfeed. If Aspergillus is a problem in your area,consider cultural practices that reduce humid-ity, such as lower density seeding to allow moreair circulation. Avoid tall, vegetative cottongrowth�often a result of late planting, excessivenitrogen fertilizer, fertile soils, and/or excessivemoisture. Rank growth often renders cottonplants more attractive and susceptible to late sea-son insects, more susceptible to boll rot, and moredifficult to defoliate (Bacheler, 1994).

Foliar diseases

Bacterial blight caused by Xanthomonas campestrispv malvacearum is common in areas with warm,wet weather during the growing season. Itcauses defoliation and reduces lint quality. Leafspots are angular, restricted by leaf veins, water-soaked when fresh, and eventually turningbrown before defoliation. Boll symptoms aresmall, round, water-soaked spots that becomeblack. Affected bolls may shed or fail to openand have poor-quality lint. Quick plow down ofcrop residues after harvest to give ample timefor decomposition will assist in the control of thedisease. Crop rotation and using resistant vari-eties are also effective strategies.

Alternaria leaf spot caused by Alternariamacrospora starts off as a tiny circular spot thatenlarges to half an inch. Concentric rings formas the spot enlarges, with the center sometimesfalling out to form a shothole. Spots can also befound on bolls. High humidity increases the inci-

dences of the disease, causing defoliation in se-vere cases. Controls include using resistant va-rieties and avoiding prolonged leaf wetness.

Southwestern cotton rust, Puccinia cacabata, firstappears as small, yellowish spots on leaves,stems, and bolls, usually after a rain. These spotsenlarge, developing orange-reddish to browncenters. Later, large orange spots appear on thelower leaves and discharge orange spores. Rustdiseases require more than one host in order tocomplete their life cycle. For Puccinia cacabata thealternate host is grama grass, Bouteloua spp., andits proximity to the cotton field may determinethe severity of infestation. If there is grama grassnear your field, removal by burning, plowing,or grazing is recommended. A season of heavyrains and high humidity with grama grass closeby has the potential for problems with cotton rust.

Cotton leaf crumple virus is transmitted by thesilverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii. Controlof the vector and stub cotton, which serves as anoverwintering site for the virus, and the use ofresistant varieties are strategies for disease reduc-tion. Symptoms include wrinkled leaves that arecupped downward and plants that are small orstunted. This disease causes economic losses ifthe plants are infected when young.

Defoliation

Defoliation is a significant obstacle to organicproduction. The organic options available todefoliate cotton include flame defoliation andwaiting for frost. Vinegar has not been clearedfor use as a defoliant under the NOP rules. Ceas-ing irrigation can assist in leaf drop and bollmaturation in low rainfall areas. Citric acid hasbeen used by at least one Missouri cotton farmer(Steve McKaskle). Citric acid is organically ap-proved if it comes from natural sources. Other-wise, the only alternatives are to wait for a frostor hand harvest.

Research reports from the 1960s show that con-siderable work was devoted to developing bu-tane-gas flame defoliators. Several models weredeveloped by engineers in various parts of thecotton belt. To our knowledge no such equip-ment is available on the market today, havingbeen replaced by chemical defoliation methods.

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 19

Marketing Organic Cotton

As previously mentioned, marketing cotton as�organic� requires certification of the field pro-duction practices. Certification also must con-tinue throughout the manufacturing process,from the ginner, yarn spinner, and cloth maker,to the garment manufacturer. Each step of theprocess must use only materials (dyes, bleaches,etc.) that meet organic specifications. Manufac-tured products that are not already on the Na-tional Organic Program�s approved list must gothrough a lengthy process to gain approval. Ifany unapproved product is used in the process-ing of cotton, the fiber cannot be labeled as or-ganic (Spencer, 2002).

Organic cotton farmers usually sell either to amill or a manufacturer. It is usually up to thefarmer to negotiate the price with his buyer.Buyers of organic cotton are limited. ParkdaleMills (see References) is perhaps the largest or-ganic cotton buyer in the U.S. Located inBelmont, North Carolina, Parkdale makes yarnfrom organic cotton. They buy mostly from thesouthern states and occasionally from California.They purchase organic cotton when demandfrom a garment maker warrants. They buy fromfarmers, co-ops, and merchants.

Sandra Marquardt of the Organic TradeAssociation�s Fiber Council (see References) saysprice premiums range from around $.95 to $1.25per pound, depending on the quality and staplelength. This premium may decline as stiff com-petition from foreign organic cotton increases.The Organic Fiber Council lists companies thatcould be approached as potential buyers of or-ganic cotton, especially the mills.

The International Organic Cotton Directory of-fers an extensive listing of people, companies,and farmers involved in the organic cotton in-dustry. They are dedicated to the sustainableproduction, processing, and consumption of or-ganic cotton worldwide. They have directorieslisted by product type, business type, and alpha-betically. There are a number of U.S. merchants/brokers and eight U.S. mills listed that could bepotential buyers of organic cotton. As well, thereare several farmers and farm organizations listedthat are involved with organic cotton. See thisWeb site at: http://www.organiccottondirectory.net

Economics and Profitability

Results from a six-year study in the San JoaquinValley of California (Swezey, 2002) showed or-ganic cotton production costs running approxi-mately 50% higher than those of conventionalcotton. The researchers found no difference be-tween fiber length, strength, or micronaire be-tween conventional and organic cotton. Theyconcluded that organic cotton production wasfeasible in the northern San Joaquin Valley andthat effective marketing of organic cotton mustinclude a price premium to offset higher produc-tion costs.

Costs that typically differ from conventional cot-ton production include fertilizer materials suchas manure, compost, or cover crop seed and theirassociated application and establishment costs;mechanical weed control costs; organically-ac-ceptable insect and disease management mate-rials, such as compost tea and beneficial insects;additional hand weeding labor; and costs asso-ciated with being certified organic.

A detailed organic cotton budget is availablefrom The University of California Extension Ser-vice. To locate this publication on the Web goto: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/pubs/costs/95/cotton.htm

Summary

Prospective growers should be aware that grow-ing organic cotton is not quite the lucrativeproposition it sounds and that there may be moremoney made, and less risk involved, in growingother crops instead. Cotton has many pests thatmust be controlled without conventional pesti-cides under an organic system. Weed controloptions are limited to those done without syn-thetic herbicides. Defoliation can be a major chal-lenge, with limited options to accomplish thetask. Transitioning from conventional crop pro-duction to organic cotton is fraught with risk, notto mention that the transition process takes threeyears before the fields can be certified as organic.Additionally, in the absence of institutional sup-port and infrastructure, organic growers are un-able to move organic cotton around as easily asdo conventional growers. Markets for organiccotton are limited, and demand plus foreign sup-plies influence prices. Finally, most organic cot-

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 20

ton is grown in the northern fringe of the CottonBelt, out of the main range of the boll weevil.With weevil eradication programs, however, or-ganic cotton may have a better chance than be-fore to produce well throughout the Cotton Belt.

References

Altieri, M.A., and M. Leibman.(ed.). 1986. In-sect, weed, and plant disease management inmultiple cropping systems. In: Francis, C.A.(ed.). Multiple Cropping Systems. MacmillanPublishing Company. New York. 383 p.

Anon. 1996. New biological insecticide out.Arkansas Farmer. June. p. 14.

Anon. 1993. Corn-cotton rotations. Acres USA.April. p. 5.

Anon. 1991. Non-chemical weed control for rowcrops. Sustainable Farming News. September.p. 1-8.

Anon. 1993a. Arkansas farmer builds flameweed cultivator. Farm Show. March-April. p.16.

Anon. 2001. UC Pest Management Guidelines,Cotton, Webspinning spider mites. Universityof California Statewide Integrated Pest Manage-ment Program Web site. Accessed September2002. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r114400111.html

Anon. 1981. Insect and Disease IdentificationGuide for IPM in the Southeast. The Universityof Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service Bul-letin 849.

Bacheler, J. S.. 1994. A Scout�s Guide to BasicCotton Terminology. North Carolina State Uni-versity Web page. Accessed October 2002. http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cot ton/glossary/glossary.html

Basallote, M.J., J. Bejarano, M.A. Blanco, R.M.Jimenez-Diaz, and J.M. Melero. 1994. Soil solar-ization: a strategy for the control of diseasescaused by soil borne plant pathogens and reduc-ing of crop rotations. Investigación Agraria,Producción y Protección Vegetales. 1994, Fuerade Serie No. 2. p. 207-220.

Beerwinkle, K.R., and H.F Marshall. 1999. Cot-ton fleahopper (Heteroptera: Miridae) responsesto volatiles from selected host plants. Journal ofCotton Science. Vol. 3, No. 4. p. 153�159.

Bi, J.L., G.R. Ballmer, N.C. Toscano, M.A.Madore, P. Dugger (ed.) and D. Richter. 2000.Effect of nitrogen fertility on cotton-whitefly in-teractions. 2000 Proceedings Beltwide CottonConferences, San Antonio, Texas. Vol. 2. p. 1135-1142.

