39 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(1): 39-45
ISSN 2249–9695
Original Article
Life Cycle Assessment for Cultivation of Conventional and Organic Seed Cotton
fibres
Murugesh Babu. K* and Selvadass.M
Department of Textile Technology, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Visvesvaraya Technological University, Davangere – 577004, India.
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Received 15 February 2013; accepted 27 February 2013
Abstract
In this paper, the environmental impact due to cultivation of the conventional and organic seed cotton fibres was
determined using life cycle assessment (LCA). Cultivation of conventional seed cotton fibres involves synthetically
compounded harmful plant protection chemicals and fertilizers. Whereas, cultivation of organic seed cotton fibres adopts a
number of natural pest control practices such as promotion of natural enemies, biological pest control, mass trapping or
spraying neem, chilli or garlic for plant protection. Fertilization in organic cotton field involves crop rotation, intercropping
with legumes, recycling of crop residues, application of farm yard manure and composite. The LCA results show that
cultivation of conventional seed cotton fibres has high environmental impact compared to that of organic seed cotton
fibres. The environmental impact is dominated by abiotic depletion, acidification, global warming, human toxicity,
freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity and freshwater sediment ecotoxicity. Further, it is observed that
irrigation is the major source that contributes greatly to overall environmental impact in both conventional and organic
seed cotton fibre cultivation process.
© 2013 Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved
1. Introduction
Cotton is one of the principal crop of India and plays a vital
role in the country’s economic growth by providing
substantial employment and making significant
contributions to export earnings. The cotton cultivation
sector not only engages around six million farmers, but also
involves another 40 to 50 million people relating to cotton
trade and its processing. There are four major species of
cultivated cotton, of which two are diploid (Gossypium (G)
arboreum and G herbaceum) and the other two tetraploid
(G hirsutum and G barbadense) [1].
In India, as well as, in other developing countries,
commercial agriculture is characterized by the use of high
doses of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.,
which give quick and immediate returns for the investment
made. The use of fertilizer results in environmental hazards
like nitrate pollution of ground water, increased emission of
gaseous nitrogen and metal toxicity. The use of pesticides
has increased pest resistance, secondary pest outbreak,
killing of the natural enemies of pests like birds, spiders,
worms etc. The indiscriminate use of agro-chemicals has
not only led to unprecedented ecological hazards but also
made cotton a highly risky enterprise for the farmers [2].
Recently, there is a shift of emphasis from inputs based
farming to environmentally friendly organic cotton
farming, as a remedial measure. The continued rapid
expansion of the global organic cotton market is driven in
large measure by consumer interest in ‘green’ products,
significant expansion of the existing organic cotton
programs by brands and retailers, and the launch of organic
cotton programs by new entrants to the market [3]. Further,
a number of brands and retailers are buying organic cotton.
These include H&M, C&A, Nike, Zara, Anvil Knitwear,
prana, Puma, Williams-Sonoma, Target and Otto Group
[4].
Organic cotton is cotton that is produced and certified
according to organic agriculture standards. If cotton is to be
sold as organic, it requires a third party certification from
independent, accredited certification agencies [5 - 10].
According to the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), which is the
representative body for organic agriculture worldwide,
‘organic agriculture’ is defined as a production system that
sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies
on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to
local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse
effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation
and science to benefit the shared environment and promote
Available online at http://www.urpjournals.com
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology
Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved
40 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(1): 39-45
fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved
[11]. Organic agriculture is guided by four principles. These
include 1)The principle of health: Organic agriculture
should sustain and enhance the health of soil, plant, animal,
human and planet as one and indivisible. 2) The principle
of ecology: Organic agriculture should be based on living
ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate
them and help sustain them. 3) The principle of fairness:
Organic agriculture should build on relationships that
ensure fairness with regard to the common environment
and life opportunities and 4) The principle of care: Organic
agriculture should be managed in a precautionary and
responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of
current and future generations and the environment [12].
In general, organic agriculture aims for an optimum and
sustainable use of local natural resources for production
without the application of external inputs like synthetic
pesticides, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, defoliants and
chemically treated or genetically modified (GM) seed.
Farmers wishing to convert to organic agriculture will have
to go through a conversion period of one to three years,
depending on their fields’ history. The conversion period
enables the soil and the environment to recover from
previous cultivation, while applying organic methods of
production [13].
A number of studies related to environmental impact of
cotton cultivation has been published and gained a lot of
interest [14-19]. The application of life cycle inventory data
and life cycle assessment (LCA) to determine and compare
environmental impact for cultivation of seed cotton fibres is
reported by serveral authors [20-23]. However, a similar
comparative study on cultivation of conventional and
organic seed cotton fibres is not reported. In this paper, the
environmental impact due cultivation of conventional and
organic seed cotton fibres was determined using Cradle-to-
Gate life cycle assessment (LCA). The objective of the
study is to determine and examine the differences in the
environmental impacts associated with conventional and
organic seed cotton fibre cultivation process.
2 Research methodology
The environmental impact due to cultivation of the
conventional and organic seed cotton fibres was determined
using Cradle-to-Gate LCA with the help of Simapro 7.3.2
LCA software developed by Pre consultants [24].
The goal of LCA is to quantify and compare environmental
impacts for cultivation of conventional and organic seed
cotton fibres. The functional unit is defined as cultivation
of 1 kilogram of conventional and organic seed cotton
fibres. The system boundary for this study includes the
stages of production from cultivation to harvesting of seed
cotton fibres, production and transportation of fertilizers &
pesticides, irrigation use and electricity consumption for
irregation.
The inventory data for 1 kg 'Conventional seed cotton
cultivation (n - 220)' and 'Organic seed cotton cultivation (n
- 120)' was taken from the report titled ‘The impact of
organic cotton farming on the livelihoods of small holders
– Evidence from the MaikaalbioRe project in central India’
[25]. The input data is the average (n) value obtained from
220 conventional and 120 organic cotton fields over a
period of two years from 2003 & 2004. These cotton fields
are located in the Nimar Valley in Madhya Pradesh’. The
MaikaalbioRe project is active in 75 villages of Khargone
and Badwani district. The pesticide input data for
conventional seed cotton fibres is not given in this report.
Hence pesticide input data is obtained from the literature
‘Expert panel on social, environmental and economic
performance of cotton production – Factors influencing the
use of pesticides in cotton production in India’ [26]. The
input data for 1 kg 'Organic seed cotton cultivation (n - 1)'
was taken from the literature titled ‘Organic cotton farming
in Kutch, Gujarat, India’, a report from Agrocel India
Organic Cotton Farming [27]. The data obtained from these
report includes the primary materials used for cultivation of
cotton fibres such as farm yard manure, composite,
synthetic fertilizer, pesticide, irrigation and land use. The
transportation of farm yard manure and synthetic fertilizer
is also taken into account. The data obtained is summarized
in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of inventory data for cultivation of 1 kg conventional and organic seed cotton fibres Resources/Materials/fuels/
Electricity/heat Unit
Conventional seed cotton
cultivation (n - 220)
Organic seed cotton
cultivation (n - 120)
Organic seed cotton
cultivation (n - 1)
Occupation, arable, integrated m2a 7.79453603 7.41785 5.333333333
Farm yard manure (I/P) kg 0.034335 - 5.866666667
FYM kg - 0.062347 -
Compost, at plant kg - - 0.2
Nitrogen fertilizer kg 0.085116 - -
Single superphosphate kg 0.058264 - -
Phosphate rock (P2O5) kg - 0.018767 0.099733333
Potassium chloride (K2O) kg 0.044273 0.04154 -
Pyretroid-compounds kg 0.0003 - -
Organophosphorus-compounds kg 0.005639 - -
[thio]carbamate-compounds kg 0.000016 - -
Insecticides kg 0.000306 - -
Herbicides kg 0.000112 - -
Irrigating m3 2.617405 2.793190 1.570133333
Tillage ha 0.000533333 0.000742 0.000533333
Transport, lorry 3.5-7.5t tkm 0.115526722 0.064361167 0.048370667
Transport, ocean freighter tkm 0.216981973 0.20358754 -
Transport, tractor and trailer tkm 0.000171675 0.000311735 0.031333333
41 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(1): 39-45
Life cycle inventory analysis was done using extended
CML 2001, version 2.05 methodology [28]. The CML
2001 method, developed under the lead of the Center of
Environmental Science (Leiden University), has 19 impact
categories in the extended version. The most dominated
impact categories are selected and these include abiotic
depletion, acidification, eutrophication, global warming
500a, ozone layer depletion steady state, human toxicity
infinite, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Infinite, terrestrial
ecotoxicity infinite, freshwater sediment ecotoxicity
infinite, land competition and photochemical oxidation.
The CML method has different sets of normalization:
World (1990), World (1995), Western Europe (1995) and
the Netherlands (1997). In the present research, the World
(1995) context was adopted.
3 Results and Discussion
The results of the LCA analysis for cultivation of 1 kg
'Conventional seed cotton cultivation (n - 220)', 'Organic
seed cotton cultivation (n - 120)' and 'Organic seed cotton
cultivation (n - 1)' are summarized in Table 2. The
percentage difference of environmental impact due to
cultivation of conventional and organic seed cotton fibres is
presented in Table 3. The results show that environmental
impact for cultivation of 'Conventional seed cotton fibres (n
- 220)' is more compared to that of the organic seed cotton
fibres. When cultivation of organic seed cotton fibres alone
is compared, it is observed that 'Organic seed cotton fibres
(n - 1)’ has less environment impact compared to than the
'Organic seed cotton fibres (n - 120)'.
Table 2. Comparing 1 kg 'Conventional seed cotton cultivation (n - 220)', 'Organic seed cotton cultivation (n - 120)' and
'Organic seed cotton cultivation (n - 1)' using CML 2001 (all impact categories) V2.05 / World, 1995 – Characterization.
(includes long term emissions)
Impact category Unit
Conventional
seed cotton
cultivation
(n - 220)
Organic
seed cotton
cultivation
(n - 120)
Organic
seed cotton
cultivation
(n - 1)
Abiotic depletion kg Sbeq 0.012065 0.009334 0.006093
Acidification kg SO2 eq 0.011553 0.006783 0.005012
Eutrophication kg PO4--- eq 0.002898 0.001952 0.001387
Global warming 500a kg CO2 eq 1.329722 1.080763 0.746124
Ozone layer depletion steady state kg CFC-11 eq 8.96E-08 5.85E-08 4.8E-08
Human toxicity infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 1.118018 0.932881 0.670191
Fresh water aquatic ecotox. infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 0.479644 0.384923 0.245373
Terrestrial ecotoxicity infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 0.010375 0.009473 0.006232
Freshwater sediment ecotox. infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 1.025340 0.825297 0.527588
Land competition m2a 0.146766 0.147047 0.104033
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 0.000536 0.000333 0.000229
Table 3. Comparing the percentage difference of environmental impact due to cultivation of 1 kg conventional and organic
seed cotton fibres
Impact category Unit
Conventional
seed cotton
cultivation
(n - 220)
Organic
seed cotton
cultivation
(n - 120)
Organic
seed cotton
cultivation
(n - 1)
Abiotic depletion kg Sbeq 100 -22.64 -49.50
Acidification kg SO2 eq 100 -41.29 -56.62
Eutrophication kg PO4--- eq 100 -32.64 -52.14
Global warming 500a kg CO2 eq 100 -18.72 -43.89
Ozone layer depletion steady state kg CFC-11 eq 100 -34.71 -46.43
Human toxicity infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 100 -16.56 -40.06
Fresh water aquatic ecotox. infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 100 -19.75 -48.84
Terrestrial ecotoxicity infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 100 -8.70 -39.93
Freshwater sediment ecotox. infinite kg 1,4-DB eq 100 -19.51 -48.55
Land competition m2a 100 0.19 -29.12
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 100 -37.87 -57.28
The higher environmental impact observed for
'Conventional seed cotton cultivation (n - 220)’ is due to
use of plant protection chemicals like pesticides,
herbicides, synthetic fertilizers and irrigation. The analysis
of data in terms of characterisation and normalization
values for 'Conventional seed cotton cultivation (n - 220)'
ispresented in Figure 1. It shows that environmental impact
of conventional cotton is dominated by freshwater sediment
ecotoxicity, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestial
ecotoxicity, abiotic depletion, global warming, acidification
and eutrophication. This is primarly due to the use of
irrigation, plant protection chemicals, fertilizers, fossil fuel
consumption during tillage and transportation of plant
protection chemicals and fertilizers from the manufacturing
unit to the field. Irrigation forms the major source of
environmental impact since 2.6174 m3 of water is required
42 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(1): 39-45
per kilogram of seed cotton cultivation. The use of plant
protection chemicals in conventional seed cotton
cultivation fields is well documented [29]. According to the
report by Environmental Justice foundation – ‘The Deadly
Chemicals in Cotton’ [30], majority of pesticides that
dominate applications to Indian cotton are classified as
hazardous. Among these perhaps the most significant is the
‘Highly Hazardous’ Organophosphorus and monocrotophos
compounds, which accounts for 22% of the entire Indian
cotton insecticides market. Other insecticides commonly
used are endosulfan (WHO II), quinalphos (WHO II),
fenvalerate (WHO II), chlorpyrifos (WHO II), dimethoate
(WHO II), and imidacloprid (WHO II).
Figure 1. Analyzing 1 kg '1 Conventional seed cotton
cultivation (n - 220)'using CML 2001 (all impact
categories) V2.05 / World, 1995 ((includes long term
emissions), A – Characterization, B - Normalisation)
The application of these pesticides can have influence on
the health of laborers directly involved in cotton
production. Further, the hazardous pesticides applied to
cotton may also endanger the well-being of innumerable
people not directly associated with agriculture through the
contamination of cottonseed and cottonseed derivatives –
an important source of edible oil. Because of the intensive
use of hazardous pesticides in cotton production much of
the cottonseed oil entering the food chain may be heavily
contaminated [30].
In another study, Eija et al [31] discussed that increased use
of pesticides results in build-up of resistance in pests
forcing growers to find new agents. Pesticides also make no
distinction between pests and beneficial fauna adding to the
quantities of chemicals being developed for plant
protection. They suggest that the production of organic
cotton, based on principles of sustainable development,
should be strongly encouraged and concluded that
cultivation of traditional cotton growing requires, however,
huge amounts of water, pesticides and fertilizers that have
ecotoxic effects in contrast to organic cotton cultivation,
where natural alternatives to agrochemicals are used.
The use of synthetic fertilizer in conventional cotton
cultivation is well documented. The general fertilizer
recommendations for cultivation of conventional seed
cotton fibres for various states in India is provided as
package of practice documents by Central Institute for
Cotton Research [32]. According to Eija et al [31], the
increase of fertilizer use in cotton growing to boost the
production causes pollution of surface water as well as of
ground-water. The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer
results in nitrous oxide emission whereas the use of
phosphate fertilizers causes accumulation of heavy metals,
such as cadmium, in soil as well as surface water
eutrophication in context with possible leaching.
When 'Organic seed cotton cultivation (n - 120)' is
analyzed, it is observed that the environmental impact is
primarly due to use of irrigation, tillage and mineral
fertilizer potassium chloride. Similarly in case of 'Organic
seed cotton cultivation (n - 1), the environmental impact is
due to use of irrigation, farm yard manure, composite and
mineral fertilizer rock phosphate. The transportation and
tillage also contributed to environmental impact.
The analysis of data in terms of characterisation and
normalization values of 'Organic seed cotton cultivation (n
- 120)' and 'Organic seed cotton cultivation (n - 1)' is
presented in Figures 2-3. It shows that environmental
impact of organic cotton is simillar to conventional cotton
fibres. However, the intensity is reduced since synthetic
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are not used in
cultivation of organic seed cotton fibres.
Figure 2. Analyzing 1 kg '2 Organic seed cotton
cultivation (n - 120)' (all impact categories) V2.05 / World,
1995 ((includes long term emissions), A – Characterization,
B - Normalisation)
43 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(1): 39-45
Unlike conventional seed cotton fibre cultivation that uses
toxic pesticides for plant protection; organic cotton
cultivation adopts a number of natural pest control
practices. These include preventing pests from becoming a
problem by supporting healthy growth of cotton crop;
prevent pest pollutions from building up and becoming a
problem. The preventive measures adopted can include
promotion of natural enemies which help the farmer keep
pest attacks within the tolerable levels. Natural enemy
populations can be increased in field by providing suitable
habitats like intercropping of flowering plants, applying
mulch and setting up bird perches. Biological pest control
includes use of living organism or germs to affect the pests
like Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) microbe that is effective
against leaf feeding caterpillars. Mass trapping by placing
traps in the field which can reduce the pollution of certain
pests like moths. If used at an early stage, they can prevent
mass multiplication. Alternatively, hand picking of pests,
neem spray, chilli spray, soap spray or garlic spray is also
adopted [33].
Figure 3. Analyzing 1 kg '3 Organic seed cotton cultivation
(n - 1)'using CML 2001 (all impact categories) V2.05 /
World, 1995 ((includes long term emissions), A –
Characterization, B - Normalisation)
The use of trap crop also help in pest control. The plants
include sweet sorghum, sunflower, maize, okra, sesame,
coriander, cowpeas, marigold, mustard, flowering tobacco
and flowering plants to encourage predators [34].
Fertilization in organic cotton farm includes crop rotation,
intercropping with legumes, recycling of crop residues,
application of the available biomass like weeds, leaves,
press mud, agriculture processing wastes, use of farm yard
manure, composite and then complement with purchased
organic manures like oil cakes and natural mineral fertilizer
like rock phosphate, muriate of potash or gypsum. Suitable
application doses of nutrients in organic cotton farm
depend on the soil condition, the previous crop and the
expected yield. Further a considerable portion of the
required nutrients can be supplied through decomposing
residues of the previous crop and through nitrogen fixation
by leguminous crops [35 - 38]. The organic fertilizers and
its nutrient potential for soil fertility management in
organic cotton production are discussed in detail by
Sankaranarayanan [39].
In case of irrigation, no difference between conventional
and organic cotton fields was observed. Irrigation forms the
major source of environmental impact in both conventional
and organic cotton cultivation process.
In general, it is observed that environmental impact for
cultivation of conventional seed cotton fibres is more
compared to organic seed cotton fibres. The environmental
impact of conventional seed cotton fibre cultivation is
mainly due to use of plant protection chemicals such as
pesticides, synthetically compounded nitrogen fertilizer,
phosphate fertilizer, potassium chloride, irrigation, tillage
and transport. Whereas, the environmental impact of
organic seed cotton cultivation process is due to use of
potassium chloride, rock phosphate, farm yard manure,
composite, irrigation, tillage and transport. Further, the
results show that the environmental impact of cotton
cultivation is dominated by abiotic depletion, acidification,
eutrophication, global warming, terrestrial ecotoxicity,
freshwater aquatic & sediment ecotoxicity. The use of land
remains same for both cotton cultivation process. This is
similar to the comparative study of LCA by Shen et al [40].
They concluded in their LCA analysis that conventional
cotton cultivation process has the highest impact in 5 out of
13 categories i.e., land use, water use, fresh water aquatic
ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity and eutrophication. The
cultivation of cotton causes the largest part of the
environmental impacts. Pesticides use is responsible for the
high ecotoxicities and fertiliser use is the main cause of
eutrophication. Based on the normalised results (to World
2000), they conclude that the fresh water aquatic
ecotoxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity of cotton is very high.
Further, based on analysis of LCA results, it is observed
that irrigation is the major source that contributes greatly to
overall environmental impact in both conventional and
organic seed cotton fibre cultivation.
4 Conclusions
The environmental impact of conventional and organic
seed cotton cultivation was determined using life cycle
assessment. In general, the results of LCA show that
environmental impact for cultivation of conventional seed
cotton fibres is more compared to that of organic seed
cotton fibres. The environmental impact of conventional
seed cotton cultivation is due to use of synthetically
compounded nitrogen fertilizer, phosphate fertilizer,
potassium chloride, pesticides, irrigation, tillage and
transportation whereas that of organic cotton is due to use
of potassium chloride, rock phosphate, farm yard manure,
composite, irrigation, tillage and transport. The LCA results
show that the environmental impact of cotton cultivation is
dominated by abiotic depletion, acidification, global
warming, human toxicity, freshwater aquatic & terrestrial
ecotoxicity and freshwater sediment ecotoxicity. In both
cases, it is observed that the environmental impact for
44 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(1): 39-45
cultivation of organic seed cotton fibres is less compared to
that of conventional seed cotton fibres. Further, it is
observed that irrigation is the major source that contributes
greatly to overall environmental impact in both
conventional and organic seed cotton fibre cultivation
process.
