Organic farming

Organic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation,
green manure, compost, and biological pest control. Depending on whose definition is used,
organic farming uses fertilizers and pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and
fungicides) if they are considered natural (such as bone meal from animals or pyrethrin from
flowers), but it excludes or strictly limits the use of various methods (including synthetic
petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides; plant growth regulators such as hormones; antibiotic
use in livestock; genetically modified organisms;[1] human sewage sludge; and nanomaterials.
[2]
) for reasons including sustainability, openness, independence, health, and safety.

Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many
nations, based in large part on the standards set by the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), an international umbrella organization for organic farming
organizations established in 1972.[3] The USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)
definition as of April 1995 is:

“Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and

enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal
use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance
ecological harmony."[4]

Since 1990 the market for organic food and other products has grown rapidly, reaching $63
billion worldwide in 2012.[5]:25 This demand has driven a similar increase in organically
managed farmland which has grown over the years 2001-2011 at a compounding rate of 8.9%
per annum.[6] As of 2011, approximately 37,000,000 hectares (91,000,000 acres) worldwide
were farmed organically, representing approximately 0.9 percent of total world farmland.[5]:1

History
Traditional farming (of many kinds) was the original type of agriculture, and has been
practiced for thousands of years. Forest gardening, a traditional food production system
which dates from prehistoric times, is thought to be the world's oldest and most resilient
agroecosystem.[7]

Artificial fertilizers had been created during the 18th century, initially with superphosphates
and then ammonia-based fertilizers mass-produced using the Haber-Bosch process developed
during World War I. These early fertilizers were cheap, powerful, and easy to transport in
bulk. Similar advances occurred in chemical pesticides in the 1940s, leading to the decade
being referred to as the 'pesticide era'.[8] But these new agricultural techniques, while
beneficial in the short term, had serious longer term side effects such as soil compaction, soil
erosion, and declines in overall soil fertility, along with health concerns about toxic
chemicals entering the food supply.

Soil biology scientists began in the late 1800s and early 1900s to develop theories on how
new advancements in biological science could be used in agriculture as a way to remedy
these side effects, while still maintaining higher production. In Central Europe Rudolf
Steiner, whose Lectures on Agriculture were published in 1925.[10][11][12]:[13] created
biodynamic agriculture, an early version of what we now call organic agriculture.[14][15][16]
Steiner was motivated by spiritual rather than scientific considerations

In the late 1930s and early 1940s Sir Albert Howard and his wife Gabrielle Howard, both
accomplished botanists, developed organic agriculture. The Howards were influenced by
their experiences with traditional farming methods in India, biodynamic, and their formal
scientific education.[10] Sir Albert Howard is widely considered to be the "father of organic
farming", because he was the first to apply scientific knowledge and principles to these
various traditional and more natural methods.[17]:45 In the United States another founder of
organic agriculture was J.I. Rodale. In the 1940s he founded both a working organic farm for
trials and experimentation, The Rodale Institute, and founded the Rodale Press to teach and
advocate organic to the wider public. Further work was done by Lady Eve Balfour in the
United Kingdom, and many others across the world.

There is some controversy on where the term "organic" as it applies to agriculture first
derived. One side claims term 'organic agriculture' was coined by Lord Northbourne, an
agriculturalist influenced by Steiner's biodynamic approach, in 1940. This side claims the
term as meaning the farm should be viewed as a living organism and stems from Steiner's
non scientific anthroposophy.[18] The second claim is that "organic" derives from the work of
early soil scientists that were developing what was then called "humus farming". Thus in this
more scientific view the use of organic matter to improve the humus content of soils is the
basis for the term and this view was popularized by Howard and Rodale. Since the early
1940s both camps have tended to merge.

Increasing environmental awareness in the general population in modern times has

transformed the originally supply-driven organic movement to a demand-driven one.
Premium prices and some government subsidies attracted farmers. In the developing world,
many producers farm according to traditional methods which are comparable to organic
farming but are not certified and may or may not include the latest scientific advancements in
organic agriculture. In other cases, farmers in the developing world have converted to modern
organic methods for economic reasons.[21]

Organic farming systems

There are several organic farming systems. Biodynamic farming is a comprehensive
approach, with its own international governing body. The Do Nothing Farming method
focuses on a minimum of mechanical cultivation and labor for grain crops. French intensive
and biointensive, methods are well-suited to organic principles. Other examples of techniques
are holistic management, permaculture, SRI and no-till farming (the last two which may be
implemented in conventional or organic systems

Methods of organic farming

Organic cultivation of mixed vegetables in Capay, California. Note the hedgerow in the
background.

