Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:38:29.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Six-year comparison between organic, IPM and conventional cotton production systems in the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2007

Sean L. Swezey ,
Polly Goldman ,
Janet Bryer  and
Diego Nieto
Sean L. Swezey*
Affiliation:
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064, USA.
Polly Goldman
Affiliation:
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064, USA.
Janet Bryer
Affiliation:
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064, USA.
Diego Nieto
Affiliation:
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three different cotton production strategies [certified organic, conventionally grown, and reduced insecticide input/integrated pest management (IPM)] were compared in field-sized replicates in the Northern San Joaquin Valley (NSJV), California, from 1996 to 2001. We measured arthropod abundance, plant development, plant density, pesticide use, cost of production, lint quality and yields in the three treatments. Overall pest abundance was low, and a key cotton fruit pest, Lygus hesperus Knight, known as the western tarnished plant bug (WTPB), did not exceed action thresholds in any treatment. Organic fields had significantly more generalist insect predators than conventional fields during at least one seasonal interval in all but one year. While there were no significant differences in plant development, plant densities at harvest were lower in organic than conventional and IPM fields. Some measures of lint quality (color grade and bale leaf rating) were also lower in the organic treatment than in either the IPM or the conventional treatments. Synthetic insecticides, not allowed for use in organic production, were also used in significantly lower quantities in the IPM fields than in the conventional fields. Over the 6-year period of the study, IPM fields averaged 0.63 kg of active ingredient (AI) insecticide per hectare, as opposed to 1.02 kg AI ha−1 for conventional fields, a reduction of 38%. Costs of production per bale were on average 37% higher for organic than for conventional cotton. This cost differential was primarily due to greater hand-weeding costs and significantly lower yields in organic cotton, compared with either IPM or conventional cotton. Average 6-year yields were 4.4, 5.4 and 6.7 bales ha−1 for organic, IPM and conventional treatments, respectively. Low world cotton prices and the lack of premium prices for organic cotton are the primary obstacles for continued production in the NSJV.

Keywords

California cottonorganic cottonintegrated pest managementpesticide use reduction
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 30 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 United States Division of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. Cotton and Wool Situation and Outlook Yearbook. Market and Trade Economics Division, Economics Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2 California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2004. State organic crop and acreage report. Available at Web site: www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/i&c/docs/2004stateData.pdf (verified October 2005).Google Scholar
3 National Cotton Council of America. 2005. California cotton production 2001. Available at Web site: http://www.cotton.org/econ/world/detail.cfm?state=CA&year=2001 (verified October 2005).Google Scholar
4 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2002. Summary of pesticide use report 2001. Available at Web site: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/spur01rep/01com.htm#trendscom (verified October 2005).Google Scholar
5 Swezey, S.L. and Goldman, P. 1996. Conversion of cotton production to certified organic management in the northern San Joaquin Valley: plant development, yield, quality, and production costs. Proceedings, Belt-wide Cotton Conferences 1:167–172.Google Scholar
6 Swezey, S.L., Goldman, P., Jergens, R., and Vargas, R. 1999. Preliminary studies show yield and quality potential of organic cotton. California Agriculture 53:9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Sevacharian, V. and Stern, V.M. 1974. Host plant preference of lygus bugs in alfalfa interplanted cotton fields. Environmental Entomology 3:761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. 1996. Integrated pest management for cotton in the Western Region of the United States. 2nd ed. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
9 Klonsky, K., Tourte, L., Swezey, S.L., and Chaney, D. 1995. Production practices and sample costs for organic cotton in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California Cooperative Extension. Available at Web site: http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cost_return_articles/95orgcotton.pdf (verified October 2005).Google Scholar
10 SAS Institute. 1999. SAS/Stat User's Guide, Version 8.0. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
11 SPSS Inc. 2002. SPSS User's Guide, Version 11.5. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
12 Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. 2005. U.C. IPM pest management guidelines for cotton. Available at Web site: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r114301611.html (verified October 2005).Google Scholar
13 Stern, V., van den Bosch, R., and Leigh, T.F. 1964. Strip cutting alfalfa for lygus bug control. California Agriculture 18:4–6.Google Scholar
14 Stern, V., Mueller, A., Sevacherian, V., and Way, M. 1969. Lygus bug control in cotton through alfalfa interplanting. California Agriculture 23:8–10.Google Scholar
15 Godfrey, L.D. and Leigh, T.F. 1994. Alfalfa harvest strategy effect on lygus bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) and insect predator population density: implications for use as trap crop in cotton. Environmental Entomology 23:1106–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Wilson, L.J., Bauer, L.R., and Lally, D.A. 1999. Insecticide-induced increases in aphid abundance in cotton. Australian Journal of Entomology 38:242–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Gliessman, S.R., Swezey, S.L., Allison, J., Cochran, J., Farrell, J., Kluson, R., May, F.R., and Werner, M. 1990. Strawberry production systems during conversion to organic management. California Agriculture 44:4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Letourneau, D.K. and Goldstein, B. 2001. Pest damage and arthropod community structure in organic vs. conventional tomato production in California. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Keeley, P.E. and Thullen, R.J. 1989. Growth and interaction of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Science 37:339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Snipes, C.E., Buchanan, G.A., Street, J.E., and McGuire, J.A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Science 30:553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Rowland, M.W., Murray, D.S., and Verhalen, L.M. 1999. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Science 47:305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Showler, A.T. and Greenberg, S.M. 2003. Effects of weeds on selected arthropod herbivore and natural enemy populations, and on cotton growth and yield. Environmental Entomology 32:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar