Cotton: a flow cycle to exploit
Maria Proto *, Stefania Supino, Ornella Malandrino
Uni6ersita` degli Studi di Salerno,Facolta di Economia,Dipartimento di Studi e Ricerche Aziendali,Via Ponte don Melillo, Cattedra di Merceologia,84084Fisciano,SA,Italy
Accepted 8 October 1999
Abstract
The relation between agricultural resources, industrial activities and the environment has complex aspects because of many dynamic interrelationships. Among the sectors that are showing a certain environmental sensibility, there is the textile one, and particularly the cotton sector. Cotton is one of the most important non-food crops in the world. Its products are destined to different industries: textiles, food, chemicals and so on. In Italy, cotton cultivation encounters economic problems that makes its development quite difficult. In this paper, the development opportuni-ties in agricultural and manufacturing processes are analysed in view of new trends that are characterised by sustainable life-cycle assessments. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Cotton; Flow cycle; Non food crops; Life cycle assessments
1. Introduction
Cotton, included in the genus ‘Gossypium’1, is
economically the most important vegetable fibre. Botanically, the cotton fibres are the protective
covering of the seeds in a cotton plant. The cotton fibre, in its pure form, and also in blends, is the principal clothing fibre of the world, accounting for about 50% of total world fibre production (Shariq, 1995).
Cotton fibre production depends on many fac-tors, including soil productivity, climate2, cost of
production, market conditions, government pro-grams, etc.
This paper analyses the biomass balance related to the cotton crop, and aims at underlining how it is possible to obtain a large variety of different products utilised in various fields from this inter-esting renewable resource.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-89-963146; fax: + 39-89-963505.
1The most important species included in theGossypiumare
hirsutum,barbadense,arboreumandherbaceum. It is very easy to distinguish each type by using a microscope or chemical staining. The average cotton plant is a herbaceous shrub with a normal height of 4.5 – 6.0 m (Villavecchia Eigenmann, 1973).
2The most favourable growing conditions for this plant is a
warm climate (21 – 30°C mean temperature).
Table 1
Distribution and main uses of cotton
Other uses
Botanical name Distribution Main uses
Oil makes up 20% of the seed.
Cot-Gossypiumspp. including many USA, former USSR, South Amer- Textiles,
cloth-ing ton-seed oil is used in margarine hybrids, e.g.: short fibre, ica, China, Africa, India, West
Gossypium herbaceum; long Indies, Egypt, Sudan and soap. Cotton-seed cake, the residue after milling, is a valuable fibre,Gossypium barbadense
stock feed.
2. Cultivation and production report
The use of cotton dates back to a remote period. It has been used as a fibre in spinning and weaving for over 5000 years. It was originally used in India, later spread to China and Central Asia, and then reached Italy (Sicily), Spain and Africa (Sarno, 1987). As trade flowed from the East into Europe, cotton products became a valu-able commodity. In Great Britain, the textile in-dustry began to develop quite rapidly after 1500, with most of the technological advances in spin-ning and weaving originating in that country. As regards Italy, the diffusion of cotton cultivation dates back to about 1850 when the Italian textile industries, like those in other European countries, had a crisis scarcity of the raw material.
During the following decades, the history of the culture of cotton in Italy suffered various prob-lems. After periods of crises, improvements and downfalls, cotton production has almost com-pletely disappeared.
Today, the world production of raw cotton — a renewable resource from which it is possible to obtain textiles, pulp and paper, but also different products in the field of chemical, pharmaceutical, cosmetics, food, zootechnics, etc., that are
ob-tained from cotton-seed oil — is about 53×106
tons, and the most important producers are the USA, the former USSR, South America, China and India, which together contribute to almost 80% of total production. Other important produc-ers are East Africa, Egypt and the Sudan (Table 1) (Shariq, 1995).
The most important world raw cotton
produc-ing countries (total amount about 20×106
tons) are reported in Table 2.
In Table 3, the percentage of the world produc-tion of cotton fibres, reduced to half during our century, is confronted with wool and chemical fibres (artificial and synthetic). The chemical com-position (%) of dry weight of cotton fibres is shown in Table 4.
A renewed interest in this crop is manifested by Italy and the EU — today the importers of 338 000 and 952 000 tons, respectively (Rapporto sull’industria Cotoniera e Liniera, 1998) — be-cause cotton crop can be seen as a useful renew-able resources from which to obtain fibres and other derived products3.
The best known by-product of the cotton plant is lint; that is the hairs that grow on the seed coat yeld. Another very valuable product is in the form of oil, which makes up 20% of the seed. Cotton-seed oil is used for cooking, margarine and soap, but also for chemical and pharmaceutical uses. Cotton-seed cake, the residue after milling, is a valuable animal feed (Villet, 1994).
