Organic Cotton Production

ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION
CURRENT TOPIC

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, animal
manure additions, and use of naturally occurring rock powders. Weed management is accomplished by a combination
of cultivation, flame weeding, and other cultural practices. A wide variety of insects attack cotton. Management
options include trap cropping, strip cropping, and managing border vegetation to encourage high populations of native
beneficials. Certain biopesticides using bacteria, viruses, and fungal insect pathogens are available as insect control
tools. 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. Seedling
disease, soil disease, and foliar disease management is also discussed. Pre-harvest defoliation methods that meet organic
certification are mostly limited to citric acid, flamers and frost. The publication concludes with sections on marketing
organic cotton and the economics and profitability of organic cotton production.
By Martin Guerena and
Preston Sullivan
NCAT Agriculture Specialists
July 2003

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................. 1
Overview of Organic
Production ..................................... 2
Soil Fertility ................................... 2 ©2003www.clipart.com

Crop Rotation ............................... 3
Cover Cropping ............................. 3
Weed Management ........................ 4 Introduction
Insect Management Practices......... 5
Biopesticides .................................. 9 Organic cotton has provided significant price
premiums for growers willing to meet the many
Specific Insect Management challenges inherent in its production without the
Strategies ..................................... 10 aid of conventional pesticides and commercial
Diseases of Cotton ....................... 16 fertilizers. Growing organic cotton is demand-
ing, but with commitment, experience, and de-
Defoliation .................................. 18 termination, it can be done. This publication
Marketing Organic Cotton .......... 19 covers the major steps in organic production of
Economics and Profitability......... 19 cotton. It covers soil fertility, weed control op-
Summary ..................................... 19 tions, and alternative pest controls for the many
insect problems that plague cotton. Finally, mar-
References .................................... 20 keting of organic cotton is discussed as well.
Web Resources ............................. 23
ATTRA is the national sustainable agriculture information service operated by the National Center
for 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.

Organic cotton acreage declined 18% from 2000 In order to market a crop as “organic,” a grower
to 2001 in the seven states where most of it is must be certified through a third party. This
grown (Marquardt, 2002). Most of this decline process involves several on-farm inspections and
came from one large organic cotton farmer in paying a certification fee. More on this subject
New Mexico who lost it all to drought and with- can be found in the ATTRA publication Organic
drew from organic cotton farming altogether. A Farm Certification and The National Organics Pro-
total of 11,459 acres of either certified organic or gram. Applicants for certification are encouraged
transitional organic cotton was produced in 2001. to become familiar with provisions of the Final
Texas produced the most organic cotton—8,338 Rule posted on the USDA’s National Organic
acres—with Arizona and California being the Program Web site, http://www.ams.usda.gov/
next two highest producing states. nop.

World production of organic cotton amounts to Organic production begins with organically
6,000 tons of fiber annually, or about 0.03% of grown seed. If certified organic seed cannot be
global cotton production. Turkey produces the located, untreated seed may be used as long as it
most at 29%, with the U.S. being second at 27% is not derived from genetically modified plants.
and India third at 17% (Ton, 2002). Demand for Most certifiers will accept proof that growers
organic cotton is highest in Europe (about 3,500 have tried unsuccessfully to buy organic mate-
tons or 58% of the total) and the U.S. (about 2,000 rial from at least three different suppliers as evi-
tons or 33%) (Ton, 2002). Demand in the U.S. dence of unavailability. Federal organic regula-
increased at an annual rate of 22% between 1996 tions also address composting and the use of raw
and 2000 (Organic Trade Association, 2001; cited manures. These may have implications for cot-
by Ton, 2002). ton production when used as fertilizer.

Overview of Organic Production Soil Fertility
Growing cotton organically entails using cultural Mineral nutrition of crops in organic systems
practices, natural fertilizers, and biological con- comes from proper management of soil organ-
trols rather than synthetic fertilizers and pesti- isms that are responsible for releasing nutrients.
cides. A systems approach to organic produc- Rather than feeding plants with fertilizer, organic
tion involves the integration of many practices farmers feed the soil and let the soil organisms
(cover crops, strip cropping, grazing, crop rota- feed the plants. The biological activity in the soil
tion, etc.) into a larger system. Through good can be likened to a digestive process whereby
soil and biodiversity management, farms can organic food sources are applied to the soil and
become increasingly self-sufficient in fertility, then digested by soil organisms to release nutri-
while pest problems are diminished, and some ents for the crop. Soil mineral levels are built up
pests are even controlled outright. A diverse through the application of animal manure, com-
rotation, using legumes and other cover crops, post, soluble rock powders, and deep-rooted
is at the heart of good humus and biodiversity cover crops that bring up nutrients from deep
management in an organic cropping system. within the soil. Plant nutrition is supplemented
Cotton, for example, would be but one of sev- with foliar fertilization in some situations. Soil
eral crops an organic farmer would grow. For fertility, levels of organic matter, minerals, pH,
more complete coverage of general organic crop and other measurements can be monitored with
production, we recommend the ATTRA publi- regular soil tests. The overall cropping sequence
cation Overview of Organic Crop Production. fosters a system in which a previous crop pro-
vides fertility benefits to a subsequent crop—such
as a legume cover crop providing nitrogen to a
following corn crop. Much more detailed soil-
Throughout this publication, we use ex- fertility information is available from ATTRA in
amples from conventional farming that illus- these publications: Sustainable Soil Management,
trate principles relevant to organic cotton Manures for Organic Crop Production, Sustainable
production. Management of Soil-borne Plant Diseases, and
Sources of Organic Fertilizers and Amendments.

PAGE 2 //ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION

Crop Rotation serving as a catch crop when planted to reduce
nutrient leaching following a main crop.
Crop rotation is a traditional agricultural prac-
tice involving the sequencing of different crops Fast, dense-growing cover crops are sometimes
on farm fields; it is considered fundamental to used to suppress problem weeds as a “smother
successful organic farming. Rotations are a crop” or allelopathic cover. The mere presence
planned approach to diversifying the whole farm of most cover crops reduces the competition from
system both economically and biologically, weeds. Sometimes crops are no-till planted into
bringing diversity to each field over time. such covers. If the cover crop is not killed, it is
referred to as a “living mulch.” Some cover crops
Rotations can benefit the farm in several ways. that have been used successfully for weed sup-
Planned rotations are one of the most effective pression include small grains (particularly grain
means of breaking many insect pest and plant rye), several brassica species, hairy vetch, and
disease cycles in the soil. Likewise, many prob- forage sorghums.
lem weeds are suppressed by the nature and tim-
ing of different cultural practices. Rotations also For the humid Cotton Belt, crimson clover, field
affect the fertility of the soil in significant ways. peas, and hairy vetch are excellent winter cover
The inclusion of forage legumes, in particular, crops for nitrogen production. Also, a mixture
may serve as the primary source of nitrogen for of hairy vetch and rye works well for overall bio-
subsequent crops. mass production. When flowering, these pro-
vide nectar and pollen as alternate food for
Rotation is an important means of controlling a beneficials. Hairy vetch is noted for its dense
number of cotton pests, including nematodes. spring cover and weed suppression. Cereal rye
Even basic corn-cotton rotations have been found provides an enormous amount of biomass to the
effective in reducing some species of nematodes soil and is known to attract and shelter benefi-
(Anon, 1993). A minimum of two years planted cial insects. It also suppresses germination of
to non-host species is the standard recommen- small-seeded weeds when left as a mulch cover
dation. on the soil surface. Natural allelopathic chemi-
cals leach from the rye residue and inhibit weed
A long-term cotton study at Auburn, Alabama, germination for about 30-60 days (Daar, 1986).
showed that using winter annual legumes pro- Weed suppression effectively ends once the rye
duced cotton yields equivalent to those grown residue is incorporated. Weed suppression has
using fertilizer nitrogen. The study found an 11% made rye attractive as a cover crop/mulch in no-
yield increase for a 2-year cotton-legume-corn till and ridgetill systems. Mowing or a burn-
rotation compared to continuous cotton grown down herbicide is often used in conventional
with legumes each year. Adding conventional systems to kill the rye cover crop so that no-till
nitrogen fertilizer boosted the two-year rotation plantings of field crops can be established. An
cotton lint yields in this study another 79 pounds effective organic no-till system for cotton has yet
per acre. A three-year rotation of cotton-vetch, to be developed, but early indications are that it
corn-rye (fertilized with 60 pounds of conven- will be. For more information on the potential
tional N/acre), followed by soybeans, produced for organic no-till see the ATTRA publication
about the same cotton yields as the two-year ro- Pursuing Conservation Tillage Systems for Organic
tation (Mitchell, 1988). Crop Production, which discusses progress in this
area. It is important to mow rye at the flowering
stage when the anthers are extended, and pollen
Cover Cropping falls from the seed heads when shaken. If mow-
ing is done earlier, the rye simply grows back.
Cover crops are crops grown to provide soil cover As allelopathic weed suppression subsides, a no-
and erosion protection. At the same time, cover till cultivator may be used for weed control. This
cropping may accomplish a number of other ob- is not a proven system for organic cotton pro-
jectives, including providing nitrogen to the sub- duction but only presented here as food for
sequent cotton crop when tilled into the soil, thought about the development of future organic
improving tilth by adding organic matter, and no-till systems.

//ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION PAGE 3

In addition to producing nitrogen, cover crops crops where used. The downside of this strat-
often provide excellent habitat for predatory and egy may include risks of increased damage from
parasitic insects and spiders. Some good insec- certain insect pests such as boll weevil, tobacco
tary plants often used as cover crops include al- budworm, and cotton bollworm.
falfa, buckwheat, sweet clover, vetch, red clover,
white clover, mustards, and cowpeas. Migration Cultivation
of beneficials from the cover crop to the main
crop is sometimes associated with the post-bloom Tillage and cultivation are the traditional means
period of the cover crop. In these instances, of weed management for organic crops. Some
mowing the cover crops in alternate strips may specific tillage guidelines and techniques for
facilitate their movement, while the remaining weed management include the following:
strips continue to provide refuge for other ben-
eficial species. Sickle-bar mowers are less dis- • Preplant tillage. Where weeds such as
ruptive to beneficials than flail mowers, rotary johnsongrass are a problem, spring-tooth har-
mowers, and mower conditioners with crimpers. rows and similar tools can be effective in
catching and pulling the rhizomes to the soil
Long-term cotton cover-crop studies have also surface, where they desiccate and die.
been done in Louisiana (Millhollon and Melville, Disking, by contrast, trends to cut and dis-
1991) and Arkansas (Scott, 1990). The Arkansas tribute rhizomes and may make the stand
study spanned 17 years, from 1973 to 1988. Cot- even denser.
ton grown after winter cover crops of rye + hairy
vetch produced an average of 234 pounds more • Blind tillage. Blind cultivation employs fin-
seed cotton per acre than a control treatment of ger weeders, tine harrows, or rotary hoes
winter fallow. Cotton following pure vetch during the pre-emergent and early post-
showed a 129-pound increase, while yields after emergent phase. These implements are run
rye + crimson clover had a 72-pound yield im- at relatively high speeds (6 mph plus) across
provement. the entire field, including directly over, but
in the same direction as, the rows. The large-
In the long-term Louisiana study, cotton yields seeded crops like corn, soybeans or sunflower
declined for the first nine years when cover crops survive with minimal damage, while small-
were used, but increased steadily thereafter. In seeded weeds are easily uprooted and killed.
the final four years of the study, cotton yields Post-emergent blind tillage should be done
were 360 pounds-per-acre higher following in the hottest part of the day when crop plants
vetch, compared to fallow + 60 pounds of fertil- are less turgid, to avoid excessive damage.
izer N per acre. Averaged over the 30-year study Rotary hoes, not harrows, should be used if
period, the highest cotton yields followed wheat the soil is crusted or too trashy. Seeding rates
+ 60 pounds of fertilizer N, hairy vetch alone, should be increased 5-10% to compensate for
common vetch alone, or vetch + 40 pounds of N. losses in blind cultivation (Anon., 1991; Doll,
For additional information on cover crops, see 1988).
the ATTRA publication Overview of Cover Crops
and Green Manures. • Inter-row cultivation. When annual weeds
are the concern, cultivation is best kept as
Weed Management shallow as possible to bring as few weed
seeds as possible near the soil surface. Where
Cotton germinates at a soil temperature of 61° F perennial, rhizomaceous weeds are a prob-
at a depth of about 2 in. With planting delayed lem, the shovels set furthest from the crop
until the soil temperature reaches 66°, the crop row may be set deeper on the first cultiva-
emerges rapidly and uniformly and is more vig- tion to bring rhizomes to the surface. Tines
orous (Head and Willians, 1996), giving it a com- are more effective than sweeps or duck feet
petitive edge on weeds. The delay in operations for extracting rhizomes. Later cultivations
also allows additional growth of winter cover should have all shovels set shallow to avoid


excessive pruning of crop roots. Earliest cul- These kits do not include hoses, a tank, or a tool
tivations should avoid throwing soil toward bar. It is more cost-effective to pick these items
the crop row. This places new weed seed into up locally from a gas dealer or salvage opera-
the crop row where it may germinate before tion. An Arkansas cotton grower uses a “water
the crop canopy can shade it out. As the crop shield” to help protect the cotton plants, but still
canopy develops, soil should be thrown into feels flaming should be delayed until the crop
the crop row to cover emerging weeds. has developed a woody bark on the stem (Ves-
tal, 1992). Adapting flame technology requires
Inter-row cultivation is best timed to catch weeds careful implementation. Thermal Weed Control
as they are germinating—as soon as possible af- Systems (TWCS), Inc. of Neillsville, Wisconsin,
ter rain or irrigation, once the soil has dried and Flame Engineering, Inc. (FEI), of Lacrosse,
enough to avoid compaction or surface crusting. Kansas, are two flame-weeding companies that
can provide technical assistance and equipment
Flame Weeding (see References). LP gas usage depends on
ground speed but generally runs from 8-10 gal-
Prior to the 1950s, before modern herbicides be- lons per acre, according to sources at Thermal
came available, flame weeders were used in the Weed Control. For an overview of weed man-
U.S. to control weeds in cotton, sugar cane, grain agement strategies and options for agronomic
sorghum, corn, and orchards. Interest in flame crops, please request the ATTRA publication
weeding has resurfaced in recent years with ris- Principles of Sustainable Weed Management.
ing herbicide costs. Weeds are most susceptible
to flame heat when they are young seedlings 1–2 Insect Management Practices
inches tall or in the 3–5 leaf stage. Risk of dam-
aging the cotton plants diminishes as the cotton Biological and cultural insect control involves
grows and forms a bark on the stem. Broadleaf understanding the ecology of the surrounding
weeds are more susceptible to flaming than agricultural systems and the cotton field and
grasses. Grass seedlings develop a protective making adjustments to production methods that
sheath around the growing tip when they are complement the natural system to our benefit.
about 1 in. tall (Drlik, 1994). Consequently, re- To realize the full benefits of a biological ap-
peated flamings may be necessary on grassy proach we need to move beyond asking how to
weeds for effective control. Searing the plant is kill bugs and ask the larger question: Why do
much more successful than charring. Excessive we have bugs in our cotton fields in the first
burning of the weeds often stimulates the roots place?
and encourages regrowth, in addition to using
more fuel. In a nutshell, we invite pest problems by plant-
ing large expanses of a single susceptible crop.
Preplant flaming has commonly been referred to When cotton is the only food available, bugs are
as the stale seedbed technique. Prepared seed- going to eat cotton. When we have a more di-
beds are flamed after the first flush of weeds has verse farmscape involving many types of plants
sprouted. Cotton planting follows the flaming and animals, the likelihood of severe pest out-
without any further disturbance to the seedbed. breaks diminishes. For more information on
Assuming adequate moisture and soil tempera- farmscaping, request the ATTRA publication
ture, germination should occur within two Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Control.
weeks. Note that a fine-to-slightly-compacted
seedbed will germinate a much larger number Many types of insects feed on cotton plants and
of weeds. threaten yields. Proper identification of these
pests as well as their natural enemies is the first
Costs associated with flame weeding can vary. step in successful management of pests. State
Flamers have been built for $1,200 for an eight- Extension services typically have Internet based
row unit (Anon., 1993) and for as much as $1,520 information that can help with pest and benefi-
for a 12-row unit (Houtsma, 1991). Commercial cial insect identification. Once the pest is prop-
kits cost around $1900 for an eight-row from erly identified, a scouting program with regular
Thermal Weed Control Systems (see References). monitoring can help determine the pest pressures


and the densities of beneficial insects. When pest growers strategies designed to save money and
pressures reach the economically-damaging reduce the need for pesticides, chemical fertiliz-
threshold, control actions become necessary. If ers, and water. The BASIC program utilized the
biological controls are to be used, they must be following strategies in their 2002 program that
started before the pests reach critical levels. That showed a 73% reduction in pesticide use over
is why monitoring is so important. the Fresno County average (Figure 1). In Figure
1, the “enrolled acreage” had the free monitor-
The use of beneficial insect habitats along crop ing, habitat plantings, and insect releases pro-
field borders has shown to increase the presence vided to them. “Basic growers” had imple-
of beneficial insects. These habitats provide shel- mented the principles on their own fields but
ter, pollen and nectar sources, and refuge if the without the direct involvement of the basic pro-
fields are treated with a pesticide. In the event gram staff. Regular IPM, intensive monitoring,
you are releasing purchased beneficial insects, beneficials, and beneficial habitat can reduce
these field-edge habitats will encourage the pesticide use whether you are organic or conven-
beneficials to remain and continue their lifecycle tional. For pesticide use questions or analysis
in that location, helping reduce the pest popula- questions, contact Max Stevenson at:
tion. Some pests may also inhabit the field-edge maxstevenson@yahoo.com
habitats; therefore, these habitats should be moni-
tored along with the crop field. For additional 1. Intensive Monitoring
information, request ATTRA’s Biointensive Inte- Fields enrolled in the program were moni-
grated Pest Management and Farmscaping to En- tored weekly. Monitoring included an over-
hance Biological Control. all picture of the field and the local condi-
tions, the levels of pests and beneficials,
Though not completely organic, the Sustainable farmscape observations, the status of the ad-
Cotton Project’s BASIC program (Biological Ag- jacent beneficial habitat, and any unusual
riculture Systems in Cotton) offers California sightings or areas for concern. Farmers were

Lbs/acre pe sticide activ e ingre die nt
Cotton Fre sno 2002
(of 12 targe te d pe sticide s)
Pesticide Active Ingredient

2.5
2532 f ields
255,373 acres
2.0
(lbs/acre)

1.5
103 f ields
8,151 acres

1.0

11 fields
0.5
625 acres

0.0
Fre sno County BASIC growe rs, all BASIC e nrolle d
av e rage acre age (Fre sno acre age (Fre sno
only) only)

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


given a copy of the monitoring form, and the Marcia Gibbs at marcia@sustainablecotton.org,
overall results were published bi-weekly in or see the Web site at http://sustainablecotton.org.
a newsletter.
2. Strip Cutting of Alfalfa Intercropped with Cotton Trap Cropping
One of the “best management practices” pro-
moted by the BASIC program has been the A trap crop is planted specifically to attract pest
stri p cu ttin g of alfalfa. Th is pra ctice insects. It is then sprayed with some type of in-
prevents the immigration of certain species secticide, in conventional management, or left to
at harvest time and keeps one of the main detain the pests from the cotton crop, or the en-
cotton pests, Lygus Hesperus, from moving out tire trap crop is tilled under to kill the pest in-
of the alfalfa (its preferred host) into the ad- sects. Early-sown cotton has been used as a boll-
jacent cotton. BASIC field staff and mentor weevil trap crop. Using fall-planted-cotton trap
growers were also able to provide technical crops to reduce the number of over-wintering
support for growers wanting to implement a boll weevils was first proposed as early as the
system of strip cutting. late 1800s (Javaid and Joshi, 1995). Both early
and fall cotton trap crops are effective at attract-
3. Bezzerides Weed Cultivator ing boll weevil adults and can be enhanced by
A Bezzerides cultivator was tried by a BA- adding pheromones such as Grandlure™ to the
SIC grower during the 2002 season. The cul- trap crop. The concentrated weevils can then be
tivator works in the planted row where con- killed with organically accepted insecticides,
ventional cultivators can’t reach. Traditiona- which are limited to a few botanicals and
lly, this is the area where chemical herbicides biologicals. Crop consultants James and Larry
are used to eliminate competing weeds. The Chiles were able to reduce the cost of boll weevil
trial was not considered a success, since the control by 30% using trap crops of early and late-
cultivator also removes cotton plants along planted cotton. Even with the cost reduction,
with the weeds, and the growers who tested they were able to maintain good yields of 1000
the equipment felt that it was not significantly to 1200 pounds per acre. They planted a trap
better than their existing cultivators. crop of cotton in early April, 30 days before the
normal cotton planting time, and a late-planted
4. Beneficial Habitat Planting trap crop on August 10. A weevil attractant
Seventy percent of the growers enrolled in pheromone was used to lure boll weevils to the
the 2002 BASIC program planted beneficial cotton trap crops. The trap crops were sprayed
habitat adjacent to their enrolled fields. The for weevils whenever populations were high.
habitat was intended to attract and hold natu- This technique reduced the number of early
rally occurring beneficials. The remaining emergent weevils infesting the main crop and
thirty percent of the enrolled fields were ad- reduced the number of weevils overwintering to
jacent to alfalfa fields where strip cutting was attack the next year’s crop. In a Mississippi study,
practiced. Laster and Furr (1972) showed sesame (Sesamum
indicum) to be more attractive than cotton to the
5. Beneficial Insect Releases cotton bollworm. Robinson et al. (1972) reported
Releases of beneficial insects were also uti- more predators on sorghum than on cotton in his
lized during the growing season. Thousands Oklahoma strip cropping study. Lygus bug may
of lacewings and predatory mites were re- also be kept out of cotton by using nearby alfalfa
leased to augment the naturally occurring in- as a trap crop. Unmowed or strip-mowed alfalfa
sects. When growers see a pest problem start- is preferred by that pest over cotton (Grossman,
ing to develop in their fields they want fast 1988).
action and so will often turn to a chemical
spray. Releasing insects helped them feel like Strip Cropping
something was being done, while the natu-
ral enemies took over the pest control. Strip cropping takes place when harvest-width
strips of two or three crops are planted in the
For additional information on the Sustainable same field. The most common strip crop grown
Cotton Project or the BASIC program, contact with cotton is alfalfa. Increasing the diversity of