Acknowedegments
The authors would like to thank the management of Shahi
Exports Pvt Ltd (Knits Division), Bangalore, India for
supporting the work. We also like to thank PRe
Consultants, Netherlands for providing Simapro software
and Simapro Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi, India for all the guidance and training in using
Simapro software for LCA analysis.
References
1. India set to strengthen position in organic cotton,
California (Commodity Online).March 2010.
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/india-set-to-
strengthen-position-in-organic-cotton-26914-3-
26915.html
2. B.S.Siddaramaiah and B.V.Srinivas. Environmental
Hazard in Cotton Farming - Indian Perspective.
University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&
source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A
%2F%2Fconference.ifas.ufl.edu%2Fifsa%2Fpapers%2
Fb%2Fb1.doc&ei=XJaCUInJHMLrrQef_YGYAQ&us
g=AFQjCNFQLwWGA9_yfaw2StYzdee8sBdyLw&si
g2=Jn9Erun6WyXUS4UQn6fkDQ
3. Executive summary organic cotton market report,
Organic Exchange, Texas. Retrieved from
http://cogent.controlunion.com/cusi_production_files/S
ISI_files/FL_011210114219_Market_Report_08-
_Executive_Summary.pdf
4. H&M Still World’s No. 1 Buyer of Organic Cotton, http://www.ecouterre.com/hm-still-worlds-no-1-buyer-of-organic-cotton/
5. Organic Content Standard, Draft 1.2,
http://textileexchange.org/sites/default/files/te_pdfs/int
egrity/-%20OCS%20FINAL%20DRAFT_1.2.pdf
6. OE Standards, OE 100 and OE Blended,
http://textileexchange.org/content/oe-standards
7. USDA National Organic Program (NOP):
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop
8. EU Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) No
834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and
labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation
(EEC) No 2092/91. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Lex
UriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023
:EN:PDF
9. Global Organic Cotton Standrad, http://www.global-
standard.org/the-standard.html
10. Japanese Agriculture Standard (JAS),
http://www.maff.go.jp/e/jas/specific/organic.html
11. Definition of Organic Agriculture. http://www.ifoam.
org/growing_organic/definitions/doa/index.html
12. The Principles of Agriculture, http://www.ifoam.
org/about_ifoam/principles/
13. Peter Ton. Organic cotton: An opportunity for trade,
International Trade Center. Geneva.
2007.
http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/intracenorg/Co
ntent/Exporters/Sectoral_Information/Agricultural_Pro
ducts/Organic_Products/Organic_Cotton_an_Opportun
ity_for_Trade.pdf
14. Evaluation of the environmental impacts of cap
measures related to cotton, 2007,
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/coton/sum_
en.pdf
15. Perschau, A & Sanfilippo, D. Social and
Environmental Impacts of Pesticide Use in Cotton
Production.
http://www.ifoam.org/events/ifoam_conferences/owc/
modules/abstracts_pdfs/Perschau_proc_TEX.pdf
16. Cotton Impact Assessment, http:// ec. europa. eu/
agriculture/markets/cotton/internet_consultation_en.pd
f
17. The Environmental (Water) Impacts of Cotton:
Moving Towards Solutions. http://responsiblebusiness.
haas.berkeley.edu/documents/2-Alexis.pdf
18. Ivan R. Kennedy, Francisco Sánchez-Bayo & Robert
A. Caldwell, Cotton pesticides in perspective.
http://www.bashanfoundation.org/ivan/ivancottonindus
try.pdf
19. Cotton and Climate Change: Impacts and Options to
Mitigate and Adapt, http://www.intracen.org / up load
edFiles/intracenorg/Content/Exporters/Sectors/Food_a
nd_agri_business/Cotton/AssetPDF/Cotton%20and%2
0Climate%20Change%20final%2021%20June[1].pdf
20. Eija M.Kalliala, and Pertti Nousiainen, Life cycle
assessment environmental profile of cotton and
polyester-cotton fabrics, AUTEX Research Journal,
1(1), 1999.
