A common objection to organic agriculture is its supposed low productivity: “it might be great for a few well-heeled urban hippies, but it can never replace modern industrial agriculture and it won’t help feed the world,” is how the refrain usually goes.
Norman Borlaug, the agronomist often called the “father of the Green Revolution,” went so far as to claim that organic agriculture “couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people,” and even then only by significantly increasing cropland by chopping down rainforests.
That argument has been dealt a harsh blow by findings recently published by the Rodale Institute in the United States. The institute conducted a thirty year side-by-side study of organic and conventional agriculture, and found that yields of organic farming were comparable to those of conventional systems, and even outperformed conventional in years of drought.
This study is a great example of a realistic comparison of the two systems side-by-side. Earlier studies that found lower yields from organic farming have been criticized for simply taking land that’s been under chemical agriculture for decades and suddenly stopping the use of pesticides and fertilizers, while still growing hybridized strains that have been bred for industrial cultivation. Under those conditions, of course, yields plummet: the soil ecology has been depleted, so the plants require chemical assistance to get the nutrients they need. But in the Rodale study, real organic agriculture was given a chance to show its mettle.
The trial compared two different organic systems (one using manure and another using legume cover crops to fix nitrogen) to a conventional synthetic system using synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides for weed control. In the latter years of the trial, half of the conventional crops were shifted to a no-till GMO-based system to reflect current farming practices. Likewise, half of the organic crops were shifted to an new system of no-till organic cultivation.
Here are the key findings contained in the report:
- Organic yields match conventional yields.
- Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought.
- Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.
- Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.
- Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.
- Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.
The last finding is particularly interesting: when measuring the profitability of the farms, in terms of profits per acre under cultivation, organic won the day. Of course, this is partially due to the premium prices that organic produce currently benefits from, but given that yields are equal or greater, and that inputs in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel are lesser, it should hold that even if organic were to become the norm and prices were to drop to levels similar to current prices for conventional crops, profitability would still be comparable. In the meantime, though, this should provide a good incentive for farmers contemplating a switch to organic practices.
The full report is available as a PDF on the Institute’s website, and is well worth a read. It’s only 2o pages, and it’s written for the general public and full of pretty charts and pictures. My favorite image is this one, showing a side-by-side handful of dirt from the conventional and organic farms. It speaks for itself:
Organic Beats Conventional for Yield and Profitability in 30-year Study
A common objection to organic agriculture is its supposed low productivity: “it might be great for a few well-heeled urban hippies, but it can never replace modern industrial agriculture and it won’t help feed the world,” is how the refrain usually goes.
Norman Borlaug, the agronomist often called the “father of the Green Revolution,” went so far as to claim that organic agriculture “couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people,” and even then only by significantly increasing cropland by chopping down rainforests.
That argument has been dealt a harsh blow by findings recently published by the Rodale Institute in the United States. The institute conducted a thirty year side-by-side study of organic and conventional agriculture, and found that yields of organic farming were comparable to those of conventional systems, and even outperformed conventional in years of drought.
This study is a great example of a realistic comparison of the two systems side-by-side. Earlier studies that found lower yields from organic farming have been criticized for simply taking land that’s been under chemical agriculture for decades and suddenly stopping the use of pesticides and fertilizers, while still growing hybridized strains that have been bred for industrial cultivation. Under those conditions, of course, yields plummet: the soil ecology has been depleted, so the plants require chemical assistance to get the nutrients they need. But in the Rodale study, real organic agriculture was given a chance to show its mettle.
The trial compared two different organic systems (one using manure and another using legume cover crops to fix nitrogen) to a conventional synthetic system using synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides for weed control. In the latter years of the trial, half of the conventional crops were shifted to a no-till GMO-based system to reflect current farming practices. Likewise, half of the organic crops were shifted to an new system of no-till organic cultivation.
Here are the key findings contained in the report:
The last finding is particularly interesting: when measuring the profitability of the farms, in terms of profits per acre under cultivation, organic won the day. Of course, this is partially due to the premium prices that organic produce currently benefits from, but given that yields are equal or greater, and that inputs in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel are lesser, it should hold that even if organic were to become the norm and prices were to drop to levels similar to current prices for conventional crops, profitability would still be comparable. In the meantime, though, this should provide a good incentive for farmers contemplating a switch to organic practices.
The full report is available as a PDF on the Institute’s website, and is well worth a read. It’s only 2o pages, and it’s written for the general public and full of pretty charts and pictures. My favorite image is this one, showing a side-by-side handful of dirt from the conventional and organic farms. It speaks for itself: