Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is the U.S. Cotton Industry in Danger of Collapse?

By Jason Mark, Grist.org. Posted November 29, 2006.


Facing growing competition from cotton growers overseas, the American cotton industry is shrinking but still using inefficient and ecologically unsustainable techniques for harvest and distribution.
Advertisement

The view from the Panoche Cotton Gin outside Firebaugh, Calif., reveals a great deal about the state of the cotton industry in the U.S. A generation ago, fields of cotton surrounded the gin as far as the eye could see. Today, the gin -- a warehouse-sized plant that can clean and bundle dozens of tons of cotton a day -- is flanked on all sides by almond orchards, groves upon groves of the tall trees.

"Cotton used to be king -- it was our No. 1 crop," Joseph Maron, the operations supervisor for the gin, told a group of visitors on a bright autumn day. "Now it's all pistachios or almonds. The cotton industry is slowly disappearing."

Quickly disappearing may be more like it. This year, California farmers are growing about 550,000 acres of cotton -- a decrease from just two years ago, and a sharp decline from a historic peak of 1.5 million acres. Growers expect the number to drop to less than half a million acres in the next few years. The number of cotton gins has also plummeted. There used to be more than 100 gins in the San Joaquin Valley; now there are half that many.

Why are cotton planters facing a state of collapse? For the same reason that soy farmers, tomato growers, and apple orchards are struggling: international competition. It's simply cheaper to grow cotton in Pakistan, India, or Turkey than it is in California, Arizona, or Texas.

The globalization of agriculture is certainly bad news for growers who have never known anything except cotton. It's also troubling for the advocates who are spearheading a campaign for organic and low-spray cotton. As they promote a way of clothing ourselves that doesn't involve stripping the earth naked, backers of sustainable agriculture are finding that the economic imperatives of a global economy are making their work harder than they ever expected.

"The market for domestic organic cotton has completely disappeared, because the price of overseas cotton is half as much," says Marcia Gibbs, program director of the Sustainable Cotton Project. "If you were a farmer, you'd be a fool to grow organic cotton if you weren't sure you'd get a living wage for your work. We're seeing a big increase in people interested in organic cotton, but we're not seeing people step up to the plate with their pocketbooks."

It's In the Jeans

Cotton is one of the most chemical-dependent crops, with conventional growers using a battery of herbicides and pesticides to control weeds and insects. Most cotton fields -- at least 70 percent in the U.S. -- are also genetically modified, as farmers come to depend more and more on Roundup Ready seed. The reliance on chemical inputs has been blamed for a range of problems, from water contamination to unusually high cancer rates.

In an effort to reduce the environmental impacts of cotton production, the Sustainable Cotton Project tries to enlist farmers in a program to convert to organic. But it has been a tough row to hoe. Nationwide, there are no more than 12 organic-certified cotton growers, according to the Organic Trade Association. In California, there are just two -- and that's double from a year ago.

The effort is greatly complicated by the fact that cotton -- a gangly, four-foot shrub whose flower forms the downy fiber manufacturers prize -- needs to drop its leaves before it can be mechanically harvested. Otherwise, the green leaves can stain the cotton, and make it wet and susceptible to mildew. The most common way to pick cotton, then, is to first spray a chemical defoliant on it -- hardly an organic solution. Organic cotton growers in Turkey and Pakistan often pay people to handpick the bolls, and don't use defoliants, but that's not a viable option in the U.S.

"We can't compete with a grower that has low labor costs," says Frank Williams, a co-owner of Windfall Farms I in Firebaugh. This year, Williams and his brother-in-law grew 40 acres of organic cotton on their 1,300 acres, and they plan to quadruple that next season. But it's a gamble for their business. "It's economics," Williams says. "All of our acres of cotton, I don't know that we make hardly anything on it. There are other competing crops that make a lot more money. The only thing that saves us is the government subsidies."

Since most cotton growers can't take the risk of experimenting with how to harvest cotton absent chemical defoliants, advocates have set their sights on simply lowering, rather than eliminating, the amount of chemicals used in cultivation. A program run by the Sustainable Cotton Project called BASIC -- biological agricultural systems in cotton -- encourages farmers to quit GM seeds and adopt more sustainable practices such as composting, cover cropping, and organic pest management. In 2006, some 1,200 acres of cotton are being grown under BASIC guidelines.

Though still in an initial stage, the BASIC program is already turning heads. Sustainable-agriculture advocates have been impressed by pesticide reductions as high as 73 percent. And farmers like BASIC cotton because they have found they can maintain their yields while cutting the amount of money they spend on chemical inputs.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sustainable, farmers, organic, textiles, cotton

Jason Mark is the co-author, with Kevin Danaher, of "Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power." He is researching a book about the future of food.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hemp advocates - your time has come.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 29, 2006 1:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see some detailed discussion of how hemp can replace cotton - that's the obvious answer, isn't it? It doesn't need herbicides due to rapid growth and outshading weeds, for starters. Yields are higher as well.

Shame on Schwarzenegger for vetoing the industrial hemp bill - there was absolutely no reason for that (noone would ever smoke industrial hemp!).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» our time has come. Posted by: WhatNow?
» Yes ... 'detailed' ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Let them grow hemp!!! Posted by: alternetleslie
healthy
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 29, 2006 1:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need healthy sustainable populations, healthy sustainable crops, healthy sustainable transportation, healthy sustainable manufacturing and healthy sustainable climates. All of this requires healthy sustainable governments to keep greed and war to a minimum. We are far from achieving any of these goals so hang on to your hats for the worst is probably yet to come for the greed freaks are still in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh please, you subsidy whores
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 29, 2006 1:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
California cotton is an economic dead end, and so is Dick Pombo. Firebaugh's former guardian, Pombo, was a corporate subsidy addict with a family interest in bulldozing California farmland and entrenching exurban mega-home Republicans for Schwarzenegger.

The danger? It sure as hell ain't Fresno. How much California cotton winds up in the Marianas and Saipan? You Marin cows, you Beverly Hills wasps. Your clothes come from abortion factories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh please, you subsidy whores Posted by: CounterCorp
» Perspectives on the Privilege Class Posted by: eddie torres
Heard on NPR that an edible cotton seed has just been engineered...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 29, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...which would prove very useful for developing countries.

You have to grow cotton carefully, however. If grown poorly, it has a tendency to render the ground it's grown upon useless for quite a few seasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Meh... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Meh... Posted by: rwa
Another BIG GOVERNMENT BULLSHIT talk article once again neglecting the HEMP PROHIBITION connection !
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 29, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Alternet had the brain and balls, they'd have realized that cotton was an INFERIOR product compared to hemp and that the cotton lobbyists teamed up with BIG OIL, BIG CHEMICAL, BIG PHARMA, etc ... to create a DEA that's against hemp. DISSOLVE THE DEA AND LEGALIZE HEMP !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Canada grows North America's first modern Hemp Crop"
Posted by: picket on Nov 29, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from google[hemp crops]...."the US will NOT grow hemp due to trade and industry policies tied to 'drug war'."
The article goes on to say all the better for the Canadian farmers to offer the most reliable and highest quality hemp to the biggest market the world has ever known. The 21 century may well see Hemp fiber ....competing vigorously with cotton.
Hemp needs NO pesticides or herbicides because insects find it unpalatable and it grows too quickly for weeds to compete and Hemp is excellent for reclamation of otherwise unusable land.
Like the other Cannabis there is too much competition with $$$$$ interests to allow hard working Americans to try a new industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Farmers need Parity, not subsidies
Posted by: AdamG on Nov 29, 2006 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Farmers need a fair price from the economy at large not government handouts. We need to demand our politicians in Congress to do their jobs and defend the Constitution. Pullout out of free trade treaties, reinstate tariffs on underpriced imports and protect domestic industry. If we want locally based ecologically appropriate agriculture and industry, we are going to have to pay for it. No more cheap foreign goods paid for with debt.

It's not too late, we can still rebuild local industry and agriculture. The longer we wait, the harder it will be. A race to the floor isn't all that great. Do you want your children to live like paupers, fighting each other for the few poverty level paying jobs while the rest live in real poverty? That's where it's going. We have a lot to do to ensure a prosperous future.

The choice is ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Industrial agriculture is itself a dead end; sustainablity is critical
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 29, 2006 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp is an excellent crop that should be widely grown in the US; it has a long history (US Declaration of Indepence was written on hemp paper; the original Levis were made of hemp; it makes a strong fiberboard material, and it grows like a weed with little need for pesticides and herbicides - though like any other crop it needs water and fertilizer).

The book "Cadillac Desert" and the associated film tell the story of California's water supply. Also, California's 'farmers who need support' are really massive corporate combines, specially out near Fresno - you are not talking about Hayseed Jim on his tractor, believe me. The seed companies are mostly owned by the petrochemical industry, which produces pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers- they don't want to see a reduction in sales.

So who needs protection?

The land and water supply need protection from the corporate farmers; California salmon fishermen would loudly agree with this (they just had the worst season ever). More rules and regulations on water, pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use are needed, as well as state support for alternative crop production (like hemp).

There's a huge move on to privatize California's water supply via the use of energy-hog desalination schemes and backroom maneuvering (kind of like what our San Francisco-based Bechtel tried to do in Bolivia) - another great example of corporate ripoff of the people of California - from nuclear power to energy trading to water privatization, it's the same story every time - boondoggle ripoffs who costs are 'passed on' to tax and utility bills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Profit margins
Posted by: BlueTigress on Nov 29, 2006 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about all the companies that gush about selling sustainable clothes cut their profit expectations to "only breaking even" so they can afford to buy U.S. cotton?

Although personally, I think most U.S. cotton growers should turn to other crops because they're trying to grow cotton in places that it naturally wouldn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cotton Industry = Chemical Industry
Posted by: YinRising on Nov 29, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is also a subsidy for the compainies working on GM crops.

Hemp Prohibition is nothing more than corporate wellfare.

There is NO argument for Hemp Prohibition that is not intellectually and morally bankrupt.

People here on Alternet and other blogs lament the fascist state of US'A and ask, "How did we get here?"

Well, a big reason was back in the 30's a corrupt Congress and thier corporate sponsors, the heads of industry like DuPont and Hearst, CONSPIRED to elliminate the their natural competition by passing the UNCONSTITIONAL Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.

By the way, during the congressional testimony, Harry Anslinger, the head of the Bureau of Narcotics (predessesor to D.E.A) used Racism and Xenaphobia to change the terminology from a discussion on Cannabis/Indian Hemp to Marijuana, a term still favored by the Government to this day.

Since Cannabis/Hemp can be used sustainably for Food, Fiber, Fuel and Medicine, it's Prohibition has had a DIRECT impact on a wide range of industries and the level to which our planet and ourselves have been poisoned with the toxins created from the Industrial Revolution than continues to this day.

FOOD: Hemp seed is a compete protien source, containing all essential amino acids and in proportions that make them easily assimilated by the body. It is also high in Omega-3s content, again in the proper ratio's for full utilization. Removing this vital food source from the diet has contributed to a dependancy on processed foods, that require large amounts of imputs which rape the land and make farmers dependant on the Corporations that manufacture the chemicals.

FIBER: An acre of land switched from cotton to Hemp can produce several times the amount of fiber that is stronger, just as soft and beautiful, naturally mold resistant, and without the chemical pesticides and synthetic Nitrogen fertilizers.

FUEL: An acre of Hemp can produce several times the amount of Biofuel than can an acre of GM Franken Corn.
ALL of the stats that bash ethanol as a viable fuel option use Corn as the source crop.

MEDICINE: Industrial Hemp varieties of Cannabis contain only trace amounts of cannabinoids and therefor CANNOT be used as a drug, however, there are MANY varietys that DO contain these compounds that have tremendous medicinal properties and potential. When citizens allow governments to arrest people for using safe, natural, indiginous medicines, they forfit the control over their own Minds and Bodies, their Cognative Liberty, if you will, and become pawns of the State and the oligarchy that controls it.

The Prohibition of Hemp helped the Corporatists two-fold: it illimated finacial competition AND it helped regulate the mind and thoughs of the citizenry so they would be easier to control.

Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More Links, sorry for spelling Posted by: YinRising
» One more thing to add Posted by: WhatNow?
Tax the Defoliants
Posted by: rwa on Nov 29, 2006 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and let the chips fall where they may. Cotton should never have been grown in California, it uses far to much water ( another environmental impact). The chemical cotton belt is moving North with global warming, maybe this is the time to switch to hemp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read "Harvest of Rage"
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 29, 2006 6:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Derrick Jensen winner of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies first place prize in '97 if you want to understand how many American farmers feel. Screwed over by gov't, screwed over by environmentalists, screwed over by banks, and, most importantly, screwed over by city-folk because they are out-voted. Yes, substities suck but the people they really hurt are the small, family, and mid-size farmers (in addition to the 3rd world.) The farmers get screwed because there is an actual monoply in most grain and livestock markets and they follow gov't decrees (subsities, environmental laws, price fixes) that change all the time. If you don't have time/inclination for the whole book an excellent article can be found in "The Sun" magazine Dec 1999 issue#288.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Advocates-Jessica Mathews now on HANES board
Posted by: plantland on Nov 30, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jessica Mathews, Barbara Tuchman's daughter who heads up the Carnegie Enowment for World Peace, just joined the HANES (underwear) board of directors.

Maybe some of the supporters of sustainable cotton could try contacting Mathews to get HANES to agree to buy their cotton in advance, require all foreign cotton to meet higher sustarinabiity standards, or otherwise pursue their agenda.

Since many pesticides have neurological consequences, keeping pesticides out of the soil and water can result in less violence, due to fewer people having their IQ's lowered by exposure. (See Crime Times for lots of articles on IQ/violence).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am just flabbergasted
Posted by: dkm on Dec 12, 2006 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by the willingness of people to pontificate on something they know nothing about. To start off with, cottonseed has been a source of protein in animal feed for a very long time. The big problem is that many strains of cotton contain a pigment, gossypol, in the seed that is toxic for nonruminants (and not so good for ruminants, either). The amount of gossypol varies with the strain and, I suspect, that the edible form they are talking about may be one developed to produce negligible gossypol. Besides that, cottonseed meal is low in the sulfur containing amino acids lysine and methionine as well as cystine. In any case, the value of the cottonseed is as a byproduct, not as the main product. Other plants produce a lot more protein per acre than cotton does.

One can bewail the plight of American cotton growers, but the question that was raised above is is cotton raising the best use that the present cotton fields can be put to? It would make a lot more sense in many cases to put them into some sort of fruit or vegetables (like the almond orchards in the article, but the particular replacement would depend on local growing conditions) than to continue as cotton production. If it has to be subsidized, then it has to make a very strong argument for its continued existence, something cotton doesn't do. For that matter, neither do most of the other subsidized crops (sugar, wheat, corn, rice, etc.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]