21. Barnes, Ed., Janet Reed. Life cycle inventory of cotton,
Cotton Incorporated, 2009.
22. http://cottontoday.cottoninc.com/sustainability-about/
LCI-LCA-Handout/LCI-LCA-Handout.pdf
23. Borzoo Ghareei Khabbaz, Life cycle energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions of Australian cotton: impact
of farming systems, M. Engg., dissertation submitted
University of Southern Queensland, 2010.
24. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/software
25. The impact of organic cotton farming on the
livelihoods of small holders – Evidence from the
Maikaal bioRe project in central India-Report, 2005.
http://www.rfpp.ethz.ch/fellowships/concluded_fellow
ships/organiccotton/maikaal-research-report
26. An Interpretative Summary of the Study on: Pesticide
use in cotton in Australia, Brazil, India,Turkey and the
USA by expert panel on social, environmental and
economical performance of cotton production –
Factors influencing the use of pesticides in cotton in
India. International cotton advisory committee.
Washington DC. 2010.
http://www.icac.org/seep/documents/reports/2010_inte
rpretative_summary.pdf
27. G. K. Jackson, Organic cotton farming in Kutch,
Gujarat, India’, a report from Agrocel India Organic
Cotton Farming, 2005.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://www.value-chains.org/dyn/bds/docs/430/Agro c
45 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(1): 39-45
el%20India%20Organic%20Cotton%20Farming%20F
eb%202005.pdf
28. Mark Goedkoop, Michiel Oele, An de Schryver,
Marisa Vieira, Sima Pro 7 Database Manual, Methods
library, Pg 3 – 5, 2008.
http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/manuals/
DatabaseManualMethods.pdf
29. An Interpretative Summary of the Study on: Pesticide
use in cotton in Australia, Brazil, India, Turkey and the
USA by expert panel on social, environmental and
economical performance of cotton production –
Factors influencing the use of pesticides in cotton in
India. International cotton advisory committee.
Washington DC. 2010.
http://www.icac.org/seep/documents/reports/2010_inte
rpretative_summary.pdf
30. The deadly chemicals in cotton, a report by
environmental justice foundation in collaboration with
pesticide action network UK. 2007.
http://freesetglobal.com/uploads/images/tees/resources/
the_deadly_chemicals_in_cotton.pdf
31. Eija M.Kalliala and Pertti Nousiainen, Life Cycle
Assessment – Environmental Profile of Cotton and
Polester Cotton Fabrics. Autex Research Journal 1(1),
1999.
32. (http://www.cicr.org.in).
33. T.P.Rajendran, Organic cotton cultivation – a
pragmatic approach for resource poor and market
challenged farmers. Pg 6.
http://www.cicr.org.in/research_notes/organic_cotton_
cultivation.pdf
34. Martin Guerena and Preston Sullivan, Organic Cotton
Production, ATTRA, NCAT Agriculture Specialists,
2003.
35. Frank Eyhorn, Saro G. Ratter, Mahesh Ramakrishnan,
Organic cotton crop guide, A manual for practitioners
in the tropics, FiBL Research Institute of Organic
Agriculture, Pg 14.
36. Report of the working group on organic and
biodynamic farming for the tenth five year plan.
Government of India, Planning Commission, 2001.
37. Ralph Vander Poll and Marianna Smith, Basic
principles for organic cultivation and live stock
production.Surplus People Project, Pg.4, 2009.
38. Shivalingaiah.M, Effect of Nutrient Management and
plant protection practices in organic cotton production
(Gossypium spp), M.Sc. Thesis submitted to the
Univeristy of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad.2007
39. K. Sankaranarayanan. Nutrient potential of Organic
Sources for Soil Fertility Management in Organic
Cotton Production, CICR, Coimbatore. 2003-2004.
http://www.cicr.org.in/research_notes/nutrient_organic
_cotton.pdf
40. Li Shen and Martin K. Patel. Life Cycle Assessment of
Manmade Cellulose Fibres, Lenzinger Berichte, 88,
Pg. 1-59, 2010.
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/chem/2011-0401-
200353/LB_88_2010_paper_1.pdf
Source of support: Nil; Conflict of interest: None declared