Sustainable cotton farming trends: Leveraging natural resource survey insights for U.S. cotton production

Bayramova, J., Pires, S., Barnes, E., Morgan, G., Kurtz, R., and Daystar, J. (2024). "Sustainable cotton farming trends: Leveraging natural resource survey insights for U.S. cotton production," BioResources, 19(4), 7279–7319.

Abstract

Cotton cultivation in the United States is relevant globally, with the nation ranking among the top producers and exporters. This study examines conservation practice adoption trends and technological advancements in U.S. cotton production, focusing on sustainability and productivity. Efforts to improve cotton farming practices have reduced its environmental impacts, including decreased soil loss, water usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Precision agriculture technologies have been instrumental in enhancing efficiency and reducing input costs, albeit with varying degrees of success. To gain deeper insights into cotton grower challenges and needs, a Natural Resource Survey was conducted in 2023 with 753 respondents. As a follow-up to the 2008 and 2015 surveys, the insights from this survey provide valuable data on grower practices and priorities, highlighting the increasing influence of climate change on cotton production. The findings underscore the importance of conservation agriculture and ongoing research to address grower concerns while improving production efficiency. Particularly noteworthy are the outcomes indicating an increase in cover crop adoption and a decrease in tillage practices, reflecting the industry’s commitment to sustainability. This study contributes to understanding the dynamics shaping the U.S. cotton industry and offers insights into the challenges and opportunities for continual improvement in U.S. cotton cultivation.

Download PDF

Full Article

Sustainable Cotton Farming Trends: Leveraging Natural Resource Survey Insights for U.S. Cotton Production

Jeyran Bayramova,^a Steven Pires,^a,bEd Barnes,^a Gaylon Morgan,^a Ryan Kurtz,^a and Jesse Daystar ^a

DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.4.7279-7319

Keywords: Cotton; Survey; Sustainable agriculture; Precision technologies; Cover crops; Pest management and pesticides; Water use; Conservation practices; Biodiversity

Contact information: a: Cotton Incorporated, 6399 Weston Pkwy, Cary, NC 27513; b: North Carolina State University, Department of Forest Biomaterials, 2820 Faucette Dr., Raleigh, NC 27607, USA; *Corresponding author: JDaystar@cottoninc.com

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Sustainability Trends in Cotton Production

Cotton represents a significant global commodity, characterized by active trade in both its raw and processed forms. The United States is the third among global cotton producers and holds a dominant role in international exports, supplying over 35% of the world’s raw cotton (Cotton Sector at a Glance 2022). Cotton cultivation in the U.S. is centered in the 17 southern-tiered states known as the “Cotton Belt,” with Texas leading as the largest producer, accounting for approximately 40% of the nation’s cotton output in recent years. Cotton is predominantly cultivated for its lint, which serves as fiber, while its seeds are a valuable byproduct utilized in various ways, including cottonseed oil and animal feed. Notably, the inclusion of whole cottonseed in the diet of lactating dairy cows has been shown to consistently reduce methane (CH₄) emissions, which are among the most potent greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change (Grainger et al. 2010). Other parts of cotton plants, such as cotton stalks, have potential uses as renewable sources of cellulose (Prakash et al. 2024).

Among fiber types, cotton is perceived by consumers (LifestyleMonitor, 2023) as more environmentally friendly; however, all fiber production has an environmental impact. Continuous improvement is a key tenant of U.S. cotton production. Over the past four decades, U.S. cotton growers have decreased soil loss by 45%, improved irrigation water use efficiency by 58%, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25%, all while improving land use efficiency by 30% (Field to Market 2021). These achievements are primarily the result of improvements in irrigation management and precision technologies, cotton variety development, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. Notably, the U.S. has seen a reduction of over 50% in insecticide applications in the past 30 years (Mississippi State University 2022), thanks to boll weevil eradication efforts, biotechnology, new cotton varieties, and IPM.

Recognizing the advantages of digitalization in U.S. agriculture, current initiatives are directed towards enhancing farming efficiency, decreasing inputs, boosting yields, and ultimately sustaining the livelihoods of cotton farmers while also addressing environmental concerns. Precision technologies are increasingly spotlighted, with Autosteer/GPS applications integrated into the management of 40% of all U.S. farm and ranchland acreage for on-farm production by 2019, and adoption rates nearing 65% for cotton-planted acreage (McFadden et al. 2023). These technologies have resulted in a reduction of both overall inputs and costs for fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels among adopters, although the extent of reductions has been modest and varies depending on the type of technology utilized.

Through the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices, such as cover crops and no-till, cotton growers help to restore soil health, mitigate climate change, and continually improve the industry. Thus, for the last decade, planted cover crop acreage increased by nearly 50%, while cotton farmers using reduced/no-till practices reached 45% (Wallander et al. 2021; ICAC 2022). Including cotton yields, the adoption of regenerative practices by U.S. farmers has resulted in an annual increase of over 8.8 million tons of carbon stored in cultivated cropland soils (USDA 2022). Informed consumers and industry stakeholders can contribute by opting for sustainable apparel choices and supporting initiatives like the Regenerative Cotton Fund and Climate Smart Cotton Program, both of which prioritize soil health, continual improvement, and the adoption of other conservation practices.

Understanding the economic, social, and sustainability aspects of cotton production is essential in addressing its profitability and environmental concerns. Developed by Cotton Incorporated, the global cotton life cycle assessment (LCA), first introduced in 2010 and last updated in 2016, provides comprehensive data on cotton fiber production, textile manufacturing, and consumer use impacts. A key discovery from this LCA revealed that textile manufacturing and consumer usage were dominant categories across the entire cotton supply chain due to their substantial energy consumption—such as fiber processing during manufacturing and laundering in consumer use. Although the agricultural phase generally exhibited lower impacts in most categories, blue water consumption was highest for cotton cultivation (Cotton Incorporated 2016).

Considering agriculture’s unique opportunity to mitigate climate change impacts, more research is needed to better understand how the adoption of conservation practices and precision agriculture technologies is enhancing crop productivity and increasing the resiliency of agricultural landscapes globally. In general, conservation practices, such as cover cropping and reduced/no tillage, can lower the environmental impacts of cotton production and improve soil health (Soil Health Institute 2023). There remains a limited understanding of how beneficial these practices are across regions with different topography, climatic conditions, and water availability. The latter, water availability, has posed challenges to all agricultural sectors, including cotton production, potentially affecting yields due to changes in precipitation patterns, increased weather extremes, and shifts in pest pressure. As examples, Hurricane Harvey resulted in a $100 million loss to Texas cotton in 2017 (Fannin 2017), while drought conditions caused a record 46% crop loss in the U.S. when considering all-cotton production in 2022 (Meyer et al. 2023). To address water supply challenges, further research is needed to understand and cope with excessive and limited water for cultivating cotton into the future. This includes exploring adaptations such as stress-resistant crop varieties, sustainable agricultural practices such as cover crop and no-tillage, modifying IPM and nutrient management recommendations, improving irrigation methods, etc. Climate change may also lead to water scarcity in some regions, forcing a shift in acreage to non-irrigated production due to limited water availability and declining profitability. However, amidst these challenges, there are also emerging opportunities. For instance, rising temperatures have enabled regions such as Kansas to expand cotton cultivation notably compared to a decade prior, with statewide cotton acreage witnessing a twelvefold increase between 2015 and 2020 (Kansas AGGROWTH 2021, 2019).

