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: kmb6@rediffmail.com

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