Cisneros, J.J., and L.D. Godfrey. 2001. Midseasonpest status of the cotton aphid (Homoptera:Aphididae) in California cotton: is nitrogen a keyfactor? Environmental Entomology. Vol. 30, No.3. p. 501-510.

Daar, Sheila. 1986. Suppressing weeds with al-lelopathic mulches. IPM Practitioner. April. p.1�4.

Demir, G., A. Karcilioglu, and E. Onan. 1999.Protection of cotton plants against damping-offdisease with rhizobacteria. Journal of TurkishPhytopathology. Vol. 28, No. 3. p.111-118.

Dirnberger, J.M. 1995. The bottomline matters�You can laugh at him on the way to the bank.National Conservation Tillage Digest. October-November. p. 20�23.

Doll, J.D. 1988. Controlling weeds in sustain-able agriculture. University of Wisconsin�Ex-tension. Madison, Wisconsin. 3 p.

Drlik, Tanya. 1994. Non-toxic weed control. IPMPractitioner. October. p. 20.

Ellis, Barbara W., and Fern Marshall Bradley.1992. The Organic Gardener�s Handbook OfNatural Insect And Disease Control. RodalePress, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. 534 p.

Flame Engineering Inc.P.O. Box 577Lacrosse, KS, 67548800-225-2469

Godfrey, LD, K, Keillor, R.B. Hutmacher, J.Cisneros, P. Dugger (ed.), and D. Richter. 1999.Interaction of cotton aphid population dynam-ics and cotton fertilization regime in Californiacotton. 1999 Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Con-

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 21

ferences, Orlando, Florida. Volume 2. p. 1008-1011.

Goldberg, Natalie P. 1999. PhymatotrichumRoot Rot, Guide A-229. College of Agricultureand Home Economics, New Mexico State Uni-versity Web page. Accessed Sept. 2002. http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/a-229.html

Gouge, Dawn H, Kirk A. Smith, Charlie Payne,Linda L. Lee, Jamie R. Van Berkum, DanielOrtega, and Thomas J. Henneberry. 1997. Con-trol of pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella,(Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) withbiocontrol and biorational agents. TEKTRAN.United States Department of Agriculture, Agri-cultural Research Service. Accessed September2002. http://www.nalusda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000008/22/0000082251.html

Grossman, Joel. 1989. Enhancing natural en-emies. IPM Practitioner. November�December.p. 10.

Grossman, Joel. 1988. Lygus. IPM Practitioner.April. p. 11�12.

Gu, H., and G. H Walter. 1999. Is the commonsowthistle Sonchus oleraceus a primary host plantof the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera(Lep., Noctuidae)? Oviposition and larval per-formance. Journal of Applied Entomology, Vol.123, No.2. p. 99-105.

Harmony Farm. 1996. Harmony Farm SupplyCatalogue: Spring�Summer 1996. Graton, A. 128p.

Head, Robert B., and Michael R. Williams. 1996.Pests, Thresholds, and the Cotton Plant. Publi-cation 1614. Mississippi State University. Mis-sissippi State, Mississippi. 15 p.

Houtsma, J. 1991. Fighting weeds with fire. TheFarmer. June. p. 10-11.

Howell, C.R. 1991. Biological control of Pythiumdamping-off of cotton with seed-coating prepa-rations of Gliocladium virens. Phytopathology.Vol. 81, No.7. p. 738�741.

Hummelbrunner, L.A., and M.B. Isman. 2001Acute, sublethal, antifeedant, and synergistic ef-fects of monoterpenoid essential oil compoundson the tobacco cutworm, Spodoptera litura(Lep.,Noctuidae). Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry. American Chemical Society.Vol. 49, No. 2. p. 715�720.

Janprasert, J., C. Satasook, P. Sukumalanand, D.E.Champagne, M.B. Isman, P. Wiriyachitra, andG.H.N. Towers. 1993. Rocaglamide, a naturalbenzofuran insecticide from Aglaia odorata. Phy-tochemistry. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Vol. 32,No. 1. p. 67�69.

Javaid, I., and J.M. Joshi. 1995. Trap cropping ininsect pest management. Journal of SustainableAgriculture. Vol. 5. p. 1�2, 117�136.

King, E. G., R. J. Coleman, L. Woods, L. Wendel,S. Greenberg, and A. W. Scott. 1995. Suppres-sion of the boll weevil in commercial cotton byaugmentative releases of a wasp parasite,Catolaccus grandis. Proceedings Beltwide CottonConferences 1995. p. 26�30.

Laha, G.S., and J.P. Verma. 1998. Role of fluo-rescent pseudomonads in the suppression of rootrot and damping off of cotton. Indian-Phytopa-thology. Vol. 51, No. 3. p. 275�278.)