Along with climate change and extreme weather events, biodiversity loss is another challenge and was highlighted as a top three risks in the World Economic Forum’s 2022 Global Risks Report (Foro Económico Mundial et al. 2022). Cotton growers recognize the importance of biodiversity, which is why the lands becoming unsuitable for cotton cultivation are often repurposed into habitats for various wildlife species, including birds like quail, as well as pollinators (CottonToday). These initiatives not only contribute to wildlife conservation but also enhance the efficiency of neighboring cotton fields. However, there is still a deficiency in understanding the factors correlated between cotton cultivation and preserving biodiversity.

Access to updated agricultural data and insights into grower concerns and their research needs are critical for guiding research and development efforts aimed at supporting grower profitability while mitigating environmental footprints. In this context, insights from the Natural Resource Survey results hold particular significance.

Natural Resource Survey

In the summer of 2023, Cotton Incorporated launched a Natural Resource Survey (NRS) targeting U.S. cotton producers, seeking to evaluate the environmental footprint of cotton, contribute to the U.S. LCA project, and gain a better understanding of grower practices and challenges. These survey results were collected digitally, and invitations were sent to growers via emails and postcards. A third-party market research company assisted in the digital survey administration. A copy of the survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1. The survey data produced aimed to:

Assess changes in grower practices and priorities between 2008 and 2023.
Identify grower challenges.
Provide U.S. cotton production data for the U.S. life cycle assessment.
Gather growers’ insights regarding practices and agricultural technologies that positively impact resource efficiency and productivity.
Maintain an accurate understanding of growers’ research needs.

EXPERIMENTAL

The Natural Resource Survey covered a wide range of topics with 62 core questions, including demographics, grower practices and concerns, and field-level data in the 2021 or 2022 crop years. Similar surveys were conducted in 2008 and 2015, enabling comparisons where production data in those surveys also were representative of conditions from the previous crop year. However, questions related to grower attitudes are reflective of the year the survey was conducted. For simplicity, in presenting the results, the year the survey was conducted, namely 2023, is used in this report. Consistent with prior methodologies, the 2023 survey reached growers across 17 cotton-growing states. The results were summarized by assigning data from all these states to four regions – Far West (CA, AZ, NM), Southwest (TX, OK, KS), Midsouth (MO, AR, LA, MS, TN), and Southeast (AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA) to provide a representative response about each area’s production as illustrated in Fig. 1. The data have been analyzed using different tools, including Microsoft Excel and Power BI.

Fig. 1. Cotton growing states in four regions

The survey focused on filling the knowledge gap about how farming practices are connected and their broader impacts at a national level across all U.S. cotton-growing regions. Additionally, the survey aimed to offer direction for future research efforts. The examination of independent variables, such as cultivation methods and technology adoption, facilitated the establishment of correlations with dependent variables including field productivity (yield), resource efficiency (nitrogen and water use), and grower concerns (Fig. 2). However, it is important to approach these connections with caution, since each grower faces unique variables and circumstances that can influence how their fields perform. It should be noted that the growers in each survey are not the same producers, and such trends between years may not reflect changes in reality. Rather, it may be a different sample group. However, the results do provide some insights into shifts in the industry that are useful to the goals of this study.

Fig. 2. Cotton growing production-system simplified model with independent variables labeled in green (more grower control) and blue (less grower control) and the corresponding dependent variables represented in the yellow labels.

Survey Method

The survey was conducted during May, June, and July of 2023. Cotton Incorporated facilitated outreach by sending eleven thousand postcards to farmers who had produced cotton in 2021. These postcards were dispatched three times between the end of May and the end of July 2023. Additionally, a total of 4,300 emails were sent to request survey participation during this period. The survey encompassed all U.S. cotton-growing regions, yielding 753 responses, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Texas provided the most responses, at 37% of the total, followed by Georgia, the second-largest cotton-producing state, at 13%. In general, the percentage of responses per state corresponded to state-level cotton production volumes.

Fig. 3. Cumulative number of responses by date and state

Fig. 4. Percent of respondents by region in the 2015 and 2023 surveys

For comparison, in the previous 2015 survey data, there were a total of 925 respondents, with the majority of responses originating from the Southeast region (45%). The Southwest region then accounted for 30% of responses, while in 2023, it constituted the majority with 43% of responses. Conversely, the Far West region witnessed a slight decrease from 4% in 2015 to 3% in 2023. In general, cotton output in the Far West has been consistently decreasing due to declining water resources and competition from higher value crops, such as almonds and processing tomatoes in California (Geisseler and Horwath 2016). The percentage of responses by regions through 2015 and 2023 is shown in Fig. 4.

Key factors, such as weather conditions and production costs, can significantly influence cotton farming trends and may contribute to the observed differences in eligibility and interest in participating in the survey. According to USDA-NASS data, in 2022, 16% of planted acres in the Far West went unharvested due to water shortages, while the Southwest experienced a severe drought resulting in the loss of 52% of planted acres (Fig. 5). Additionally, cotton acreage remained at a record low from 2021 to 2023 due to a prolonged drought reducing water allocations in the region (USDA Quick Stats 2024). Consequently, it’s important to note that data from the Far West may not accurately reflect typical production conditions, given the prevailing challenges posed by the long-term drought. Although irrigation scheduling technologies have contributed to improved water productivity in cotton farming, their adoption by farmers remains limited, indicating significant room for improvement (Barnes et al. 2020). Matching irrigation schedules with the crop’s water use is important, especially during the flowering stage when cotton is most sensitive to water shortages. Optimizing the timing of irrigation termination (IT) for each geographical area is also essential, as early IT can save water but may not maximize yields, while late IT can lead to increased pest damage and reduced yield quality (Koudahe et al., 2021). Continued advancements in sensor and water delivery technologies, enhanced crop simulation models, and the development of drought-tolerant cotton varieties are just a few examples of strategies to address challenges posed by reduced water allocations and droughts (Barnes et al. 2020). Additionally, as irrigation water supplies become depleted, it will be important to consider rotation with high residue crops or cover crops to increase infiltration and soil water holding capacity when possible.