crops increases stability in the field, resulting in Phatak used a crimson clover seeding rate of 15-
fewer pest problems, due to natural biological pounds per acre that produced around 60 pounds
controls. Crop rotation is one means of intro- of nitrogen per acre by spring. By late spring,
ducing diversity over time. Strip intercropping beneficial insects were active in the cover crop.
creates biodiversity in space. At that time, 6- to 12-inch planting strips were
killed with Roundup™ herbicide (not allowed
Strip cropping cotton fields with alfalfa gener- in an organic system). Fifteen to 20 days later
ally increases beneficial arthropod populations. the strips were lightly tilled and the cotton
Among the most notable are carabid beetles that planted. The cover crop in the row-middles was
prey on cutworms and armyworms (Grossman, left growing to maintain beneficial insect habi-
1989). Alfalfa has been found to be one of the tat. Even early-season thrips, which can be a
best crops for attracting and retaining beneficial problem following cover crops, were limited or
insects. Strip-cutting alfalfa (i.e., cutting only half prevented by beneficial insects in this system.
of the crop in alternating strips at any one time) When the clover is past the bloom stage and less
maintains two growth stages in the crop; conse- desirable for beneficials, they move readily onto
quently, some beneficial habitat is available at the cotton. The timing coincides with a period
all times. In some cases alfalfa is mixed with when cotton is most vulnerable to insect pests.
another legume and a grass. Following cotton defoliation, the beneficials hi-
bernate in adjacent non-crop areas.
In a conventional cotton management study,
Stern (1969) interplanted 300–500 foot cotton Phatak emphasizes that switching to a whole-
strips and 20-foot wide alfalfa strips to compare farm focus while reducing off-farm inputs is not
pest control needs with monoculture cotton. The simple. It requires planning, management, and
intercropped field required only one insecticide several years to implement on a large scale. It is
application, while the monoculture cotton had just as important to increase and maintain or-
to be sprayed four times. The practice was aban- ganic matter, which stimulates beneficial soil
doned in this specific case, however, due to modi- microorganisms.
fications to irrigation systems and extra labor to
cut alfalfa, which did not compensate for the re- Managing Border Vegetation
duced pesticide costs.
Weedy borders are particularly infamous as
Dr. Sharad Phatak of the University of Georgia sources of insect pests. Current recommenda-
has been working with conventional cotton tions suggest mowing them prior to establish-
growers in Georgia testing a strip-cropping ment of cotton. Mowing after weeds have
method (Yancy, 1994). Phatak finds that plant- formed flower buds will tend to drive plant bugs
ing cotton into strip-killed crimson clover im- into the cotton field (Layton, 1996).
proves soil health, cuts tillage costs, and allows
him to grow cotton without any insecticides and Grassy weed species harbor lepidopterous pests
only 30 pounds of commercial nitrogen fertilizer generally. A specific weed, wild geranium, is an
per acre. Working with Phatak, farmer Benny important spring host of tobacco budworm and
Johnson reported saving at least $120/acre on his should be discouraged in border areas.
16-acre clover-system test plot. There were no
insect problems in the trial acres, while beet ar- More diverse field borders with habitat plant
myworms and whiteflies were infesting nearby species support some crop pests but also sustain
cotton and required 8 to 12 sprayings. This sys- beneficial insects that prey on pest populations,
tem may have some applicability in an organic particularly during non-crop seasons. Manag-
cotton system. In the study, cotton intercropped ing the vegetation in these areas as habitat for
with crimson clover yielded 5,564 pounds of seed beneficial insects counterbalances the threat from
cotton per acre, compared with 1,666 pounds of insect pests. The strategy entails planting or oth-
seed cotton in the rest of the field (Yancy, 1994). erwise encouraging the growth of plants that
Boll counts were 30 per plant with crimson clo- provide alternative food sources (nectar, pollen,
ver and 11 without it. Phatak identified up to 15 alternate prey), moisture, shelter, and perching
different kinds of beneficial insects in these strip- sites preferred by beneficials. Plant species that
planted plots. are aggressive and invasive, or are known hosts

to major crop diseases or insect pests, should be and timing of applications is optimal. Spray for-
avoided. Descriptions of crops, cover crops, and mulations are most effective against armyworms
wild plants that are known to attract certain ben- and those species feeding on exposed leaf sur-
eficial insects and information on designing land- faces. B.t. sprays are very effective against to-
scapes to attract beneficial organisms can be bacco budworm and moderately effective against
found in ATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance Bio- cotton bollworm (Layton, 1996). Because of their
logical Control, which is available on request. feeding habits, granular bait formulations are
more effective for control of cutworms. Careful
Natural Disease Organisms as Pest Control inspection of specific product labels will assure
that the product has been formulated for the pest
A naturally occuring fungal disease of aphids is to be controlled.
known to occur under conditions of high infes-
tation. In Mississippi, this historically occurs HNPV (Heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus) is a
between July 10-25 (Layton, 1996). Fungal dis- commercially produced disease organism that
eases commonly attack and suppress populations attacks budworms and bollworms. It has less of
of lepidopterous pests, most notably the cabbage a track record in the Southeast than B.t., but based
looper and beet armyworm. Suppression of these on preliminary observations it appears to be a
pests by natural disease organisms is encouraged viable biological pesticide (Steinkraus, 1992;
by developing dense crop canopies, which also Anon., 1996). When using any biopesticide, be
assists in weed control. However, these are also certain the formulation is cleared for use in or-
conditions that encourage plant diseases and ganic production.
may not be desirable where cotton diseases are
rampant. Beauveria bassiana is an insect-disease causing
fungus that has been formulated and is available
Early Crop Maturation commercially. It works on several insect larvae,
including cutworms and budworms. It works
Early maturing crops are more likely to escape best during periods of high humidity. More on
damage from late-season infestations of boll this natural control method can be found below
weevil, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, ar- in the Specific Insect Management Strategies sec-
myworms, loopers, and other pests. The use of tion.
short-season cotton is the most obvious means
of doing this. Excessive nitrogen use, late irriga- Insecticidal Soap
tion, and excessive stand density can result in
delayed maturity and increased exposure to these Evolved from a traditional organic gardening
pests, and should be avoided (Layton, 1996). technique, insecticidal soaps control insect pests
by penetrating the cuticle and causing cell mem-
Biopesticides branes to collapse and leak, resulting in dehy-
dration. Several commercial formulations of in-
B.t. (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a naturally occurring secticidal soap have been successfully used to
bacteria that produces a toxin effective in con- control aphids, spider mites, white flies, thrips,
trolling many caterpillars. The toxin causes pa- leaf hoppers, plant bugs, and other pests. Soaps
ralysis of the worm’s digestive tract. Worms may have limited effects on chewing pests such as
continue to live for some hours after ingestion, beetles or caterpillars. Applied as sprays, these
but will not continue to feed. B.t. strains have biodegradable soaps work by contact only and
been formulated into a number of commercial require excellent coverage to be fully effective
products under various trade names. B.t. de- (Harmony Farm, 1996; Ellis and Bradley, 1992).
grades rapidly in sunlight, requiring careful tim-
ing or repeated applications. Insecticidal soaps will kill many beneficial insects
and must be used with that in mind. Phytotox-
B.t. must be ingested in sufficient amounts by icity has also been demonstrated, particularly on
the caterpillar to be effective. Consequently, an crops with thin cuticles (Ellis, 1992). Different
understanding of the feeding habits of the pests varieties of cotton will have different plant char-
is necessary, so that proper formulations are used acteristics. Therefore, it is advisable to test the