Laster, M.L., and R.E. Furr. 1972. Heliothis popu-lation in cotton-sesame intercroppings. Journalof Economic Entomology. Vol. 65. p. 1524�1525.

Layton, Blake. 1996. Cotton Insect Control Guide1996. Publication 343. Mississippi State Univer-sity. Mississippi State, Mississippi. 36 p.

Lewis, J.A., and G.C. Papavizas. 1991. Biocontrolof cotton damping-off caused by Rhizoctoniasolani in the field with formulations of Tricho-derma spp. and Gliocladium virens. Crop Protec-tion. Vol. 10, No. 5. p. 396�402.

Lewis, J.A., and G.C. Papavizas. 1993. Stilbellaaciculosa: a potential biocontrol fungus againstRhizoctonia solani. Biocontrol Science and Tech-nology. Vol. 3, No. 1. p. 3�11.

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 22

Lewis, J.A., and G.C. Papavizas. 1992. Potentialof Laetisaria arvalis for the biocontrol of Rhizocto-nia solani. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Vol.24, No.11. p. 1075-1079.

Lorenz, Gus. 1994. Nematodes: Producers� un-seen enemy. Delta Farm Press. April 8. p. 26�27.

Marquardt, Sandra. 2002. 2002 Beltwidepresentation: Organic cotton: production andmarketing trends in the U.S. and globally �2001. From The Organic Cotton Site:http://www.sustainablecotton.org/NEWS007/news007.html

McKaskle, StevePO Box 10Braggadocio, MO 63826573-757-6653stevemckaskle@hotmail.com

Millhollon, E.P., and D.R. Melville. 1991. Thelong-term effects of Winter Cover Crops on Cot-ton Production in Northwest Louisiana. Louisi-ana Experiment Station Bulletin No. 830. 35 p.

Mitchell, C.C., Jr. 1988. New information fromold rotation. Reprinted from Highlights of Ag-ricultural Research. Vol. 35, No. 4. AlabamaExperiment Station. 1 p.

Monks, Dale C. and Michael G. Patterson(eds.). No date. Conservation Tillage, CottonProduction Guide, Insect Control. AlabamaCooperative Extension System. Circular ANR-952. Accessed September 2002.http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/constill.html#insectcontrol

Murugan, K., D. Jeyabalan, N.S. Kumar, R. Babu,S. Sivaramakrishnan, and S.S. Nathan. 1998.Antifeedant and growth-inhibitory properties ofneem limonoids against the cotton bollworm,Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Insect Science andits Application. Vol.18, No 2. p. 157-162.

Morris, O. 1995. Caffeine jolts worms. NewFarmer. January. p. 42

Muegge, Mark A., Brant A. Baugh, James F. Leser,Thomas A. Doederlein, and E. P. Boring III. 2001.Managing cotton insects in the high plains, roll-ing plains and trans Pecos areas of Texas. Texas

Cooperative Extension Bulletin E-6. p. 8. http://TcEBookstore.org/\tmppdfs\552089-E6.pdf

Nelson, E.B.. 1988. Biological control of pythiumseed rot and preemergence damping-off of cot-ton with Enterobacter cloacae and Erwinia herbicolaapplied as seed treatments. Plant Disease. Vol.72, No.2. p. 140-142.

O�Brien-Wray, Kelly. 1994. Nematode nemesischallenges cotton. Soybean Digest. December.p. 6�7.

Omer, A.D., J. Granett, R. Karban, and E.M. Villa.2001. Chemically-induced resistance againstmultiple pests in cotton. International Journalof Pest Management. Vol. 47, No. 1. p. 49-54.

Parkdale MillsJean FryePO Box 856Selmont, NC 28012704-825-7993http://www.parkdalemills.com

Quarles, William. 2002. Aspirin, compost, talk-ing plants and induced systemic resistance. TheIPM Practioner. Vol. 24, No. 5/6. p 3-4.

Ramalho, F. S., R. S. Medeiros, W. P. Lemos, P.A. Wanderley, J. M. Dias, and J. C.Zanuncio.2000. Evaluation of Catolaccus grandis (Burks)(Hym., Pteromalidae) as a biological controlagent against cottonboll weevil. Journal of Ap-plied Entomology. Vol. 124, No. 9-10. p. 359.

Robinson, R.R., J.H. Young, and R.D. Morrison.1972. Strip-cropping effects on abundance ofpredatory and harmful cotton insects in Okla-homa. Environmental Entomology. Vol. 1. p.145-149.

Rude, Paul A. (senior writer). 1984. IntegratedPest Management for Cotton in the Western Re-gion of the United States. University of Califor-nia. Division of Agriculture and Natural Re-sources Publication 3305. p. 49.