Fig. 5. Crop loss data by regions in 2022 (USDA Quick Stats 2022)

Fig. 6. A 30-year average rainfall from 1991 to 2020 in cotton-producing states (rainfall data from Prism Climate Group)

To underscore the environmental differences among cotton-growing regions, Fig. 6 depicts precipitation patterns, which show adequate precipitation to grow a cotton crop in the Southeast and Mid-South, while a dramatic precipitation gradient occurs within the Southwest region. In the West region, cotton cannot be grown without irrigation due to the very low annual precipitation. Figure 7 illustrates the diverse soil types across the U.S. and farming practices are significantly influenced by the predominant soil type characteristics across and within each region: Ultisols in the Southeast, Alfisols in the Midsouth, Mollisols in the Southwest, and Aridisols in the Far West.

Fig. 7. Dominant soil orders for the U.S. (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1998)

Respondent Demographics and Data Representativeness

The 2023 survey revealed that nearly half of respondents were 51 or older in age and had over 20 years of experience in cotton farming (Fig. 8). Overall demographic makeup of respondents was similar to the 2015 survey with the exception of increased participation of the younger generation (18 to 30) in the Far West increasing from 3% to 20% in 2023. The group of farmers growing cotton during the last 5 years constituted 16% compared to an average of 7 to 8% of the same group observed in other regions (Fig.8). However, it should be noted that the Far West also had the lowest cotton acres and response rate of all regions surveyed, with only 3% of the total responses.

In general, responses from the cotton-growing states were reflective of the distribution of cotton-growing acreage, with Texas and Georgia having the highest number of respondents. According to USDA-NASS data, cotton-planted acreage across all 17 states totaled 10.2 million acres in 2023, whereas the surveyed acreage amounted to approximately 0.94 million acres (Fig. 9). The surveyed cotton acreage accounted for 9.2% of the total U.S. cotton cultivated acres. In comparison, the previous 2015 survey reported 818,804 cotton acres, which represented 10% of the cotton planted in the US in 2015.

Fig. 8. Distribution of respondents categorized by age and years of growing experience (Refer to Q59 and Q60 in Appendix 1)

Fig. 9. Percent of U.S. cotton acres planted in each state in the 2023 growing season ( orange) and the percentage of cotton acres by state from survey participants (blue)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cotton Grower Concerns

Within the Natural Resource Survey, respondents were prompted to assess 29 randomly presented concerns or challenges linked to cotton production, scoring each as a Major, Moderate, or Not an Issue on their farm. Noteworthy concerns included cotton production input costs, weed resistance to herbicides, weed control, and cottonseed value, which have consistently ranked as the top four major concerns since the previous survey, comprising 78%, 65%, 55%, and 50% of responses, respectively (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. A summary ranking of the top 10 cotton growers’ concerns

In contrast, the spread of plant disease and weeds declined from the 5^th to the 11^th ranking in the latest survey. New concerns introduced in the 2023 survey, such as nematodes, now rank 9^th, with a higher percentage of responses from the southeast and midsouth regions. Cotton grower’s concerns about water conservation are evidenced in overall water productivity increases through the adoption of better irrigation delivery systems (Barnes et al. 2020), and adequate water supply remains in their top 10 concerns, rising from 10^th place in 2015 to 7^th in 2023. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the lack of new crop protection products and insect resistance to insecticides and Bt cotton, resulting in a 4-point difference. Table 1 displays a shift in concern rankings, with increased concern towards the increasing occurrence of extreme weather events, rising from 13^th to 5^th place. This shift underscores the escalating impact of climate change effects on these concerns. For grower concerns by region, see ST 1 in Appendix 2.

Grower Communication Methods

In order to consistently provide producers with updated information to enhance their production efficiency, it is critical to understand the sources from which they acquire information about new technology and practices. Thus, the 2023 survey respondents evaluated 17 information sources based on their reliance, ranging from none to slight, moderate, or great dependence. The survey findings emphasize that cotton producers heavily rely on face-to-face interactions, consultants, and extension agents for information on new technologies (Fig. 11-A). However, there has been a decline in magazine interest since 2008, while apps are more widely utilized. Additionally, social media platforms, particularly YouTube and Facebook, are among the most used social media platforms viewed by producers, as illustrated in Fig. 11-B.

Table 1. A Summary Ranking of Cotton Growers’ Concerns through 2015 and 2023 with Light Blue Highlighting Total Ranking <5, and Dark Blue >5 (Refer to Q26 in Appendix 1)

Selected Farm Characteristics

The 2023 survey explored land and management practices as well as their associated characteristics through a series of multiple questions. Respondents were asked to provide information related to their land and management practices within a selected representative cotton field. One of the questions was about the field size, as this parameter may impact the feasibility of adopting certain practices for producers. In the 2021/2022 growing season, the average size of the representative cotton field varied across regions, with the Southwest reporting the largest size at 187 acres, while the Far West reported the smallest at 73 acres. The average representative field size by region across all surveyed years has been compared and analyzed, see Fig. 12. In the 2023 survey data, larger average field sizes were reported for the Southwest and Midsouth regions compared to the previous two surveys, while sizes remained consistent for the Far West and Southeast regions. In the Far West, the design of irrigation systems often limits field size to ensure efficient water distribution, necessitating restricted field lengths. On the other hand, in the Southeast, field size limitations often stem from topographical features, such as established tree lines.

(A)

(B)

Fig. 11. Preferred information sources: moderate to high ranking (Refer to Q61 in Appendix 1). (A) Non-digital source of information by respondents through 2008, 2015 and 2023 survey years. (B) Digital source of information by respondents through 2008, 2015, and 2023 survey years

Fig. 12. Average field size by region for 2008, 2015, and 2023 survey data (Refer to Q28 in Appendix 1)

Land Use

In addition to reporting the acreage of selected cotton fields, the 2023 survey respondents were asked to share details about their entire land holdings. In total, the farmers managed 1,963,111 crop acres (+17% from 2015), with 48% (-1% from 2015) planted to cotton. This allocation translates to 9.2% (-1% from 2015) of the total cotton planted in the United States in 2023.

Fig. 13. Acres of irrigated and non-irrigated cotton, non-cotton crops, and natural land from the 2023 survey. (Refer to Q1 in Appendix 1)

Notably, only 39% (-6% from 2015) of the surveyed cotton acres received irrigation, which closely aligns with the 36% of irrigated acres reported by the USDA 2018 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (USDA Quick Stats 2022). In comparison to the 2015 survey data, where 49% of the crop acres were planted to cotton, and 45% of the cotton acres were irrigated, the current survey reflects a downward shift.

In the 2023 survey, the Far West region had 99% of irrigated cotton fields (and high yields), whereas the Southwest, Southeast, and Midsouth regions reported 36%, 27%, and 56%, respectively. Expanding beyond cropland, respondents also reported a combined 245,550 acres of natural land within their farming enterprises, constituting around 13% of total land ownership. This percentage aligns with the proportion of natural land reported in the 2015 survey data. Figure 13 illustrates all acres by 2023 survey respondents and Fig. 14 shows the percentage of non-irrigated and irrigated cotton acres through the survey years.