soap solution on your plants on a small strip to If natural pesticide applications are necessary,
determine whether any harm will result. Avoid choose one that is least disruptive to the natural
application of soap during the heat of the day, enemies. The application of a rolled oats with
because the plant is then under extreme stress, molasses bait containing Bacillus thuringiensis or
and you want the soap to remain on the plant as nighttime spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis is ef-
long as possible, not evaporate rapidly. Late day fective. Again, early detection and application
applications will stay on the plant longer, increas- during the early developmental stages of the lar-
ing the chances of contact with target pests. vae (1st and 2nd instar) make these biorational
Water hardness will affect the efficacy of soap, pesticides more effective. Pheromone traps will
because calcium, iron, and magnesium will pre- indicate when mating flights are occurring, and
cipitate the fatty acids and make the soap use- through degree-day calculations one can estimate
less against the target insects. The best way to egg laying and hatching. For information on de-
determine how well your water will work is the gree-day calculations contact your local Exten-
soap-jar test. Let a jar full of your spray solution sion agent.
sit for 20 minutes, then look for precipitates in
the soapy-water solution. Product labeling must Thyme oil serves as a toxicant, insect growth
be studied to determine suitability to crop and regulator, and antifeedant to cutworms
pest in each particular state and region. (Hummelbrunner and Isman, 2001). Mock lime
or Chinese rice flower bush, Aglaia odorata, in-
Specific Insect Management Strategies hibits larval growth and is insecticidal to the cut-
worms Peridroma saucia and Spodoptera litura
Cutworms (Janprasert et al,1993). No commercial products
using tyme oil, mock lime, or Chinese rice flower
Cutworms wreak havoc during seedling estab- are known to us at this time. Azadirachtin, the
lishment in many cotton-growing areas. Cut- active ingredient in neem, has similar effects on
worm species include the variegated cutworm, various insects and is used in the form of neem
Peridroma saucia; black cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon; cakes to control soil pests in India. Certis USA
granulate cutworm, Feltia subterranea; and army produces Neemix Botanical Insecticide. Its ac-
cutworm, Euxoa auxiliaris. They are active at tive ingredient, Azadirachtin, is registered for
night, feeding and chewing through the stems cutworm, looper, armyworm, bollworm, white-
of the seedlings. In the day they burrow under- fly, and aphid control on cotton.
ground or under clods to avoid detection. To
inspect for cutworms, dig around the damaged Cotton bollworm and tobacco budworm
areas during the day or come out at night with a
flashlight to catch the culprits in the act. Prob- The tobacco budworm, Heliothus virescens, and
lem areas are usually found near field borders cotton bollworm, Heliothus zea or Helicoverpa
and in weedier areas. armigera, attack cotton in similar ways, damag-
ing bolls, squares, and blooms, and feeding on
Cutworms have many predators and parasites plant terminal buds, causing branching that de-
that can help control their numbers. Some of lays maturity. On mature damaged bolls, one
these parasites and predators can be purchased finds holes with excrement or frass surrounding
or harnessed naturally through planting or con- the boll. These holes provide entry to secondary
serving habitat for them. organisms that can cause decay. Besides cotton,
other bollworm hosts include alfalfa, beans, corn,
Understanding the biology of beneficial organ- peanuts, sorghum, soybeans, peppers, sweet
isms is imperative in order to use them effectively potatoes, tobacco, and tomatoes. Wild hosts in-
as pest control agents. For example, insect para- clude toadflax, deergrass, beggarweed,
sitic nematodes like Steinerema carpocapsae or in- groundcherry, geranium, and sowthistle. In
sect-infecting fungi like Beauveria bassiana require feeding preference tests, 67% of females preferred
adequate humidity to be effective. Other preda- common sowthistle, about 5% preferred cotton,
tors include spiders, minute pirate bugs, damsel and 28% did not discriminate. Common
bugs, and lacewing larvae. Birds also prey on sowthistle was also the most preferred by newly
cutworms, so do not assume that the birds in the hatched larvae among the five host plant types
field are causing the seedling damage. presented in a multiple-choice test. (Gu and


Walter, 1999). This suggests some possible man- the principal active ingredient in many neem-
agement strategies using sowthistle as a trap based products, also shows promise as a growth
crop. regulator and anti-feedant against the cotton
bollworm (Murugan et al., 1998).
This bollworm “complex” has many natural en-
emies that can be harnessed through the use of Pink bollworm
beneficial habitats or purchased from insectaries.
Generalist predators such as assassin bugs, Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella—or pin-
bigeyed bugs, damsel bugs, minute pirate bugs, kies, as they are commonly called—is a signifi-
lacewing larvae, collops beetles, and spiders will cant cotton pest in the Southwest. They have also
feed on the eggs of bollworm or on the larvae been found in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and
that are in early stages of development. Para- Florida. Pinkies damage cotton by feeding on
sites like the wasps Trichogramma spp., Chelonus buds and flowers and on developing seeds and
texanus, and Hyposoter exiguae, and the parasitic lint in bolls. Under dry conditions, no measur-
fly Archytas apicifer, parasitize eggs, larvae and able yield reduction occurs until 25 to 30% of the
pupae. These groups of natural enemies are usu- bolls are infested; at this level the infested bolls
ally enough to keep bollworms below economi- have more than one larva. With high humidity,
cally damaging thresholds. In conventional it takes only one or two larvae to destroy an en-
fields where broad-spectrum insecticides are tire boll, because damaged bolls are vulnerable
used, these natural enemies are so depleted that to infection by fungi that cause boll rot (Rude,
continuous spraying is required to keep boll- 1984). Damaged bolls will have a pimple or wart
worms and other pests in check. that develops around the hole where pinkies
have entered. Unlike cotton bollworm or tobacco
Cultural practices that keep bollworm numbers budworm, pinkies do not deposit frass or feces
down include managing the cotton field to ob- at the base of the entrance hole.
tain an early harvest and avoiding over-fertiliz-
ing or over-watering. Tillage significantly low- Cultural practices to reduce pink bollworm num-
ers bollworm populations by disrupting emer- bers consist of ceasing irrigation sooner than
gence from the overwintering stage. Minimum normal, early crop harvest, shredding crop resi-
tillage operations may favor bollworm popula- due after harvest, plowdown of cotton residue
tions, except in the South, where minimum till- to six inches, and winter irrigation if cotton will
age favors fire ant colonization (Monks and follow cotton on the same field (not a wise prac-
Patterson, no date). Fire ants are effective preda- tice in organic production). Okra and kenaf are
tors of many cotton pests, including bollworm. alternate hosts to pink bollworm and must also
be eliminated from an area. These techniques
For sprays of Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) to be ef- are used in area-wide eradication efforts. Area-
fective, they need to be timed so that the boll- wide sterile release programs through the Ani-
worm larva is in its early stages of development mal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
(1st or 2nd instar). Night spraying will prolong of the USDA is a biological control method also
the exposure to the B.t., since ultraviolet rays of used in eradication efforts.
the sun break it down. The use of Beauveria
bassiana as a biopesticide can be effective against Pink bollworm eggs are very small, making them
bollworm only when temperature and humidity susceptible to many natural enemies, including
requirements are met. Research from China in- mites, spiders, minute pirate bugs, damsel bugs,
dicates that the ideal temperature and humidity bigeyed bugs, and lacewing larvae. A number
for high bollworm kill using Beauveria bassiana is of parasitic wasps such as Trichogramma bactrae,
77oF with humidity between 70-95%. Mortality Microchelonus blackburni, Bracon platynotae, and
drastically decreased when humidity dropped Apanteles ornone attack pink bollworm. Studies
below 70% (Sun et al., 2001). Nuclear polyhe- have shown that the use of the insect-feeding
drosis virus, another biopesticide, is a disease- nematodes Steinernema riobravis and S. carpocapsae
causing virus for use on the bollworm complex on pink bollworm larvae in the fields achieved a
and is available commercially in a product call larval mortality rate of 53 to 79% (Gouge et al.,
Gemstar LC™ from Certis USA. Azadirachtin, 1997).


The success of insect-killing fungi like Beauveria supply houses and is also available in pill form
bassiana depends on the timing of the applica- from most pharmacies. Organic growers inter-
tion to correlate with hatching and early stages ested in this approach should ask their certify-
of development of the pink bollworm, as well as ing agency about the appropriateness of this
optimum humidity for the fungi to infect. treatment in a certified organic system.

Other strategies to reduce pink bollworm popu- Many other crops are hosts to armyworms, as
lations include the use of mating pheromone are the weeds mullen, purslane, Russian thistle,
disruptors. Several products, such as Biolures®, crabgrass, johnsongrass, morning glory,
Checkmate®, Frustrate®, and PB Rope®, are lambsquarters, nettleleaf goosefoot, and pig-
available in the U.S. Pink bollworm mating dis- weed. These last three are preferred hosts that
ruption trials recorded higher yields (1864 lbs/ can serve as indicators of the populations or be
acre) than control fields with no mating disrup- managed as trap crops.
tion (1450 lbs/acre) (Gouge et al., 1997).
Loopers
Armyworms
The cabbage looper, Trichoplusia, feeds on leaf
Beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua, and fall ar- areas between veins causing a net-like appear-
myworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, can both feed on ance but rarely cause significant damage, because
cotton and on rare occasions cause yield reduc- natural enemies control them. If the enemies are
tions. Beet armyworms can cause yield reduc- lacking in number, severe defoliation of cotton
tions in cotton if populations are high enough plants by loopers may cause problems with boll
near the end of the season. Armyworms hatch maturation. Defoliation before bolls mature can
in clusters, with the small worms spreading reduce yields drastically.
through the plant over time, feeding on leaves,
squares, flowers, and bolls. They skeletonize Loopers feed on all the crucifers, crops and
leaves and bracts, trailing frass and spinning weeds, and on melons, celery, cucumbers, beans,
small webs as they go. The egg clusters are cov- lettuces, peas, peppers, potatoes, spinach, squash,
ered with white cottony webbing, making them sweet potatoes, and tomatoes. Other hosts in-
easy to spot. Outbreaks are attributed to favor- clude some flowers, like stocks and snapdrag-
able weather conditions and the killing off of ons, and tobacco. Some weed hosts include
natural enemies. lambsquarters, dandelion, and curly dock.

Natural enemies are assassin bugs, damsel bugs, Natural enemies are assassin bugs, bigeyed bugs,
bigeyed bugs, lacewing larvae, spiders, the para- damsel bugs, minute pirate bugs, lacewing lar-
sitic flies Archytas apicifer and Lespesia archippivora, vae, spiders, and numerous parasitic wasps, such
and the parasitic wasps Trichogramma ssp., as Trichogramma pretiosum, Hyposoter exiguae,
Hyposoter exiguae, Chelonus insularis, and Cotesia Copidosoma truncatellum, and Microplitis brassicae.
marginiventris. The parasitic fly Voria ruralis also contributes to
looper control. Trichoplusia ni NPV (nuclear poly-
Nuclear polyhedrosis virus is a disease-produc- hedrosis virus) sometimes is responsible for sud-
ing virus that infects beet armyworm. It is avail- den looper population decline, especially after
able in the product Spod-X LC (Certis). Bacillus rainfall. Bacillus thruingiensis is effective when
thruingiensis on young worms is effective if ap- the problem is detected early.
plication is thorough. Laboratory and green-
house tests showed that caffeine boosted the ef- Thrips
fectiveness of the B.t. against armyworms up to
900 percent (Morris, 1995). Its use is most prom- Thrips damage seedlings by rasping and suck-
ising against pests that are weakly susceptible to ing the surface cells of developing leaves, result-
B.t. itself. Recipe: dissolve 13 oz. pure caffeine ing in twisted and distorted young leaves. They
in water; add the solution to 100 gallons of stan- are rarely a problem and are usually kept in check
dard B.t. spray; apply as usual. (Morris, 1995). by minute pirate bugs, parasitic wasps, preda-
Caffeine can be obtained from most chemical- cious mites, and other thrips. The western flower


thrip can be a beneficial insect when it feeds on black specks covering its yellowish-green body.
spider mites on a full-grown plant. The bean The whitemarked fleahopper, Spanagonicus
thrip, Caliothrips fasciatus, feeds on older cotton albofasciatus, is the same size and resembles the
leaves and sometimes causes defoliation. Insec- predatory minute pirate bug, Orius sp. and
ticidal soap is the least toxic pesticide for thrips Anthocoris sp.. Fleahoppers cause damage by
but should not be applied on hot sunny days stinging the squares, which then drop from the
because it may burn the plants. Research has plant, reducing yields. In 1999 the cotton flea-
demonstrated that cotton varieties with hairy hopper was the most damaging insect in cotton,
leaves are less injured by thrips than smooth-leaf responsible for nearly a third of the total reduc-
varieties (Muegge et al., 2001) tion in yield caused by all insect pests in the U.S.
Total U.S. insect losses represented more than
Wayne Parramore of Coolidge, Georgia, strip two million bales that year. (Williams et al.,
crops cotton into lupine, providing him with ni- 2000). Fleahopper infestations usually occur in
trogen, soil erosion control, and a beneficial in- fields near weedy and uncultivated ground or
sect habitat to control thrips (Dirnberger, 1995). near weedy borders. Some of these weeds, like
When the lupine is 36 inches tall, a strip is tilled false ragweed, Parthenium hysterophorus, wolly
14 inches across the seedbed. A Brown plow in croton or goatweed, Croton capitatus, and horse-
front of the tractor with a rotovator in the back mint, Monarda punctata, release volatile com-
exposes the center strip, warming it up for the pounds that have been shown to be preferred by
planting of cotton. The remaining lupine is host fleahoppers over cotton (Beerwinkle and
to aphids, thrips, and their natural enemies. It Marshall, 1999). Once the weeds start to mature
prevents weeds and grasses from growing up and dry out, the pests will move to the cotton.
and it reduces soil erosion. The remainder of This information can help with monitoring and
lupine that is tilled in later provides a second shot establishing a trap crop system. Natural enemies
of nitrogen to the cotton. The Parramores report of fleahoppers include assassin bugs, bigeyed
that strip tilled cotton-lupine required only two bugs, damsel bugs, lacewing larvae, and spiders.
insecticide applications. They later determined A study done in east Texas showed that spiders
that they could have done without the second were three times better than insects as predators
spraying in the lupine field, based on a check- of the cotton fleahopper (Sterling, 1992).
plot comparison. Neighboring conventional
fields took five spray applications.
Lygus or tarnished plant bug

These bugs are represented by the species Lygus
In Parramore’s own words: hesperus, L. elisus, L. desertinus, and L. lineolaris.
The first three species are found in the South-
“By having these crop strips in my field, I have west, and L. lineolaris is found in the rest of the
insects evenly distributed – nonbeneficials cotton belt. They pierce stems and suck plant
feeding beneficials. Now when the cotton gets juices, causing damage to flower buds (squares),
big enough for the legume to die, where are young bolls, and terminal buds. Because almost
the beneficials gonna be? They’re not going any plant that produces a seed head can be a ly-
to be all around the edges of the field and gus host, this pest has a wide range. Cotton is
slowly come across the field; they’re all over not the preferred host of lygus, but once the sur-
the field already. They’re in the middle where rounding vegetation starts to dry up, they will
lupine is still growing inches away from cot- move into irrigated cotton and feed on succulent
ton plants. We’re looking at a savings and plant parts. Alfalfa is a preferred host to lygus
increase in production of approximately and can be grown in strip intercrops with cotton
$184.50 per acre.” to assist in lygus control. The classic habitat
manipulation system where alfalfa is strip har-
vested or where borders are left uncut demon-
Fleahoppers strates that lygus can be kept away from cotton
during critical square formation. The alfalfa also
The cotton fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus, harbors numerous natural enemies of lygus,
is a small bug measuring about 1/8 inch, with keeping their populations in check. These natu-


ral enemies include the tiny wasp Anaphes iole, can contribute to boll weevil control if conditions
which parasitizes lygus eggs, and predators like are favorable and suitable habitats are available.
damsel bugs, bigeyed bugs, assassin bugs, lace-
wing larvae, and spiders. If lygus populations Catolaccus grandis is originally from tropical
are reaching economically damaging levels, then Mexico but has been effective in controlling boll
a pesticide application is warranted. Check with weevils in augmentative releases done in USDA
your organic certifier to determine which pesti- cooperative studies. The researchers achieved
cides are allowed. Botanical insecticides such as from 70 to 90% boll weevil parasitism (King et
pyrethrum, sabadilla, and rotenone are options al., 1995). Releases began on July 19 at 350 fe-
but may be prohibitively expensive. Insecticidal males per acre per week over a nine-week pe-
soaps can reduce the lygus nymph population. riod. The objective was to suppress or eliminate
Keep in mind that these treatments will also af- weevil reproduction in six organic cotton fields.
fect the natural enemies and may cause second- Similar work done in Brazil resulted in Catolaccus
ary outbreaks of pests like aphids and mites. grandis inflicting significant mortality on third
instar weevils. The use of augmentative releases
Boll weevil strategies of C. grandis has a very high potential for supple-
menting and enhancing available technology for
The boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis, is consid- suppressing boll weevil populations (Ramalho
ered by some as the primary deterrent to grow- et al., 2000). Catolaccus grandis is currently not
ing cotton organically. In weevil eradication commercially available.
zones, the boll weevil may be less of a concern.
Conventional controls consist of applying pesti- Other alternative methods used by organic cot-
cides to target the adults when they start feed- ton growers in Texas against the boll weevil are
ing and laying eggs. For organic systems, using pyrethrum used with diatomaceous earth, garlic
this approach with organically accepted pesti- oil and fish emulsion as repellants, and phero-
cides would be too costly and only moderately mone traps for early detection. For more infor-
effective. mation on Texas organic cotton growers and the
boll weevil eradication zones, check the Web site:
The use of short-season cotton may be part of an http://www.texasorganic.com/BollWeevil.htm
overall strategy to control boll weevils with little
or no sprayed insecticides. The objective of short- Aphids
season cotton is to escape significant damage
caused by the second generation of weevils, Aphid problems in conventional cotton are usu-
through early fruiting and harvest. For this to ally the result of secondary pest flair ups caused
occur, the population of first generation weevils by excessive spraying for a primary pest like ly-
must also be low. Crop residue management and gus or bollweevil, because the broad-spectrum
field sanitation is essential. Destruction of cot- insecticides also kill the beneficial insects.
ton stalks soon after harvest has long been rec- Aphids are usually kept below economically
ognized as a useful practice for reducing the damaging levels by predators like the ladybug,
number of overwintering weevils (Sterling, 1989). syrphid fly larva, lacewing larva, minute pirate
bug, and the parasitic wasp Lysiphlebus testaceipes.
Early harvest, sanitation, and immediate The damage caused by aphids and other ho-
plowdown are strategies that keep the overwin- mopterans, like whiteflies, comes from their hon-
tering populations low for the following season. eydew excretion that contaminates the lint and
In order for these strategies to be effective, they causes sticky cotton. A study conducted in
must be practiced by all cotton growers in an Georgia’s coastal plain indicates that aphids are
area. Any volunteer cotton plants that are missed initially suppressed by the insect-eating fungus
can be the source of infestation for the following Neozygites fresenii, and were kept at low levels
crop season. thereafter by parasitoids and predators, most
notably the small lady beetles of the Scymnus
spp., preventing further outbreak (Wells, 1999).
The boll weevil has two effective insect parasites,
Bracon mellitor and Catolaccus grandis. Bracon The choice of cotton varieties influences the abun-
mellitor occurs naturally in North America and dance of cotton aphids and their associated


biological-control agents. A study comparing tract. Check with your certifier before applying
cotton varieties found lower aphid densities on any of these products.
cotton varieties exhibiting the smooth-leaf char-
acteristics. Parasitism and predation may have Whitefly
reduced cotton aphid population growth early
in the season. Disease-causing fungal infection Whiteflies are similar to aphids in that they pierce
was the primary cause of an aphid population stems and suck plant sap then excrete honeydew
reduction that occurred during the week after that contaminates the lint. The adult whiteflys
peak aphid abundance, and continued disease resemble tiny white moths, the nymphs are more
activity combined with predation maintained like scale insects. They are found on the under-
aphids at a low density for the remainder of the sides of cotton leaves, and when their numbers
season (Weathersbee and Hardee, 1994). are high enough, the honeydew falls to leaf sur-
faces below where sooty mold forms, turning the
Nitrogen management is an important tool in leaf black. Whiteflies are usually kept in check
controlling aphid infestations, though less eas- by natural enemies, unless broad-spectrum pes-
ily done without commercial fertilizers. Studies ticides are applied for a key pest. If most preda-
have shown that excessive or poorly timed fer- tors and parasites are killed, then the potential
tilizer-N application will promote tender and for devastating outbreaks exists. Beneficial in-
succulent plant growth that attracts aphids. In sects that prey on whiteflies are lacewing larvae,
California, experiments showed that cotton lady beetles, minute pirate bugs, and bigeyed
aphids reached higher densities in high nitrogen bugs. Parasites include Ecarsia formosa, Ecarsia
fertilized plants (200 lbs. N/ac.) than in low ni- meritoria, Encarsia luteola, Encarsia pergandiella,
trogen fertilized plants (50 lbs. N/ac.) (Cisneros Eretmocerus haldemani, and Eretmocerus
and Godfrey, 2001). This increase in aphid pres- californicus. Some of these parasites are specific
sure has also increased insecticide application, to the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes
from an average of 2-3 to 4-6 or more per season vaporariorum, or the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia
in recent years in many areas (Godfrey et al., tabaci, or the bandedwing whitefly, Trialeurodes
1999). abutilonea, or the silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia
argentifolii. Some of these beneficials parasitize
The concept of induced resistance in plants has more than one whitefly species. These nymphs
generated much interest in alternative pest con- are what most predators and parasites attack.
trol circles recently. Plants can be treated with
substances that induce resistance to plant pests. If whitefly populations near threshold levels, use
One of these substances, jasmonic acid, has been insecticidal soap or “narrow range” oil (check
used on cotton to determine the effect it has on with your certifier to determine which oils are
cotton aphid, two spotted spider mites, and west- allowed) to reduce primarily the nymph and
ern flower thrips. Preference was reduced by pupa stage of the whitefly. Botanical insecticides
more than 60% for aphids and spider mites, and like neem can reduce adult populations and also
by more than 90% for thrips on jasmonic-acid- act as an insect growth regulator affecting the
induced leaves compared with control leaves pupal stage. Other botanical insecticides such
(Omer et al., 2001). The effective ingredient from as pyrethrum can help reduce the adult popula-
jasmonic acid is an essential oil isolated from the tion. Insect-eating fungi such as Beauveria
extracts of the jasmine plant, Jasminum bassiana are slow acting and require adequate
grandiflorum. The release of plant volatiles asso- humidity. An effective sprayer that has enough
ciated with the application of jasmonic acid also power to cover both sides of the leaf surface is
attracts natural enemies. Other plant resistance needed, and at least 100 gallons of water per acre
inducers include salicylic acid (aspirin) and salts is necessary to have sufficient coverage.
like potassium phosphate and potassium silicate.
Amino acids such as beta-aminobutryic acid and In conventional cotton, nitrogen fertilizer man-
botanicals such as the extract of giant knotweed, agement is also a factor in whitefly population
Reynoutria sachalinensis, can produce systemic levels and the amount of honeydew produced.
resistance (Quarles, 2002). Milfana® is a com- A California study demonstrated that increasing
mercial product made from giant knotweed ex- levels of nitrogen fertilizer increased densities of