Sandra Marquardt, Coordinator5801 Sierra AvenueRichmond, CA 94805Telephone: 510-215-8841Fax: 510-215-7253

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 23

E-mail: smarquardt@ota.comhttp://www.ota.com/about/staff.html

Scott, H.D., et al. 1990. Effects of Winter CoverCrops on Cotton and Soil Properties. ArkansasAgriculture Experiment Station Bulletin No. 924.

Spencer, Marty T. 2002. NOP Scope documentsends personal care, fibers spinning. NaturalFoods Merchandizer. July. p. 1.

Sreenivasaprasad, S., and K. Manibhushanrao.1990. Biocontrol potential of fungal antago-nists Gliocladium virens and Trichodermalongibrachiatum. Zeitschrift-fur-lanzenkrankheiten-und-Pflanzenschutz. Vol. 97, No 6. p. 570-579.

Stern, V.M. 1969. Interplanting alfalfa in cottonto control lygus bugs and other insect pests. p.55-69. In: Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Con-ference on Ecological Animal Control by Habi-tat Management, February 27-28. Tallahassee,Florida.

Steinkraus, D.C., et al. 1992. Biological controlof bollworms and budworms. Arkansas FarmResearch. July�August. p. 18�19.

Sterling, W.L., L.T. Wilson, A.P. Gutierrez, D.R.Rummel, J.R. Phillips, N.D. Stone, and J.H.Benedict. 1989. Strategies and tactics for man-aging insects and mites. In: R.E. Frisbie, K.M.El-Zak, and L.T. Wilson (eds.). Integrated PestManagement Systems and Cotton Production.John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. p. 267-325.

Sterling, W.L., A. Dean, and N.M. Abd-El-Salam.1992. Economic benefits of spider (Araneae) andinsect (Hemiptera: Miridae) predators of cottonfleahoppers. Journal of Economic Entomology.Vol. 85, No. 1. p. 52-57.

Sun, LuJuan, Wu Kong Ming, Guo YuYuan. 2001.The pathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana toHelicoverpa armigera under different temperaturesand humidities. Acta Entomologica Sinica.Vol44, No 4. p. 501-506.

Swezey, Sean L. 2002. Cotton yields, quality,insect abundance, and costs of production of or-ganic cotton in the northern San Joaquin Valley,

California. p. 257 In: Robert Thompson, (com-piler) Proceedings of the 14th IFOAM OrganicWorld Congress. Canadian Organic Growers,Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Thermal Weed Control Systems, Inc.Rt 1, Box 250Neillsville, WI, 54456715-743-4163

Ton, Peter. 2002. The International market fororganic cotton and eco-textiles. p. 258 In: RobertThompson (compiler), Proceedings of the 14th

IFOAM Organic World Congress. CanadianOrganic Growers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Vestal, Joe. 1992. Flame cultivation makes come-back. Delta Farm Press. August 7. p. 24.

Wells L. J., R Ruberson, R. M. McPherson, G. A.Herzog, P. Dugger (ed.), and D. Richter. 1999.Biotic suppression of the cotton aphid(Homoptera: Aphididae) in the Georgia coastalplain. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences,Orlando, Florida. Volume 2. p. 1011-1014.

Weathersbee III, A.A., and D.D. Hardee. 1994.Abundance of cotton aphids (Homoptera:Aphididae) and associated biological controlagents on six cotton cultivars. Journal of Eco-nomic Entomology. Vol. 87, No 1. p. 258-265.

Williams M.R., P. Dugger (ed.) and D. Richter.2000. Cotton insect loss estimates�1999. 2000Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, SanAntonio, Texas. Volume 2. p. 884�913.

Yancy, Cecil, Jr. 1994. Covers challenge cottonchemicals. The New Farm. February. p. 20�23.

Zaki, K., I.J Misaghi, and M.N. Shatla. 1998. Con-trol of cotton seedling damping-off in the fieldby Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) cepacia. Plant Dis-ease. Vol. 82, No. 3. p. 291-293.

Web Resources

The Organic Cotton site:http://www.sustainablecotton.org/

Details on a Texas organic cotton farm:http://www.sosfromtexas.com/

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTIONPAGE 24

International Organic Cotton Directory:http://www.organiccottondirectory.net/

By Martin Guerena and Preston SullivanNCAT Agriculture Specialists

Edited by Paul Williams and David ZodrowFormatted by Cynthia Arnold

July 2003

IP233

The electronic version of Organic CottonProduction is located at:HTMLhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/cotton.htmlPDFhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/cotton.pdf

©2003www.clipart.com