Fig. 14. Irrigated and non-irrigated cotton through years and regions

Around 40% (775,835 acres) were reported as land for crops other than cotton. Table 2 displays the additional crops cultivated by respondents and the percentage of respondents growing them, showcasing slight variations from the 2008 and 2015 results. The fluctuations in the utilization of other crops over the years can be attributed to the fluctuating commodity prices observed during 2020 to 2021. Consequently, wheat experienced a decrease, whereas peanuts and pasture saw marked increases (USDA NASS 2021).

Nevertheless, the primary alternative cash crops in the U.S. during the 2021 growing season included corn, soybean, and wheat, with corn dominating across most regions. Notably, in the Midsouth, soybean took a significant lead, comprising 84% of the crops. The Far West region had a diverse set of crops that include various vegetables and orchards suited to its unique climate (Table 3).

Table 2. The Percentage of Respondents Who Indicated They Commercially Produced the Crops Listed

Table 3. Alternative Cash Crops by Respondents by Regions (Refer to Q3 in Appendix 1)

Crop Rotation and Cover Crops

The 2023 survey sought to understand how farmers utilized land during the offseason, recognizing its potential for various crops, which can enhance revenue and benefit the land. Data from the survey indicates an increase in cover crop utilization among cotton farmers, with 48% of respondents planting cover crops, compared to 20% in the 2015 survey. Respondents reported an increase from 9% to 14% in 2015 to 2023 in native vegetation practice, respectively. Noteworthy is the positive trajectory witnessed in the Far West region, with 0% of native vegetation usage in 2015 to 7% in 2023 (Fig. 16). The evolving trends in cover crop adoption across time and regions emphasize the increasing preference for cover crops such as wheat (64%), cereal rye (30%), and mixed crops (13%) — a blend of diverse plant species promoting soil vitality and biodiversity. By 2023 survey respondents, cotton was planted annually (23%), every other year (22%), 2 of 3 years (25%), and 1 of 3 years (12%).

Fig. 15. Cover crop and residue management practices by 2015 and 2023 survey respondents

The survey also explored how growers utilized their land during the offseason, with a focus on regional differences.

Fig. 16. Cover crop practices across regions over time (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q40 in Appendix 1)

Farmers adopting cover crops reported an increase in cotton yields, especially in the Southwest, where planted cover crops resulted in a 14% increase in cotton yields compared to practices without cover. In the Southeast and Midsouth, a similar practice reported a 5% and an 8% increase in yield, respectively. However, in the Far West region, with its unique environment, the reported yields using planted cover crops were lower compared to those not utilizing these practices. Cotton serves as the main crop in a rotation with other crops every 3 to 4 years. As these fields may include low-residue crops, introducing cover crops becomes an opportunity for cotton farmers to elevate residue levels. This strategy aligns with the common practice of planting cotton following a winter cover crop, which helps safeguard the cotton seedlings from early spring wind damage.

Tillage Practices

For almost three decades, Cotton Incorporated has been underscoring the benefits of conservation and no-till practices (Daystar et al. 2017). For clarity, each tillage practice can be explained as follows:

No-till/strip-till: Soil undisturbed except for narrow strips, preserving surface residue.
Conservation tillage: Leaves approximately 15% to 30% or more crop residue on the soil surface after planting.
Conventional tillage: Full-width soil disturbance, with weed control via herbicides or cultivation.

Over the span of 2008 to 2023, there has been a shift in tillage practices: conventional tillage has declined by approximately 10%, whereas no-till/strip-till methods have increased by 20% (Fig. 17). Regionally, the Southeast region utilizes more no-till/strip-till practices (68%), whereas conventional tillage accounts for 15% (For regional breakdown, refer to ST2, Appendix 2). This shift in tillage approaches may reflect the influence of educational efforts, along with other factors, such as weed pressure which may also drive changes in tillage practices. Additionally, growers may be motivated by broader agronomic benefits, a decrease in input costs, and additional cotton marketing opportunities. The transition from conventional tillage to no-till/strip-tilling holds the promise of cost savings for growers by reducing time and energy requirements (“Soil Health Institute,” 2023).

However, concerns loom among many conventional tillage growers about potential reductions in cotton yields. To probe the relationship between tillage practices and cotton yield, a detailed analysis was conducted, plotting the yield for each tillage practice across U.S. regions (Fig. 18). The Far West was the only region where conventional tillage resulted in higher yields, averaging 1672 lbs/acre, while in other regions, conventional tillage practices reported lower average yields. In the Midsouth and Southwest, conservation tillage emerged with the highest reported cotton yields, registering 1200 lbs/acre and 981 lbs/acre, respectively. The Southeast had a high adoption of no-till/strip-till and the highest reported yield for this practice, averaging 1086 lbs/acre. Research shows increased yields on cotton cultivation in no-till fields with cover crops, including (Soil Health Institute 2023) and (University of Arkansas System 2016); however, results are variable and may not correlate to improved yields in all situations. It should also be noted that no-till and cover cropping provide other benefits aside from yield, such as increased soil carbon and soil water holding capacity, among others.

Fig. 17. Tillage systems use identified in the 2008, 2015, and 2023 surveys. (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q43 in Appendix 1)

Fig. 18. U.S. cotton yields based on tillage method and region (Refer to Q43 and Q38 in Appendix 1)

Soil Management

In the 2023 survey, 97% of respondents adopted at least one of the listed practices to mitigate soil erosion. Strip-till/no-till remained prevalent, and the usage of other specific practices remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2023. Additionally, in 2008, 39% of respondents reported using winter cover crops, from 48% in 2015 to 65% in 2023. Irrigation management has increased by 5% since 2015, reaching 45%, while the prevalence of precisely leveled fields has nearly halved during the same period. Fig. 19 illustrates a full list of practices to mitigate soil erosion by 2023 survey respondents. For regional breakdown, refer to ST3, Appendix 2).

Fig. 19. Practices to minimize soil erosion among 2023 survey respondents (Refer to Q8 in Appendix 1)

Since 2008, soil testing to determine fertilizer application rates has remained a predominant practice among producers, with 77% in 2023 (Fig. 20). Most respondents (56%) indicated soil sampling annually, while 6% reported never using soil fertility testing, primarily in the Far West and Southwest regions.

Fig. 20. Fertilizer factors rated by 2023 survey respondents (Refer to Q10 in Appendix 1)

Table 4 indicates that more than 50% of growers did soil sampling once or more a year, while 20% – once every 2 years and 13% – once every 3 years. Other factors utilized in the fertilizer evaluation process showed changes as follows: yield goals rose to 67% from 61% in 2015, consultant recommendations increased to 56% from 49% in 2015, and petiole or leaf testing grew to 34% from 23% in 2015.