3. Problems and perspectives on cotton crop
The relation between agricultural resources, in-dustrial activities and the environment has
com-plex aspects because of many dynamic
interrelationships. The cotton textile sector is
3Chemists recognise several different types of cellulose,
Table 2
Main producers of cotton in the world
Producers/countries Thousands of tons
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97
1991–92 1997-98 1998-99a
Europe 3.334 3.266 3.018 3.104 3.075 2.636 2.890 3.033
260 318 320 380
183 305
Greece 345 415
77
Spain 62 32 30 20 90 119 89
606 580 610 770 792
Turkey 565 760 799
9 4 4 4
9 2
Eastern countries 2 2
2.329 2.084 2.140 1.901
C.S.I. 2.500 1.447 1.664 1.728
10.311 7.571 8.811
Asia 10.201 8.461 9.182 9.088 9.114
Afghanistan 22 22 22 18 22 22 22 22
5.472 3.739 4.500 3.850
5.663 4.200
China 3.800 4.000
1.955
India 2.190 2.095 2.261 2.198 2.771 2.800 2.711
Iran 114 112 91 113 165 200 160 151
2 4 4 11
Myanmarb 17 18
2.142
Pakistan 2.200 1.312 1.581 1.870 1.589 1.900 1.859
183 213 207 221
180 245
Syria 260 227
39
Thailand 33 6 14 5 25 13 10
41
Other Countries 48 45 48 53 55 57 60
1.299 1.287 1.395
Africa 1.290 1.418 1.615 1.796 1.801
Benin 75 65 116 120 115 172 171 171
65 51 60
Burkina Faso 70 77 73 98 78
48 52 60 65
50 88
Cameroon 92 96
10
Central African Republic 12 7 10 12 16 16 17
70 37 60
Cameroon 75 60 74 90 73
110 116 120 115
90 95
The Ivory Coast 130 115
281 411 340 240
Egypt 293 343 346 338
135 101 128 150
114 200
South Africa 45 36 49 63
42 27 36 122
31 97
Sudan 109 111
91 53 83 74
Tanzania 86 54 65 67
70 51 34 50
Zimbabwe 81 60 92 102 93 85 108
Other countries 106 100 121 129 98 108 119 131
4.886 4.468 5.343
America 5.666 5.966 5.253 5.251 5.278
Argentina 275 221 227 275 353 300 425 419
751 428 571
Brazil 831 653 368 400 425
70 53 60 83
Table 2 (Continued)
Thousands of tons Producers/countries
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96
1991–92 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99a
24 18
Venezuela 25 22 16 22 18 20
33 15 24 25
35 26
Other countries 43 49
359
Oceania 339 329 329 310 614 622 577
20.101 16.671 18.982 19.230 19.300 19.647
World total 20.850 19.803
aEstimated dates. bEx Burma.
Table 3
World production of cotton wool and chemical fibresa
Thousand of tons/(%) Years
% Wool % Chemical fibres %
Cotton Total %
81 730 19
1900 3.162 1 3.893 100
1920 4.629 85 816 15 15 5.460 100
76 1.134 12 1.132
6.907 12
1940 9.173 100
10.113
1960 68 1.463 10 3.358 22 14.934 100
54 1.659
1970 11.784 7 8.397 39 21.840 100
47 1.599 5 14.182
13.844 48
1980 29.625 100
18.997
1990 47 1.927 5 19.151 48 40.075 100
19.962
1995 45 1.485 3 22.104 52 43.551 100
44 1.456 3 23.209
18.960 53
1996 43.625 100
42 1.450
1997 19.580 3 26.763 55 47.793 100
aRapporto sull’industria Cotoniera e Liniera, 1998.
demonstrating a certain environmental awareness in its production cycle.
To determine the environmental impact con-nected to a product, it is necessary to estimate inputs and outputs of its productivity cycle. To-day, the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), with a ‘cra-dle-to-grave’ approach, is increasing, but it is still often incomplete and approximate (Proto et al., 1996). The first step of this flow cycle includes agricultural activities, where many important challenges are turned towards the reduction of pesticides used to control insects, disease and weeds, and defoliants to facilitate harvest. In most areas, cotton production consumes more pesti-cides than any other agricultural crop (Bacheler, 1996).
Cotton fresh from the bale has the appearance of ‘cotton wool’ mixed with pieces of dead leaf and other debris. Hand-picked cotton is, however,
cleaner than machine-picked cotton. Samples from different sources vary greatly in cleanliness, staple length and colour.
Table 4
Composition of typical cotton fibres
Constituent Composition (% dry weight)
Typical Range
aStandard method of estimating percentage of protein from
Fig. 1. Cotton crop: global balance of biomass (moist weight) (1 ha). For the source, see Proto et al., (1996a).
