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

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 hesperusKnight, 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−1for 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−1for 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.

Effects of Cropping System (Organic and Conventional) on the Fiber Quality Index, Spinning Consistency Index and Multiplicative Analytic Hierarchy Process of Cotton (<i>Gossypium hirsutum</i> L.)

“…Our results confirmed that there were not any statistically significant differences between the two cropping systems in the three years experiment and is in full accordance with previous studies (Patsiali et al, 2014). However, in other studies it has been shown that some measures of lint quality (color grade and bale leaf rating) were lower in the organic than in the conventional treatment (Swezey et al, 2007).…”

Variations of Incidence, Types of Virus Diseases and Insect Vector Populations of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), Grown in Different Agroecological Regions of Sri Lanka under Two Crop Management Systems

“…The effect of management system on beneficial insect population was significantly influenced by the location effect. High abundance of total natural enemies, predatory insects and natural enemies of nymphal stages of virus vectors in organically maintained and IPM treated cotton fields in comparison to chemical treated fields of a six-year comparative study (Swezey et al, 2006) agrees with our findings on higher beneficial insects under IMP treated fields.…”

Effects of cultural system (organic and conventional) on growth and fiber quality of two cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.) varieties

“…Hand weed control resulted in an increase in the cost of production 21 . This practice is one of the basic weed control methods of organic agriculture.…”

“…In addition Swezey et al 21 reported that cost of production per bale was on average 37% higher for organic than conventional cotton. From an economic point of view, the organic cotton grown with the use of a cover crop either incorporated in the soil as green manure or even better, cut and sold as animal food for getting a second income, appears to be highly superior to conventional cotton growing, even when a flat price is taken into account 20 .…”