Table 4. Frequency of Soil Fertility Testing in Cotton Fields by 2023 Survey (Refer to Q9 in Appendix 1)

Source of Organic Matter

In the 2023 survey, respondents used various sources of organic matter such as manure, gin trash, or cover crops to enhance soil health. In the Far West region, the respondents’ total acreage where manure and gin trash (gin waste) were applied was notably larger compared to other regions where various cover crops were the dominant source of organic cover. When comparing these practices with the 2015 survey results, the average total acreage where gin trash/cotton compost was applied remained unchanged (Fig. 21). However, the use of manure decreased to 8.5%, down from 14.3% in 2015. On the other hand, the application of multispecies cover crops increased to 6.3%, up from 2.5% in 2015, as a percentage of respondents’ total acreage.

Fig. 21. The average percentage of respondents’ total acreage attributed to the source of organic matter across regions in the 2023 survey. The average U.S. data is presented by years (Refer to Q11 in Appendix 1).

Fertilizer Management

The precision in fertilizer management is presented in Fig. 22, which illustrates nutrient use efficiencies for nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (N, P, K, respectively) by region (mass of cotton fiber produced per mass of nutrient applied), where higher nutrient use efficiency values equate to higher cotton yield per unit of fertilizer applied. Like all crops, N, P, and K are primary nutrients critical to the growth of the plant, and nitrogen is most susceptible to loss due to its high mobility (Wyatt et al. 2019). Maintaining a consistent replacement of nitrogen is crucial in cotton farming, given that nitrogen is extracted from the field in cottonseed. While soils can contain ample phosphate and/or potassium naturally, the availability of these nutrients varies by region and soil type. For example, around 15 to 30 lbs/acre of potassium is removed when cotton is harvested, depending on yield. Additionally, managing nitrogen supplied by soil mineralization is complex, as it is influenced by factors such as soil organic matter content and previous crops. For instance, cotton cultivated on soils containing higher clay contents after peanuts may require lower nitrogen application (Frame et al. 2016).

Fig. 22. Nutrient use efficiencies for nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (N, P, K, respectively) by region (mass of cotton fiber produced per mass of nutrient applied, where higher nutrient use efficiency values equate to higher cotton yield per unit of fertilizer applied). Refer to Q48 in Appendix 1

In general, soils with high infiltration rates and low nutrient retention capacities, such as sandy soils or well-aggregated soils with low organic matter, are prone to nutrient leaching compared to soils with higher clay and organic matter content (Wyatt et al. 2019). The classification of soil textures into three main types – light, medium, and heavy – reflects their respective sandy, loamy, and clayey characteristics, determined by the proportions of sand, silt, and clay they contain. Fig. 23 illustrates the mapping of these soil textures through USA regions.

Fig. 23. Soil composition across the U.S. by NASA Earth Observatory (Miller and White 1998)

Nitrogen application levels vary across states depending on whether the field was irrigated or non-irrigated, largely due to the increased yield potential in irrigated fields. For instance, the average nitrogen application for irrigated fields across all regions ranged between 99 and 109 lbs/acre, with the lowest observed in the Midsouth region and the highest in the Far West. Conversely, non-irrigated fields in the Midsouth and Southeast regions exhibited relatively higher nitrogen application levels, at 106 lbs/acre and 97 lbs/acre respectively, in contrast to the Far West and Southwest regions, where the applied levels were notably lower, at 80 and 62 lbs/acre, respectively. Due to the low number of respondents from the Far West, the fertilizer rates in this region, however, may not accurately reflect actual application practices. Potassium application levels also reveal regional disparities, influenced by the irrigation factor and soil type. In the Southwest region, both non-irrigated and irrigated fields exhibited the lowest fertilizer applications, with 18 and 35 lbs/acre respectively. These regional differences, which are illustrated in Fig. 24, highlight the nuanced fertilizer application practices tailored to specific soil, climate conditions, and yield potential. Recommended fertilizer levels also vary by state. In Missouri, for instance, a total range of 80 to 120 lbs/acre of nitrogen is considered adequate, with split applications recommended for both sandy and silt soils (University of Missouri). In Mississippi, for medium-textured soils with a yield potential of two bales per acre, it is recommended to apply 120 to 140 pounds of nitrogen per acre (Mississippi State University 2017). The respondents reported the following as their main sources of nitrogen: during pre-planting, dry blend (42%), liquid blend (23%), urea (9%), and ammonia (2%); while in-season, these practices accounted for 25%, 34%, 15%, and 1%, respectively.

Most respondents (77%) indicated that fertilizer application levels were determined based on soil test recommendations, a practice supported by the high nutrient use efficiency values mentioned earlier. Nitrogen (N) application methods varied, with 32% injecting N into the soil profile, 12% applying a band to the surface, 35% broadcasting, and 6% broadcasting followed by incorporation. On average, two trips were made during the season to apply fertilizer, increasing the probability of its availability to the crop when needed. One-third of respondents (34%) reported using nitrification inhibitors with most responses coming from the Midsouth region. Cotton grows optimally within a soil pH range of 5.8 to 6.5, targeting 6.2. Low pH can lead to toxic element concentrations, while pH over 7.0 affects nutrient availability (Frame et al. 2016). Various products are employed to raise pH levels. According to a 2023 survey, 33% of respondents, mainly from the Southeast, favor dolomitic lime, while 21%—predominantly from the Midsouth region—use lime.

(A)

(B)

Fig. 24. State-wise average fertilizer application (in pounds) vs. yield (in lbs/acre) by 2023 survey. (A) Non-irrigated and (B) irrigated cotton fields

Irrigation Management

Survey respondents reported that approximately 39% (363,000 acres) of their cotton croplands were irrigated. The primary water source for cotton irrigation is well water, accounting for 85%. Additionally, 8% of respondents reported using on-farm surface water, and 4% reported using off-farm surface water in addition to well water. The highest average inches of irrigation water was observed in the Far West region, amounting to 36 inches, while the Midsouth region reported the lowest at 9 inches. This disparity can be attributed to the specific climate of each region and variability in average annual precipitation. The primary energy sources for irrigation reported by respondents are electric (73%), diesel (20%), and natural gas (6%). Figure 25 depicts all the mentioned irrigation aspects, while Table 5 provides the regional percentage of irrigation sources, where on-farm sources are predominant in the Southeast region, and off-farm sources are prevalent in the Far West.

Fig. 25. Irrigated and non-irrigated cotton acreage, irrigation inches, water source, and energy source for irrigation by 2023 survey (Refer to Q1, Q30, Q33, and Q37 in Appendix 1)

Table 5. Irrigation Source by Region (Refer to Q33 in Appendix 1)

When comparing survey results for producers using irrigation from 2008 and 2015 to 2023, a consistent trend is evident toward reduced use of surface irrigation, as depicted in Fig. 26. Specifically, the utilization of furrow systems has decreased from 44% in 2008 to 26% in 2023, while the adoption of pivot/sprinkler systems has increased from 49% in 2008 to 59% in 2023. In general, the shift to pressurized systems, such as pivot systems, is associated with higher water use efficiencies, given their enhanced precision and operational control. Additionally, there is an observable trend towards an increased adoption of drip (surface or subsurface) irrigation systems at approximately 15%. The adoption was observed mainly in the Southwest region (Refer to ST 4 in Appendix 2), where the return on investment is better and irrigation water capacity is limited.

Fig. 26. Irrigation systems used in 2008, 2015, and 2023. Less than 1% of respondents selected “Other” in 2023. (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q32 in Appendix 1)

In the management of irrigation tailwater from furrow/basin irrigation, a majority of respondents (68%) reported implementing adjustments to field slope and length to minimize runoff. Additionally, 14% utilize holding ponds, and 10% specifically address tailwater runoff (Refer to ST 5 in Appendix 2). Notably, around 16% of farmers expressed concerns about water salinity in their farm wells, a slight increase from the previous 2015 survey at 11%. Efforts to enhance the efficiency of irrigation water usage can be advanced by promoting greater adoption of flow measuring devices. These devices serve as an effective means to ensure the smooth functioning of an irrigation system. Notably, the utilization of flow meters and irrigation scheduling has increased to 52% for both practices in the 2023 survey year, up from 38% and 34% in 2015, respectively. Additionally, there has been an increase in the adoption of moisture monitoring, climbing from 21% to 44%. Figure 27 illustrates irrigation efficiency improvement practices over the years on regional and national levels.

Fig. 27. Irrigation efficiency improvement practices adopted by region through 2015 and 2023 (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q31 in Appendix 1)

Precision Farming Technologies

The survey data indicate a noticeable upward trend in the adoption of various technologies, except for soil sampling, which has remained steady at 46% (Fig. 28). Autosteer/GPS technology, in particular, has experienced a significant increase, surging from 46% in 2008 to 69% in 2015 and further to 86% in 2023. The rapid rise in autosteer technology adoption, surpassing other options, signifies its emergence as a standard feature on new equipment which may require minimal preparation to use compared to alternatives that involve downloading, interpreting, and re-uploading maps. A new report on precision technologies (McFadden et al. 2023) suggests that these benefits, along with potential savings from reduced skips and overlaps in input costs (like fuel, seed, nutrients, and pesticides), are likely driving the increase in adoption rates.

The survey further revealed a significant increase in yield monitor adoption (from 20% in 2015 to 35% in 2023) across all regions, reflecting a growing inclination towards integrating data-collecting technologies into agricultural equipment. According to the same USDA report, yield monitors are predominantly employed to assist in determining crop input usage in cotton farming. As shown in Fig. 29, the Midsouth and Southwest regions experienced the most significant increase, with an average rise of 20% from 2015 to 2023. As new technologies evolved, there were new additions to the question of precision technologies.

Fig. 28. Precision technologies used in 2008, 2015, and 2023. (*: Soil Sampling question wasn’t asked in the 2008 survey; it was only introduced in 2015). (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q19 in Appendix 1).

Fig. 29. Precision technologies by regions and over time by 2023 survey (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q19 in Appendix 1)

These additions included the use of see and spray systems (such as Weed IT, WeedSeeker, John Deere, etc.), swath control, and unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs). The survey found that most respondents (71%) reported using swath control on their spray boom, and 40% reported using swath control on their planter. Additionally, nearly 6% of respondents reported operating UAVs, while 5% reported deploying see and spray systems (Refer to ST6 in Appendix 2). In general, only 4% of all respondents reported not using precision technologies. Growers utilizing precision technologies have reported higher average cotton yields across all growing regions, except for the Far West region. However, due to the small sample size in the Far West, the differences shown may not be significant.

Automation

Automation, including the integration of driverless tractor technology, may significantly enhance operational efficiency and precision in agricultural practices by streamlining tasks such as planting, spraying, and harvesting. The 2023 survey introduced some new questions to cotton farmers regarding the benefits and impediments of using driverless tractors on their farms, the machines that are capable of operating without human intervention. More than 50% of respondents reported labor savings as one of the perceived future benefits of driverless tractors, 41% cited improved efficiency, 28% highlighted decreased worker exposure, and 34% considered the technology to have no benefits (Fig. 30).

Fig. 30. Perceived benefits of using driverless tractors on farms by 2023 survey respondents (Refer to Q22 in Appendix 1)

Another question focused on potential obstacles to the adoption of driverless tractors, as outlined in Table 6. In general, responses exhibited a common trend across regions, except for increased concerns regarding field obstacles and inter-field transportation in the Southeast and Midsouth. This disparity is likely influenced by the increased presence of water features and topographical variations, which may pose challenges to field operations compared to the terrains of the Southwest and Far West. However, regardless of geographical location, approximately 80% of respondents highlighted costs as the primary barrier to integrating driverless tractors into their farms. Furthermore, among the practices where respondents favored utilizing this technology, planting (40%), spray applications (40%), harvest (35%), and pre-plant weed control (35%) emerged as the most preferred high-priority activities.

Table 6. Impediments to Using Driverless Tractors on Farms by 2023 Survey Respondents (Refer to Q21 in Appendix 1)

Pesticide Management

Cotton growers are embracing new technologies to enhance the precision of their pesticide applications, as previously mentioned regarding the use of swath and other spray technologies. Some of these technologies (like Weed-IT, Weed seeker, John Deere See and Spray) may see increased adoption in the future. Ground rigs remain the predominant method for pesticide applications, with 85% of respondents opting for this approach, mirroring trends observed in 2008 and 2015 (For the 2023 Survey, refer to ST 7, Appendix 2). Additionally, 66% of respondents indicated their reliance on professional consultants to advise on foliar insecticide treatments, marking a slight decline from the 71% reported in 2015. Notably, less than 8% of respondents reported using a calendar-based spray schedule, consistent with the 6% figure recorded in 2015. Also, 37% of respondents reported fields that did not receive foliar insecticides during the season, compared to 33% in 2015 and 29% in 2008. Additionally, an estimated 16% of reported cotton acres went untreated with insecticide, a decrease from 21% in 2015 (For the 2023 Survey, refer to ST 8, Appendix 2).

The distribution of target pests has shown a consistent pattern from 2015 to 2023 (Fig. 31). According to respondents’ percentages, there were slight increases in the populations of aphids (+4%), cotton flea hoppers (+10%), and grasshoppers (+8%). Notably, the top three targeted insects reported by respondents have remained unchanged since 2008. Thrips have seen a significant increase of 34%, stink bugs increased by 15%, and aphids by 19% over this period. The trend indicates a persistent focus on these three pests among survey participants; however, it’s important to take regional variations. For instance, stink bugs and plant bugs are predominantly found in the Southeast (87%, 62%) and Midsouth (50%, 86%), whereas their prevalence in the Southwest and Far West is less than 30%. Conversely, cotton fleahoppers are most prevalent in the Southwest (59%), while their occurrence in other regions ranges from 4% to 12% (Refer to ST 9, Appendix 2). The primary target pathogens are boll rots in the Southeast (61%) and Midsouth (58%), and verticillium wilt in the Southwest (40%) and Farwest (68%). For a more detailed regional breakdown, refer to ST 10, Appendix 2.