both adult and immature whiteflies during their Diseases of Cotton
peak population growth on cotton. Higher ni-
trogen treatments also resulted in higher densi- Diseases in plants occur when the pathogen is
ties of honeydew drops produced by the white- present, the host is susceptible, and the environ-
flies (Bi et al., 2000). ment is favorable for the disease to develop.
Eliminating any one of these three factors will
Spider mite prevent the disease from occurring. Organisms
responsible for cotton diseases include fungi,
Spider mites, Tetranychus spp., are tiny arachnids bacteria, nematodes, and viruses. If these organ-
(related to spiders, ticks, and scorpions) that live isms are present, then manipulation of the envi-
in colonies, spinning webs and feeding under ronment and the host, to make it less susceptible,
cotton leaves. Spider mites have modified mouth helps to better manage diseases on cotton in a
parts that pierce the cells of the leaf to consume sustainable manner.
its contents. On the leaf’s upper surface yellow
spots appear when the feeding is moderate. Once Soil health and management is the key for suc-
the plants are infested, the yellow spots turn red- cessful control of plant diseases. A soil with ad-
dish brown. If the infestation is severe, mites equate organic matter can house uncountable
can cause defoliation and affect yields. Spider numbers of organisms such as bacteria, fungi,
mite populations are usually suppressed by natu- amoebae, nematodes, protozoa, arthropods, and
ral enemies, unless a broad spectrum insecticide earthworms that in conjunction deter harmful
application occurs to disturb this balance. Insect fungi, bacteria, nematodes and arthropods from
predators of spider mites include minute pirate attacking plants. These beneficial organisms also
bugs, damsel bugs, bigeyed bugs, some midges, help in creating a healthy plant that is able to
lacewing larvae, dustywings, spider mite de- resist pest attack. For more information, see the
stroyers, lady beetles, sixspotted thrips, and west- ATTRA publication Sustainable Management of
ern flower thrips. Other mites that prey on spi- Soil-Borne Plant Diseases.
der mites are Amblyseius ssp., Galendromus spp.,
Metaseiulus spp., and Phytoseiulus ssp. When The leaf surface can also host beneficial organ-
scouting for mites, a hand lens is necessary to isms that compete with pathogens for space. A
distinguish the pest mites from the predatory disease spore landing on a leaf surface has to find
mites. Spider mites tend to be sedentary, while a suitable niche for it to germinate, penetrate, and
their predators are very active. infect. The more beneficial organisms on the leaf,
the greater the competition for the spore to find
Insecticidal soaps, “narrow range” oils, neem- a niche. Applying compost teas adds beneficial
based products such as Trilogy®, and sulfur are microorganisms to the leaf, making it more dif-
acceptable miticides in organic production (check ficult for diseases to become established. For
with certifier regarding specific products). Ap- more information on foliar disease controls, see
plication instruments must thoroughly cover the the ATTRA publications Notes on Compost Teas,
leaves’ undersides, and products that are diluted Use of Baking Soda as a Fungicide, Organic Alterna-
must be applied in high volumes (more than 100 tives for Late Blight Control on Potatoes, and Pow-
gallons of water per acre) to achieve complete dery Mildew Control on Cucurbits.
coverage.
Seedling diseases
Cultural controls include keeping dust down
along roads that border cotton fields. This is usu- These diseases are soil-borne fungi and are asso-
ally done by reducing traffic along those roads ciated primarily with Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium
or watering down the roads. Reducing water spp., and Thielaviopsis basicola. Cool wet soils,
stress on the cotton plants helps prevent mite deep seed placement, soil compaction, and cool
build up. Pima cotton varieties are less suscep- temperatures contribute to seedling disease de-
tible to mites than highland varieties (Anon. velopment. Spreading compost and using green
2001). manure crops, especially grasses, can reduce the


pathogen levels in the soil. Various organisms Verticillium wilt caused by Verticillium dahliae is
have been researched as potential biological widespread, attacking many other agronomic,
controls, these include Burkholderia cepacia, horticultural, and ornamental crops, as well as
Gliocladium virens, Trichoderma hamatum, some weeds. It is persistent in the soil because
Enterobacter cloacae, Erwinia herbicola, of survival structures called microsclerotia.
rhizobacteria, and fluorescent pseudomonads as These microsclerotia are produced throughout
seed treatments. (Zaki et al., 1998; Lewis and the infected plant and when the crop is disked,
Papavizas, 1991; Howell, 1991; Nelson, 1988; these seed-like structures are also incorporated
Demir et al., 1999; Laha and Verma, 1998). into the soil. Cultural controls include resistant
varieties (Pima cotton is tolerant), rotation with
Of these organisms, Burkholderia cepacia is avail- grass crops, management for short season pro-
able commercially in a product called Deny®. duction, and avoiding excessive nitrogen and ir-
Another microorganism, Bacillus subtilis, sold rigation. Soil solarization done 6-11 weeks be-
under the trade name Kodiak®, is recommended fore planting was effective in one study where
as a seed inoculant for controlling damping off the pathogen was reduced to negligible levels
fungi. The following organisms have been used (Basalotte et al., 1994).
as soil treatments with varying levels of success:
Stilbella aciculosa, Laetisaria arvalis, Gliocladium There are many types of nematodes in soils, most
virens, and Trichoderma longibrachiatum (Lewis are beneficial, and a few are cotton pests. Where
and Papviazas, 1993; Lewis and Papviazas, 1992; nematode infestations are heavy, sampling and
Sreenivasaprasad and Manibhushanrao, 1990). laboratory analysis can be used to determine the
length of rotations and the non-host crops to use.
Soil diseases If the problem is root-knot nematodes, rotation
to resistant soybean varieties or sorghum is a
The three most important fungal soil diseases possibility. Rotation to wheat, corn, grain sor-
that cause economic damage are Fusarium ghum, or resistant soybeans is possible if the
oxysporum, Phymatotrichum omnivorum, and Ver- nematodes are the reniform species (Lorenz,
ticillium dahliae. Nematodes are soil-dwelling, 1994; O’Brrien-Wray, 1994). Nematodes that at-
microscopic, worm-like animals. Only a few spe- tack cotton are the root knot nematode,
cies are damaging to cotton. They will be classi- Meloidogyne incognita, reniform nematode,
fied in this publication as a soil disease. Rotylenchulus reniformis, and the Columbia lance
nematode, Hoplolaimus columbus. In sustainable
Fusarium alone rarely causes economic problems, production systems, nematodes can be managed
but when associated with nematodes, it forms a by crop rotation, resistant varieties, and cultural
complex in which the nematode damage weak- practices. Eventually a “living soil” will keep
ens the plant, making it susceptible to the fun- harmful nematodes and soilborne fungi under
gus. Organic matter and its associated microor- control (Yancy, 1994). Crop rotation is a good
ganisms can serve as an antagonist to this dis- strategy, but make sure to identify the type of
ease. The use of Bacillus subtilis products nematode you have and rotate with a crop that
(Kodiak®) as a seed inoculum is recommended. is not an alternate host for that nematode. For
The strategies for nematode control will be dis- example, the reniform nematode also feeds on
cussed further on in this publication. vetch, tobacco, soybeans, tomatoes, and okra, so
these crops are not suitable for rotation with cot-
Texas root rot, caused by Phymatotrichum ton for reniform nematode reduction. Check
omnivorum, is found in the alkaline soils of Texas with your seed supplier to identify varieties re-
and the Southwest. It is difficult to control and sistant to the nematodes present in your field.
occurs on more than 2,300 broadleaf plants Cultural practices include cover cropping with
(Goldberg, 1999). This fungus is active in high plants that are antagonistic to nematodes, such
temperatures and in low organic-matter soils, so as rapeseed or marigolds, planting cotton on soils
adding compost or incorporating green manure that are less sandy, controlling weeds, incorpo-
crops will increase organic matter and microor- ration of chicken litter and other manures, and
ganism competition. Avoid growing cotton on solarization. For more information, see the
ground that is known to harbor this disease. ATTRA publication Alternative Nematode Control.


Boll rots dences of the disease, causing defoliation in se-
vere cases. Controls include using resistant va-
Boll rots are a problem in areas with high hu- rieties and avoiding prolonged leaf wetness.
midity and rainfall and where bolls are starting
to open or have been damaged by insects. Most Southwestern cotton rust, Puccinia cacabata, first
pathogens are secondary invaders relying on in- appears as small, yellowish spots on leaves,
sect damage for access. Diplodia spp., Fusarium stems, and bolls, usually after a rain. These spots
spp., and other fungi have been associated with enlarge, developing orange-reddish to brown
a basal type of rot where bracts are infected first, centers. Later, large orange spots appear on the
followed by invasion through nectaries and the lower leaves and discharge orange spores. Rust
base of the boll (Anon., 1981). Other organisms diseases require more than one host in order to
that infect cotton bolls are Alternaria macrospora, complete their life cycle. For Puccinia cacabata the
Puccinia cacabata, and Xanthomonas, which are alternate host is grama grass, Bouteloua spp., and
also responsible for foliar diseases. The boll-rot its proximity to the cotton field may determine
organism of most concern is Aspergillus flavus, the severity of infestation. If there is grama grass
which produces aflatoxins in the cottonseed. near your field, removal by burning, plowing,
Aflatoxins are carcinogens to some animals and or grazing is recommended. A season of heavy
to humans. It contaminates cottonseed oil and rains and high humidity with grama grass close
cottonseed meal, which then cannot be used for by has the potential for problems with cotton rust.
feed. If Aspergillus is a problem in your area,
consider cultural practices that reduce humid- Cotton leaf crumple virus is transmitted by the
ity, such as lower density seeding to allow more silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii. Control
air circulation. Avoid tall, vegetative cotton of the vector and stub cotton, which serves as an
growth—often a result of late planting, excessive overwintering site for the virus, and the use of
nitrogen fertilizer, fertile soils, and/or excessive resistant varieties are strategies for disease reduc-
moisture. Rank growth often renders cotton tion. Symptoms include wrinkled leaves that are
plants more attractive and susceptible to late sea- cupped downward and plants that are small or
son insects, more susceptible to boll rot, and more stunted. This disease causes economic losses if
difficult to defoliate (Bacheler, 1994). the plants are infected when young.