Cotton picking is highly labour-intensive, and on a large scale is often carried out by machinery. In many parts of the world, however, picking is carried out by hand. Since cotton must be picked at weekly intervals to prevent discoloration of the lint in the field, it is a very laborious task: small-holders average only 9 kg per day.
The first stage in processing the cotton bales into fibre suitable for spinning is the removal of the cotton seeds by ginning. The mechanical ginning process, invented by Ely Whitney in 1793, is the principle applied today to remove foreign matter and moisture, and to separate cottonseed from raw seed cotton. To obtain lint cotton, various impuri-ties must be removed before the manufacturing process. These are than transformed and later employed as high added-value products.
Once the cotton is grown, ginned and manufac-tured, the textile processing necessary to provide the colourful fabrics desired requires the use of numerous environmentally dangerous materials. In fact, the dying and finishing processes consume huge amounts of energy and water, mixed with various chemical substances.
Scientists are engaged in the process of identify-ing and isolatidentify-ing useful genes from various sources
and evaluating them in the possibility of improving cotton. Most current genetic-engineering attempts are targeted at conferring agronomic traits such as insect herbicide and stress tolerance.
Transgenic varieties resistant to both insects and herbicides are expected to be available within the next few years (Bacheler, 1996).
An American researcher (Maliyakal, 1994) de-veloped the first naturally coloured cotton, consid-erably reducing the environmental impact. Today, the production of organic cotton is about 5000 tons.
However, in the light of the high environmental impact of the cotton cycle, it is necessary not only to improve photosynthetic efficiency of the crop and to introduce new genetic engineering but also to utilise all the by-products obtained from pro-cessed cotton. In order to analyse the most impor-tant substances deriving from the cotton cycle that may be employed in a large variety of industrial sectors4, the global biomass balance of these
re-sources is reported (Fig. 1).
4Cotton cultivation has declined since the appearance of
Fig. 2. Traditional and innovative uses of cotton plant.
may be obtained through the diffusion, on large quantities of cotton products, of the European
Ecolabel, introduced in Regulation 880/92.
To-day, the European Commission has placed the environmental criteria on the elaboration of a life-cycle analysis for bed linen and T-shirt only. It is obvious, therefore, that one of the cotton sector’s prime future aims is to achieve certifica-tion of its environmental quality.
References
Bacheler, J.S., 1996. Cotton insect scouting guide, Center for IPM, April 1996, http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cotton/insect/
scout –insect.htlm.
Maliyakal, E.J., 1994a. Cotton futures. Chemtech 24 (10), 27 – 30.
Proto, M., Malandrino, O., Supino, S., 1996. Environmental quality management: tools for sustainable development, Proceedings of Fifth International Commodity Science Conference ‘Quality for European Integration’, Poznan, 19 – 21 September 1996, 151-154.
Proto, M., Malandrino, O., Supino, S., 1996a. ‘Il cotone: una filiera da non sottovalutare’, Atti del XVII Congresso Nazionale di Merceologia Merceologia e cicli produttivi nel settore agroindustriale alle soglie del 21° secolo, Lecce, 3 – 5 October, 1996a, 230 – 238.
Proto, M., Malandrino, O., Supino, S., 1996b. Disponibilita` e impieghi di cellulosa in Italia: realta` e prospettive, Atti del XVII Congresso Nazionale di Merceologia ‘Merceologia e cicli produttivi nel settore aggroindustriale alle soglie del 21° secolo, Lecce, 3 – 5 October, 1996b, 239 – 248. .Rapporto sull’Industria Cotoniera del Lino e delle Fibre
Affini, September – October 1998.
Sarno, R., 1987. Situazioni e prospettive tecnico-economiche della coltivazione del cotone in Sicilia, Economia e Credito 1, 55 – 81.
Shariq, K., 1995. ‘Cotton’, Chemical Economics Handbook, 540.3000 A 540.3000 S, SRI International.
Villavecchia Eigenmann, 1973. Nuovo Dizionario di Merce-ologia e Chimica Applicata, Hoepli Editore, 3, 1137 – 1145. Villet, R.H., 1994. Increasing the value of agricultural
feed-stocks. Chemtech 24 (9), 44 – 48.
The most important uses of these materials are reported in Fig. 2.
Until more attention is placed on the relative problems concerning the environmental quality of products and processes, it is essential to identify suitable ways of creating correct eco-management policies and outlining appropriate instruments in order to solve the current difficulties.
These derive principally from the scarce har-monisation of instruments suggested up to now (life-cycle analysis, environmental balances, ecola-bels, etc.). Their results are not comparable and, above all, are not very ‘transparent’, particularly for the final consumer.
In the textile sector, the diffusion of ‘ecological private labels’, only disorientate and complicate the market, rather than facilitate commercial ex-changes. On the contrary, opposite contributions