(A)

(B)

Fig. 31. Target pests across U.S. cotton production among respondents (A) in 2008, 2015 and 2023 and (B) through regions

Integrated pest management (IPM) strategies play a critical role in addressing challenges posed by resilient pests like thrips, emphasizing the importance of a multifaceted approach. For instance, conservation and reduced tillage methods, particularly when integrated with high-residue cover crops, exhibit significant potential in mitigating thrips populations on cotton seedlings by up to 50% (Virginia Cooperative Extension).

Cotton growers reported an increased concern regarding herbicide-resistant weeds, as evidenced by the fact that 95% of them expressed worry about the costs associated with herbicides. Moreover, only 1% of growers opt not to cultivate herbicide-tolerant cotton varieties. The major concern about weed resistance to herbicides, indicated by 65% of respondents, is reflected in various practices:

71% checked for weed escapes (76% in 2008, 72% in 2015).
81% used a pre-emergent herbicide (70% in 2008, 82% in 2015).
79% alternated herbicide modes of action (62% in 2008, 79% in 2015).
49% reported hand hoeing (not asked in 2008, 66% in 2015).
55% planted cover crops, a significant increase from 33% in 2015.

To conveniently observe the main trends and their changes from 2015 to 2023, the data were scaled to 100%, as shown in Fig. 32.

Fig. 32. Adopting herbicide control practices among cotton producers over time. The data for both survey years was adjusted to a 100% scale (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q12 in Appendix 1).

When analyzing herbicide control practices across regions, a consistent trend emerges across the majority of practices, except for tilling and cultivating weeds that have escaped herbicide control. In this regard, the Southwest (60%) and Far West (69%) regions exhibit a notably higher preference compared to the Southeast (15%) and Midsouth (24%), as illustrated in Table 7. In general, over 70% of respondents decided to apply foliar herbicide after scouting their crop, while only 14% set a calendar spray schedule. Additionally, 10% of respondents reported that their fields don’t require a foliar herbicide, representing 3% of all reported cotton acreage (Refer to ST 7, Appendix 2).

Conservation Practices and Natural Habitat Management

Conservation practices are pivotal in mitigating the environmental footprint of cotton cultivation and safeguarding the ecosystem, which is essential for the sustained production of cotton. To grasp the extent of the adoption of these practices, the survey asked growers about the conservation methods employed on their farms.

Table 7. Herbicide Control Practices by Regions in the 2023 Survey (Refer to Q12 in Appendix 1)

Table 8. Percent of Respondents Using Listed Conservation Practices by Regions through 2015 and 2023 (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q55 in Appendix 1)

Out of the practices listed in Table 8, about 78% of growers indicated using at least one (compared to 69% in 2015). The preferred practices included adopting conservation cover crops (+21% from 2015), establishing field borders (-1% from 2015), and implementing grass waterways (-1% from 2015).

In terms of efforts made on farms to enhance wildlife habitat, 47% (+6% from 2015) of respondents reported maintaining field borders conducive to wildlife habitat. Overall, 76% of respondents indicated their efforts to improve wildlife habitat, reflecting an increase of 8% from 2015. When considering barriers to enhancing wildlife habitat, 37% of respondents cited a lack of funding, while 26% highlighted increased pest pressure from conservation areas. Interestingly, nearly 29% indicated they didn’t perceive any significant barriers. Furthermore, there has been an increase in participation in wildlife conservation programs. For instance, 33% joined conservation reserve programs, up from 22% in 2015. Similarly, participation in wildlife habitat incentive programs increased to 19%, compared to 8% in 2015. Evidence concerning wildlife habitat improvement practices is presented in Table 9, derived from survey questions.

Table 9. Percent of Respondents Adopting Practices on Wildlife Habitat Improvement in the 2023 Survey Year (Refer to Q24 and Q25 in Appendix 1)

Yield and Other Specific Data

In the 2021/2022 growing season, the average U.S. cotton yield covering all 4 regions, based on USDA data, was approximately 1038 pounds per acre, nearly aligning with the surveyed average of 1073 pounds per acre. When compared to the average yields from the previous surveys, the average didn’t change much (a 3% increase from 2008 and a 1% decrease from 2015). Numerous factors, including precipitation and climate conditions, impact average yields, making it challenging to pinpoint the causes of year-to-year fluctuations. Notably, the limited number of respondents from the Far West region could be a contributing factor in an observed decrease in average field yield with 1625 lbs/acre in 2008 to 1215 lbs/acre in 2023, representing a 25% decrease (Fig. 33).

Fig. 33. Average yield difference by 2008, 2015, and 2023 survey respondents (For the 2023 Survey, refer to Q38 in Appendix 1)

On average, farmers spent between $80 and $120 per acre on cotton harvesting, with distinct regional variations (Fig. 34). One factor impacting harvest costs by region is yield, where regions with higher yields will have higher costs for packaging and generally harvest at a slower rate. The Far West region reported the highest costs, exceeding $150 on average (reported by 40% of respondents) due to higher fuel and labor costs than the other regions coupled with high yields, while the Southwest region recorded comparatively lower expenses, ranging from $50 to $100 on average (Table 10). The lower cotton harvesting costs in the Southwest can be explained by the types of harvesting machines used, specifically pickers versus strippers. Historically, most of the cotton grown on the in the Southwest region has been harvested using strippers (Faulkner et al. 2008). The operational and other associated costs of using strippers usually are lower compared to pickers, which likely accounts for the reduced harvesting costs in this region (Yates et al. 2007).

Since the harvesting cost typically includes expenses such as transporting cotton from the field to the gin, among others, the distance to the gin may affect the overall expenses for growers. However, according to the surveyed data, the distance between the fields and gins has increased in all regions, except for the Southeast. This change is likely attributed to the improved cost-effectiveness of transporting larger cylindrical modules over longer distances and some consolidation of gins over the past decade.

Fig. 34. Average cost to harvest cotton among 2023 survey respondents (Refer to Q20 in Appendix 1).

Table 10. Regional Averages for Yield and Harvesting Cost, and Distance from Farm to Gin: 2023 Survey Data with Gin Comparison to 2015

CONCLUSIONS

The 2023 survey provided a comprehensive dataset of U.S. cotton growers, offering valuable insights into demographics, practices, and challenges regionally and nationwide.
Utilizing the 2023 survey results can inform current agricultural systems, track the impact of outreach and technology adoption, and guide decisions for more profitable and sustainable cotton production.
Grower concerns over extreme weather events indicate the increasing impact of climate change on cotton production challenges and the need to increase cotton’s climate resilience.
While face-to-face interactions remain common and most useful, cotton growers are increasingly turning to digital tools like apps and social media to disseminate information.
From 2008 to 2023, a notable shift in tillage practices towards no-till/strip-till methods suggests potential cost savings and reduced energy requirements.
A consistent trend is observed among producers using irrigation, with a shift away from surface irrigation methods, such as furrow systems, towards pressurized systems like pivot/sprinkler systems, indicating increased water use efficiencies attributed to enhanced precision and operational control.
Autosteer/GPS technology has seen a significant increase in adoption rates, becoming a standard feature on new equipment, driven by simplified setup processes and potential cost savings from reduced skips and overlaps in input costs.
The increasing adoption of conservation practices, particularly increased adoption of winter cover crops among U.S. cotton growers highlights their dedication to continual improvement, climate resiliency, and creating positive environmental outcomes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this work was made possible by the funding provided by Cotton Incorporated and the invaluable contributions of cotton farmers who participated in the natural resource survey.

REFERENCES CITED

Barnes, E. M., Campbell, B. T., Vellidis, G., Porter, W. M., Payero, J. O., Leib, B. G., Sui, R., Fisher, D. K., Anapalli, S., Colaizzi, P. D., Bordovsky, J. P., Porter, D. O., Ale, S., Mahan, J., Taghvaeian, S., and Thorp, K. R. (2020). “Forty years of increasing cotton’s water productivity and why the trend will continue,” Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Journal 36(4), 457-478. DOI: 10.13031/aea.13911

Cotton Incorporated. (2016). Life Cycle Assessment.

CottonToday. Biodiversity and Wildlife Habitat. https://cottontoday.cottoninc.com/our-sustainability-story/land/habitat-preservation/

Daystar, J. S., Barnes, E., Hake, K., and Kurtz, R. (2017). “Sustainability trends and natural resource use in U.S. cotton production,” BioResources 12(1) 362-392. DOI: 10.15376/biores.12.1.362-392

Fannin, B. (2017). “Texas agricultural losses from Hurricane Harvey estimated at more than $200 million,” (https://agrilifetoday.tamu.edu/2017/10/27/texas-agricultural-losses-from-hurricane-harvey-estimated-at-more-than-200-million/), Accessed June 26, 2024.

Faulkner, W. B., Wanjura, J. D., Shaw, B. W., and Hequet, E. F. (2008). “Effect of harvesting methods on fiber and yarn quality from irrigated cotton on the High Plains,” 2009 Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, TX, USA, pp. 449-461.

Field to Market. (2021). Environmental Outcomes from On-Farm Agricultural Production in the United States (Fourth Edition). ISBN: 978-0-578-33372-4

Foro Económico Mundial., Marsh and McLennan., SK Group., and Zurich Insurance Group. (2022). The Global Risks Report 2022. World Economic Forum.

Frame, W. H., Herbert, D. A., Mehl, H., Cahoon, C., Reiter, M., and Flessner, M. (2016). Virginia Cotton Production Guide (https://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/cotton-production-guide/2016.pdf), Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

Geisseler, D., and Horwath, W. R. (2016). Economically Optimal Nitrogen Availability for Cotton, (https://apps1.cdfa.ca.gov/FertilizerResearch/docs/Cotton_EONR.pdf), UC Davis, CA, USA.

Grainger, C., Williams, R., Clarke, T., Wright, A. D. G., and Eckard, R. J. (2010). “Supplementation with whole cottonseed causes long-term reduction of methane emissions from lactating dairy cows offered a forage and cereal grain diet,” Journal of Dairy Science 93(6), 2612–2619. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2009-2888

ICAC. (2022). ICAC Cotton Data Book, Technical Information Section of the International Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington DC.

Kansas AGGROWTH. (2021).

LifestyleMonitor. (2023). Sustainability in Consumers’ Lives and Wardrobes .

McFadden, J., Njuki, E., and Griffin, T. (2023). Precision Agriculture in the Digital Era: Recent Adoption on U.S. Farms,” Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-248) 52 pp, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=105893.

Meyer, L., Dew, T., Grace, M., Lanclos, K., MacDonald, S., and Soley, G. (2023). Cotton Outlook THE WORLD AND UNITED STATES COTTON OUTLOOK. https://www.usda.gov/oce/ag-outlook-forum/commodity-outlooks

Miller, D. A., and White, R. A. (1998). Soil Composition Across the U.S., NASA Earth Observatory.

Mississippi State University Extension. (2017). Inorganic Nutrient Management for Cotton Production in Mississippi, Publication Number: P1622.

Mississippi State University. (2022). Cotton Crop Losses. https://www.biochemistry.msstate.edu/resources/cottoncrop.php

Prakash, S., Radha, Sharma, K., Dhumal, S., Senapathy, M., Deshmukh, V. P., Kumar, S., Madhu, Anitha, T., Balamurugan, V., Pandiselvam, R., and Kumar, M. (2024). “Unlocking the potential of cotton stalk as a renewable source of cellulose: A review on advancements and emerging applications,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 261, article 129456. DOI: 10.1016/J.IJBIOMAC.2024.129456

PRISM Climate Group. (2020). Prism Climate Data, Oregon State University.

Soil Health Institute. (2023). Economics of Soil Health Management Systems on Eight Cotton Farms in the Texas Southern Great Plains, (https://soilhealthinstitute.org/economics/).

University of Arkansas System. (2016). Summaries of Arkansas Cotton Research, (https://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/1356.htm).

University of Missouri. Cotton Extension.

USDA (2022). “Cotton sector at a glance,” (https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/cotton-and-wool/cotton-sector-at-a-glance/), Accessed June 26, 2024.

USDA NASS. (2021). Agricultural Prices.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1998). Dominant Soil Orders for STATSGO Mapunits .

USDA Quick Stats. (2022). USDA NASS.

USDA Quick Stats. (2024). USDA NASS. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/A775E607-A201-33CA-AF2C-1DE7C7473328

USDA. (2022). Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland: A Comparison of CEAP I and CEAP II Survey Data and Modeling – Summary of Findings.

Virginia Cooperative Extension. Managing Thrips in Cotton.

Wallander, S., Smith, D., Bowman, M., and Claassen, R. (2021). Cover Crop Trends, Programs, and Practices in the United States, (www.ers.usda.gov).

Wyatt, B. M., Arnall, D. B., and Ochsner, T. E. (2019). Nutrient Loss and Water Quality, (https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print-publications/pss/nutrient-loss-and-water-quality-pss-2286.pdf), Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.

Yates, J., Gueck, N., Boman, R., Kelley, M., Brown, M., and Klose, S. (2007). Comparison of Costs and Returns for Alternative Cotton Harvest Methods in the Texas High Plains, (https://farmassistance.tamu.edu/files/2013/08/2008-2.pdf), Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Texas A&M University System.

Article submitted: June 20, 2024; Peer review completed: July 31, 2024; Revised version received: August 2, 2024; Accepted: August 8, 2024; Published: August 19, 2024.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.4.7279-7319