This comprehensive analysis revealed striking insights that is now fundamentally challenging the widespread “understanding” of cotton's water consumption patterns. Globally, cotton cultivation occupied approximately 30.98 million hectares during the study period, with 44% (13.61 million hectares) under irrigation systems. Total global cotton lint production averaged 25.54 million tonnes over the five-year period, with an average yield of 786 kilograms per hectare, demonstrating the crop's significant contribution to global textile production.
Here’s something, what you would call, very basic: occupies only 2.21% of global arable land (1,397 million hectares), yet accounts for merely 1.59% of total agricultural irrigation water consumption. This proportional relationship blows holes in the tenuous claims that cotton is disproportionately water-intensive compared to other crops. In plain and simple words: agricultural water use criticism has been unfairly concentrated on cotton while ignoring its relatively modest share of global water resources. It would seem such contentions were fabricated by these critics with an axe to grind.
Kranthi’s detailed breakdown of water sources provides crucial context for understanding cotton's environmental impact. It’s something that the cotton critics need to go through over and over again. There are three full pages of the numbers. Of the annual average 6,238 litres consumptive water footprint required to produce one kilogram of cotton lint, 4,690 litres (75%) came from natural rainfall, and only 1,593 litres (25%) originated from irrigation systems. What this 3:1 ratio signifies is that cotton's water footprint is predominantly determined by natural precipitation patterns rather than managed water resources that farmers can control or optimise. No questions about that.
Then again, annual rainfall patterns across cotton-growing regions showed remarkable consistency, with effective precipitation averaging 508 millimetres per hectare. The crop's theoretical water demand (potential evapotranspiration) reached 565 millimetres, and actual consumption (adjusted evapotranspiration) was 512 millimetres. This 512-millimetre total comprised 370 millimetres from rainwater and 142 millimetres from irrigation. These numbers too confirm what we have known all along: the overwhelming dominance of natural water sources in cotton production
Yet, all this does not mean that cotton advocates do not call for water conservation; they do! In fact, the study identified significant opportunities for water conservation through improved irrigation efficiency. Computed irrigation requirements were 344 millimetres per hectare, yet the estimated average irrigation water applied was 388 millimetres---representing 44 millimetres of excess irrigation annually. The applied irrigation water footprint was 2,158 litres per kilogram of lint, while the consumptive irrigation water footprint (blue water) was 1,593 litres per kilogram of lint. The difference (565 litres per kilogram) represents water that is applied but not consumed by the crop, indicating potential savings of 17.5 trillion litres of irrigation water globally if application efficiency could be improved, based on modelled irrigation application where direct data was unavailable
Another aspect of water that has been repeatedly and callously ignored by critics is that of geographical disparities. Regional variations in water use patterns show the importance of local climate conditions and farming practices. The 157.4 trillion litres of effective rainfall received annually across global cotton production shows the crop's reliance on natural precipitation. On the other hand, total irrigation water consumption was 43.99 trillion litres, representing less than 2% of global agricultural water withdrawals when excluding aquaculture and livestock.
Extremely important in this context is the set of numbers around rainfed cotton. Kranthi’s findings on rainfed cotton production provide additional context for understanding the crop's water dynamics. About 56% of global cotton acreage (17.4 million hectares) relies entirely on rainfall, contributing over 45% of total production without any supplemental irrigation. This substantial rainfed component—yet again—drills holes in the "thirsty crop" narrative. Cotton can indeed achieve significant yields using only natural precipitation in appropriate climatic conditions.
This study—willy nilly—establishes a new baseline for understanding cotton's water footprint. There is a need for targeted improvements in irrigation efficiency rather than broad criticisms of total water consumption. The data provides clear direction for sustainable agriculture initiatives, and highlights specific areas where technological improvements and better management practices can achieve meaningful water conservation while maintaining productive and profitable cotton cultivation.
How We Talk About Cotton and Sustainability
The implications of this research extend far beyond academic discourse. By focusing on irrigation efficiency rather than total water consumption, the industry can pursue meaningful environmental improvements. The transition towards precision irrigation technologies and regenerative farming practices represents a practical pathway for reducing water waste. With 17.5 trillion litres of potential irrigation water savings identified globally, the opportunities for improvement are substantial. The study provides a foundation for informed decisionmaking by consumers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders. The cotton critics ought to fall in line.