Foliar diseases
Defoliation
Bacterial blight caused by Xanthomonas campestris
pv malvacearum is common in areas with warm, Defoliation is a significant obstacle to organic
wet weather during the growing season. It production. The organic options available to
causes defoliation and reduces lint quality. Leaf defoliate cotton include flame defoliation and
spots are angular, restricted by leaf veins, water- waiting for frost. Vinegar has not been cleared
soaked when fresh, and eventually turning for use as a defoliant under the NOP rules. Ceas-
brown before defoliation. Boll symptoms are ing irrigation can assist in leaf drop and boll
small, round, water-soaked spots that become maturation in low rainfall areas. Citric acid has
black. Affected bolls may shed or fail to open been used by at least one Missouri cotton farmer
and have poor-quality lint. Quick plow down of (Steve McKaskle). Citric acid is organically ap-
crop residues after harvest to give ample time proved if it comes from natural sources. Other-
for decomposition will assist in the control of the wise, the only alternatives are to wait for a frost
disease. Crop rotation and using resistant vari- or hand harvest.
eties are also effective strategies.
Research reports from the 1960s show that con-
Alternaria leaf spot caused by Alternaria siderable work was devoted to developing bu-
macrospora starts off as a tiny circular spot that tane-gas flame defoliators. Several models were
enlarges to half an inch. Concentric rings form developed by engineers in various parts of the
as the spot enlarges, with the center sometimes cotton belt. To our knowledge no such equip-
falling out to form a shothole. Spots can also be ment is available on the market today, having
found on bolls. High humidity increases the inci- been replaced by chemical defoliation methods.


Marketing Organic Cotton Economics and Profitability

As previously mentioned, marketing cotton as Results from a six-year study in the San Joaquin
“organic” requires certification of the field pro- Valley of California (Swezey, 2002) showed or-
duction practices. Certification also must con- ganic cotton production costs running approxi-
tinue throughout the manufacturing process, mately 50% higher than those of conventional
from the ginner, yarn spinner, and cloth maker, cotton. The researchers found no difference be-
to the garment manufacturer. Each step of the tween fiber length, strength, or micronaire be-
process must use only materials (dyes, bleaches, tween conventional and organic cotton. They
etc.) that meet organic specifications. Manufac- concluded that organic cotton production was
tured products that are not already on the Na- feasible in the northern San Joaquin Valley and
tional Organic Program’s approved list must go that effective marketing of organic cotton must
through a lengthy process to gain approval. If include a price premium to offset higher produc-
any unapproved product is used in the process- tion costs.
ing of cotton, the fiber cannot be labeled as or-
ganic (Spencer, 2002). Costs that typically differ from conventional cot-
ton production include fertilizer materials such
Organic cotton farmers usually sell either to a as manure, compost, or cover crop seed and their
mill or a manufacturer. It is usually up to the associated application and establishment costs;
farmer to negotiate the price with his buyer. mechanical weed control costs; organically-ac-
Buyers of organic cotton are limited. Parkdale ceptable insect and disease management mate-
Mills (see References) is perhaps the largest or- rials, such as compost tea and beneficial insects;
ganic cotton buyer in the U.S. Located in additional hand weeding labor; and costs asso-
Belmont, North Carolina, Parkdale makes yarn ciated with being certified organic.
from organic cotton. They buy mostly from the
southern states and occasionally from California. A detailed organic cotton budget is available
They purchase organic cotton when demand from The University of California Extension Ser-
from a garment maker warrants. They buy from vice. To locate this publication on the Web go
farmers, co-ops, and merchants. to: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/pubs/
costs/95/cotton.htm
Sandra Marquardt of the Organic Trade
Association’s Fiber Council (see References) says Summary
price premiums range from around $.95 to $1.25
per pound, depending on the quality and staple Prospective growers should be aware that grow-
length. This premium may decline as stiff com- ing organic cotton is not quite the lucrative
petition from foreign organic cotton increases. proposition it sounds and that there may be more
The Organic Fiber Council lists companies that money made, and less risk involved, in growing
could be approached as potential buyers of or- other crops instead. Cotton has many pests that
ganic cotton, especially the mills. must be controlled without conventional pesti-
cides under an organic system. Weed control
The International Organic Cotton Directory of- options are limited to those done without syn-
fers an extensive listing of people, companies, thetic herbicides. Defoliation can be a major chal-
and farmers involved in the organic cotton in- lenge, with limited options to accomplish the
dustry. They are dedicated to the sustainable task. Transitioning from conventional crop pro-
production, processing, and consumption of or- duction to organic cotton is fraught with risk, not
ganic cotton worldwide. They have directories to mention that the transition process takes three
listed by product type, business type, and alpha- years before the fields can be certified as organic.
betically. There are a number of U.S. merchants/ Additionally, in the absence of institutional sup-
brokers and eight U.S. mills listed that could be port and infrastructure, organic growers are un-
potential buyers of organic cotton. As well, there able to move organic cotton around as easily as
are several farmers and farm organizations listed do conventional growers. Markets for organic
that are involved with organic cotton. See this cotton are limited, and demand plus foreign sup-
Web site at: http://www.organiccottondirectory.net plies influence prices. Finally, most organic cot-


ton is grown in the northern fringe of the Cotton Beerwinkle, K.R., and H.F Marshall. 1999. Cot-
Belt, out of the main range of the boll weevil. ton fleahopper (Heteroptera: Miridae) responses
With weevil eradication programs, however, or- to volatiles from selected host plants. Journal of
ganic cotton may have a better chance than be- Cotton Science. Vol. 3, No. 4. p. 153–159.
fore to produce well throughout the Cotton Belt.
Bi, J.L., G.R. Ballmer, N.C. Toscano, M.A.
Madore, P. Dugger (ed.) and D. Richter. 2000.
References Effect of nitrogen fertility on cotton-whitefly in-
teractions. 2000 Proceedings Beltwide Cotton
Altieri, M.A., and M. Leibman.(ed.). 1986. In- Conferences, San Antonio, Texas. Vol. 2. p. 1135-
sect, weed, and plant disease management in 1142.
multiple cropping systems. In: Francis, C.A.
(ed.). Multiple Cropping Systems. Macmillan Cisneros, J.J., and L.D. Godfrey. 2001. Midseason
Publishing Company. New York. 383 p. pest status of the cotton aphid (Homoptera:
Aphididae) in California cotton: is nitrogen a key
Anon. 1996. New biological insecticide out. factor? Environmental Entomology. Vol. 30, No.
Arkansas Farmer. June. p. 14. 3. p. 501-510.

Anon. 1993. Corn-cotton rotations. Acres USA. Daar, Sheila. 1986. Suppressing weeds with al-
April. p. 5. lelopathic mulches. IPM Practitioner. April. p.
1–4.
Anon. 1991. Non-chemical weed control for row
crops. Sustainable Farming News. September. Demir, G., A. Karcilioglu, and E. Onan. 1999.
p. 1-8. Protection of cotton plants against damping-off
disease with rhizobacteria. Journal of Turkish
Anon. 1993a. Arkansas farmer builds flame Phytopathology. Vol. 28, No. 3. p.111-118.
weed cultivator. Farm Show. March-April. p.
16. Dirnberger, J.M. 1995. The bottomline matters—
You can laugh at him on the way to the bank.
Anon. 2001. UC Pest Management Guidelines, National Conservation Tillage Digest. October-
Cotton, Webspinning spider mites. University November. p. 20–23.
of California Statewide Integrated Pest Manage-
ment Program Web site. Accessed September Doll, J.D. 1988. Controlling weeds in sustain-
2002. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/ able agriculture. University of Wisconsin—Ex-
r114400111.html tension. Madison, Wisconsin. 3 p.

Anon. 1981. Insect and Disease Identification Drlik, Tanya. 1994. Non-toxic weed control. IPM
Guide for IPM in the Southeast. The University Practitioner. October. p. 20.
of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service Bul-
letin 849. Ellis, Barbara W., and Fern Marshall Bradley.
1992. The Organic Gardener’s Handbook Of
Bacheler, J. S.. 1994. A Scout’s Guide to Basic Natural Insect And Disease Control. Rodale
Cotton Terminology. North Carolina State Uni- Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. 534 p.
versity Web page. Accessed October 2002. http:/
/ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cotton/glossary/ Flame Engineering Inc.
glossary.html P.O. Box 577
Lacrosse, KS, 67548
Basallote, M.J., J. Bejarano, M.A. Blanco, R.M. 800-225-2469
Jimenez-Diaz, and J.M. Melero. 1994. Soil solar-
ization: a strategy for the control of diseases Godfrey, LD, K, Keillor, R.B. Hutmacher, J.
caused by soil borne plant pathogens and reduc- Cisneros, P. Dugger (ed.), and D. Richter. 1999.
ing of crop rotations. Investigación Agraria, Interaction of cotton aphid population dynam-
Producción y Protección Vegetales. 1994, Fuera ics and cotton fertilization regime in California
de Serie No. 2. p. 207-220. cotton. 1999 Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Con-


ferences, Orlando, Florida. Volume 2. p. 1008- Hummelbrunner, L.A., and M.B. Isman. 2001
1011. Acute, sublethal, antifeedant, and synergistic ef-
fects of monoterpenoid essential oil compounds
Goldberg, Natalie P. 1999. Phymatotrichum on the tobacco cutworm, Spodoptera litura
Root Rot, Guide A-229. College of Agriculture (Lep.,Noctuidae). Journal of Agricultural and
and Home Economics, New Mexico State Uni- Food Chemistry. American Chemical Society.
versity Web page. Accessed Sept. 2002. http:// Vol. 49, No. 2. p. 715–720.
www.cahe.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/a-229.html
Janprasert, J., C. Satasook, P. Sukumalanand, D.E.
Gouge, Dawn H, Kirk A. Smith, Charlie Payne, Champagne, M.B. Isman, P. Wiriyachitra, and
Linda L. Lee, Jamie R. Van Berkum, Daniel G.H.N. Towers. 1993. Rocaglamide, a natural
Ortega, and Thomas J. Henneberry. 1997. Con- benzofuran insecticide from Aglaia odorata. Phy-
trol of pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, tochemistry. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Vol. 32,
(Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) with No. 1. p. 67–69.
biocontrol and biorational agents. TEKTRAN.
United States Department of Agriculture, Agri- Javaid, I., and J.M. Joshi. 1995. Trap cropping in
cultural Research Service. Accessed September insect pest management. Journal of Sustainable
2002. http://www.nalusda.gov/ttic/tektran/ Agriculture. Vol. 5. p. 1–2, 117–136.
data/000008/22/0000082251.html
King, E. G., R. J. Coleman, L. Woods, L. Wendel,
Grossman, Joel. 1989. Enhancing natural en- S. Greenberg, and A. W. Scott. 1995. Suppres-
emies. IPM Practitioner. November–December. sion of the boll weevil in commercial cotton by
p. 10. augmentative releases of a wasp parasite,
Catolaccus grandis. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton
Grossman, Joel. 1988. Lygus. IPM Practitioner. Conferences 1995. p. 26–30.
April. p. 11–12.
Laha, G.S., and J.P. Verma. 1998. Role of fluo-
Gu, H., and G. H Walter. 1999. Is the common rescent pseudomonads in the suppression of root
sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus a primary host plant rot and damping off of cotton. Indian-Phytopa-
of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera thology. Vol. 51, No. 3. p. 275–278.)
(Lep., Noctuidae)? Oviposition and larval per-
formance. Journal of Applied Entomology, Vol.
123, No.2. p. 99-105. Laster, M.L., and R.E. Furr. 1972. Heliothis popu-
lation in cotton-sesame intercroppings. Journal
Harmony Farm. 1996. Harmony Farm Supply of Economic Entomology. Vol. 65. p. 1524–1525.
Catalogue: Spring–Summer 1996. Graton, A. 128
p. Layton, Blake. 1996. Cotton Insect Control Guide
1996. Publication 343. Mississippi State Univer-
Head, Robert B., and Michael R. Williams. 1996. sity. Mississippi State, Mississippi. 36 p.
Pests, Thresholds, and the Cotton Plant. Publi-
cation 1614. Mississippi State University. Mis- Lewis, J.A., and G.C. Papavizas. 1991. Biocontrol
sissippi State, Mississippi. 15 p. of cotton damping-off caused by Rhizoctonia
solani in the field with formulations of Tricho-
Houtsma, J. 1991. Fighting weeds with fire. The derma spp. and Gliocladium virens. Crop Protec-
Farmer. June. p. 10-11. tion. Vol. 10, No. 5. p. 396–402.

Howell, C.R. 1991. Biological control of Pythium Lewis, J.A., and G.C. Papavizas. 1993. Stilbella
damping-off of cotton with seed-coating prepa- aciculosa: a potential biocontrol fungus against
rations of Gliocladium virens. Phytopathology. Rhizoctonia solani. Biocontrol Science and Tech-
Vol. 81, No.7. p. 738–741. nology. Vol. 3, No. 1. p. 3–11.


Lewis, J.A., and G.C. Papavizas. 1992. Potential Cooperative Extension Bulletin E-6. p. 8. http://
of Laetisaria arvalis for the biocontrol of Rhizocto- TcEBookstore.org/tmppdfs552089-E6.pdf
nia solani. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Vol.
24, No.11. p. 1075-1079. Nelson, E.B.. 1988. Biological control of pythium
seed rot and preemergence damping-off of cot-
Lorenz, Gus. 1994. Nematodes: Producers’ un- ton with Enterobacter cloacae and Erwinia herbicola
seen enemy. Delta Farm Press. April 8. p. 26–27. applied as seed treatments. Plant Disease. Vol.
72, No.2. p. 140-142.
Marquardt, Sandra. 2002. 2002 Beltwide
presentation: Organic cotton: production and O’Brien-Wray, Kelly. 1994. Nematode nemesis
marketing trends in the U.S. and globally – challenges cotton. Soybean Digest. December.
2001. From The Organic Cotton Site: p. 6–7.
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/
NEWS007/news007.html Omer, A.D., J. Granett, R. Karban, and E.M. Villa.
2001. Chemically-induced resistance against
McKaskle, Steve multiple pests in cotton. International Journal
PO Box 10 of Pest Management. Vol. 47, No. 1. p. 49-54.
Braggadocio, MO 63826
573-757-6653 Parkdale Mills
stevemckaskle@hotmail.com Jean Frye
PO Box 856
Millhollon, E.P., and D.R. Melville. 1991. The Selmont, NC 28012
long-term effects of Winter Cover Crops on Cot- 704-825-7993
ton Production in Northwest Louisiana. Louisi- http://www.parkdalemills.com
ana Experiment Station Bulletin No. 830. 35 p.
Quarles, William. 2002. Aspirin, compost, talk-
Mitchell, C.C., Jr. 1988. New information from ing plants and induced systemic resistance. The
old rotation. Reprinted from Highlights of Ag- IPM Practioner. Vol. 24, No. 5/6. p 3-4.
ricultural Research. Vol. 35, No. 4. Alabama
Experiment Station. 1 p. Ramalho, F. S., R. S. Medeiros, W. P. Lemos, P.
A. Wanderley, J. M. Dias, and J. C.Zanuncio.
Monks, Dale C. and Michael G. Patterson 2000. Evaluation of Catolaccus grandis (Burks)
(eds.). No date. Conservation Tillage, Cotton (Hym., Pteromalidae) as a biological control
Production Guide, Insect Control. Alabama agent against cottonboll weevil. Journal of Ap-
Cooperative Extension System. Circular ANR- plied Entomology. Vol. 124, No. 9-10. p. 359.
952. Accessed September 2002.
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/ Robinson, R.R., J.H. Young, and R.D. Morrison.
constill.html#insectcontrol 1972. Strip-cropping effects on abundance of
predatory and harmful cotton insects in Okla-
Murugan, K., D. Jeyabalan, N.S. Kumar, R. Babu, homa. Environmental Entomology. Vol. 1. p.
S. Sivaramakrishnan, and S.S. Nathan. 1998. 145-149.
Antifeedant and growth-inhibitory properties of
neem limonoids against the cotton bollworm, Rude, Paul A. (senior writer). 1984. Integrated
Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Insect Science and Pest Management for Cotton in the Western Re-
its Application. Vol.18, No 2. p. 157-162. gion of the United States. University of Califor-
nia. Division of Agriculture and Natural Re-
Morris, O. 1995. Caffeine jolts worms. New sources Publication 3305. p. 49.
Farmer. January. p. 42
Sandra Marquardt, Coordinator
Muegge, Mark A., Brant A. Baugh, James F. Leser, 5801 Sierra Avenue
Thomas A. Doederlein, and E. P. Boring III. 2001. Richmond, CA 94805
Managing cotton insects in the high plains, roll- Telephone: 510-215-8841
ing plains and trans Pecos areas of Texas. Texas Fax: 510-215-7253


E-mail: smarquardt@ota.com California. p. 257 In: Robert Thompson, (com-
http://www.ota.com/about/staff.html piler) Proceedings of the 14th IFOAM Organic
World Congress. Canadian Organic Growers,
Scott, H.D., et al. 1990. Effects of Winter Cover Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Crops on Cotton and Soil Properties. Arkansas
Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin No. 924. Thermal Weed Control Systems, Inc.
Rt 1, Box 250
Spencer, Marty T. 2002. NOP Scope document Neillsville, WI, 54456
sends personal care, fibers spinning. Natural 715-743-4163
Foods Merchandizer. July. p. 1.
Ton, Peter. 2002. The International market for
Sreenivasaprasad, S., and K. Manibhushanrao. organic cotton and eco-textiles. p. 258 In: Robert
1990. Biocontrol potential of fungal antago- Thompson (compiler), Proceedings of the 14th
nists Gliocladium virens and Trichoderma IFOAM Organic World Congress. Canadian
longibrachiatum. Zeitschrift-fur-lanzenkrankheiten- Organic Growers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
und-Pflanzenschutz. Vol. 97, No 6. p. 570-579.
Vestal, Joe. 1992. Flame cultivation makes come-
Stern, V.M. 1969. Interplanting alfalfa in cotton back. Delta Farm Press. August 7. p. 24.
to control lygus bugs and other insect pests. p.
55-69. In: Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Con- Wells L. J., R Ruberson, R. M. McPherson, G. A.
ference on Ecological Animal Control by Habi- Herzog, P. Dugger (ed.), and D. Richter. 1999.
tat Management, February 27-28. Tallahassee, Biotic suppression of the cotton aphid
Florida. (Homoptera: Aphididae) in the Georgia coastal
plain. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences,
Steinkraus, D.C., et al. 1992. Biological control Orlando, Florida. Volume 2. p. 1011-1014.
of bollworms and budworms. Arkansas Farm
Research. July–August. p. 18–19. Weathersbee III, A.A., and D.D. Hardee. 1994.
Abundance of cotton aphids (Homoptera:
Sterling, W.L., L.T. Wilson, A.P. Gutierrez, D.R. Aphididae) and associated biological control
Rummel, J.R. Phillips, N.D. Stone, and J.H. agents on six cotton cultivars. Journal of Eco-
Benedict. 1989. Strategies and tactics for man- nomic Entomology. Vol. 87, No 1. p. 258-265.
aging insects and mites. In: R.E. Frisbie, K.M.
El-Zak, and L.T. Wilson (eds.). Integrated Pest Williams M.R., P. Dugger (ed.) and D. Richter.
Management Systems and Cotton Production. 2000. Cotton insect loss estimates—1999. 2000
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. p. 267- Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San
325. Antonio, Texas. Volume 2. p. 884–913.

Sterling, W.L., A. Dean, and N.M. Abd-El-Salam. Yancy, Cecil, Jr. 1994. Covers challenge cotton
1992. Economic benefits of spider (Araneae) and chemicals. The New Farm. February. p. 20–23.
insect (Hemiptera: Miridae) predators of cotton
fleahoppers. Journal of Economic Entomology. Zaki, K., I.J Misaghi, and M.N. Shatla. 1998. Con-
Vol. 85, No. 1. p. 52-57. trol of cotton seedling damping-off in the field
by Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) cepacia. Plant Dis-
Sun, LuJuan, Wu Kong Ming, Guo YuYuan. 2001. ease. Vol. 82, No. 3. p. 291-293.
The pathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana to
Helicoverpa armigera under different temperatures Web Resources
and humidities. Acta Entomologica Sinica.Vol
44, No 4. p. 501-506. The Organic Cotton site:
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/
Swezey, Sean L. 2002. Cotton yields, quality,
insect abundance, and costs of production of or- Details on a Texas organic cotton farm:
ganic cotton in the northern San Joaquin Valley, http://www.sosfromtexas.com/


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

By Martin Guerena and Preston Sullivan
NCAT Agriculture Specialists

Edited by Paul Williams and David Zodrow
Formatted by Cynthia Arnold

July 2003

The electronic version of Organic Cotton
Production is located at:
HTML
http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/cotton.html
PDF
http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/cotton.pdf

IP233

©2003www.clipart.com


Organic Cotton Production

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Organic Cotton Production

More from ElisaMendelsohn

Recently uploaded

Organic Cotton Production