"An organic farm, properly speaking, is not one that uses certain methods and substances and
avoids others; it is a farm whose structure is formed in imitation of the structure of a natural
system that has the integrity, the independence and the benign dependence of an organism"
—Wendell Berry, "The Gift of Good Land"

Organic farming methods combine scientific knowledge of ecology and modern technology
with traditional farming practices based on naturally occurring biological processes. Organic
farming methods are studied in the field of agroecology. While conventional agriculture uses
synthetic pesticides and water-soluble synthetically purified fertilizers, organic farmers are
restricted by regulations to using natural pesticides and fertilizers. An example of a natural
pesticide is pyrethrin, which is found naturally in the Chrysanthemum flower. The principal
methods of organic farming include crop rotation, green manures and compost, biological
pest control, and mechanical cultivation. These measures use the natural environment to
enhance agricultural productivity: legumes are planted to fix nitrogen into the soil, natural
insect predators are encouraged, crops are rotated to confuse pests and renew soil, and natural
materials such as potassium bicarbonate[24] and mulches are used to control disease and
weeds. Hardier plants are generated through plant breeding rather than genetic engineering.

While organic is fundamentally different from conventional because of the use of carbon
based fertilizers compared with highly soluble synthetic based fertilizers and biological pest
control instead of synthetic pesticides, organic farming and large-scale conventional farming
are not entirely mutually exclusive. Many of the methods developed for organic agriculture
have been borrowed by more conventional agriculture. For example, Integrated Pest
Management is a multifaceted strategy that uses various organic methods of pest control
whenever possible, but in conventional farming could include synthetic pesticides only as a
last resort.[25]

Crop diversity

Crop diversity is a distinctive characteristic of organic farming. Conventional farming

focuses on mass production of one crop in one location, a practice called monoculture. The
science of agroecology has revealed the benefits of polyculture (multiple crops in the same
space), which is often employed in organic farming.[26] Planting a variety of vegetable crops
supports a wider range of beneficial insects, soil microorganisms, and other factors that add
up to overall farm health. Crop diversity helps environments thrive and protect species from
going extinct.[27]yes

Soil management

Organic farming relies heavily on the natural breakdown of organic matter, using techniques
like green manure and composting, to replace nutrients taken from the soil by previous crops.
This biological process, driven by microorganisms such as mycorrhiza, allows the natural
production of nutrients in the soil throughout the growing season, and has been referred to as
feeding the soil to feed the plant. Organic farming uses a variety of methods to improve soil
fertility, including crop rotation, cover cropping, reduced tillage, and application of compost.
By reducing tillage, soil is not inverted and exposed to air; less carbon is lost to the
atmosphere resulting in more soil organic carbon. This has an added benefit of carbon
sequestration which can reduce green house gases and aid in reversing climate change.

Plants need nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, as well as micronutrients and symbiotic
relationships with fungi and other organisms to flourish, but getting enough nitrogen, and
particularly synchronization so that plants get enough nitrogen at the right time (when plants
need it most), is a challenge for organic farmers.[28] Crop rotation and green manure ("cover
crops") help to provide nitrogen through legumes (more precisely, the Fabaceae family)
which fix nitrogen from the atmosphere through symbiosis with rhizobial bacteria.
Intercropping, which is sometimes used for insect and disease control, can also increase soil
nutrients, but the competition between the legume and the crop can be problematic and wider
spacing between crop rows is required. Crop residues can be ploughed back into the soil, and
different plants leave different amounts of nitrogen, potentially aiding synchronization.[28]
Organic farmers also use animal manure, certain processed fertilizers such as seed meal and
various mineral powders such as rock phosphate and green sand, a naturally occurring form
of potash which provides potassium. Together these methods help to control erosion. In some
cases pH may need to be amended. Natural pH amendments include lime and sulfur, but in
the U.S. some compounds such as iron sulfate, aluminum sulfate, magnesium sulfate, and
soluble boron products are allowed in organic farming.[29]:43

Mixed farms with both livestock and crops can operate as ley farms, whereby the land gathers
fertility through growing nitrogen-fixing forage grasses such as white clover or alfalfa and
grows cash crops or cereals when fertility is established. Farms without livestock
("stockless") may find it more difficult to maintain soil fertility, and may rely more on
external inputs such as imported manure as well as grain legumes and green manures,
although grain legumes may fix limited nitrogen because they are harvested. Horticultural
farms growing fruits and vegetables which operate in protected conditions are often even
more reliant upon external inputs.[28]

Biological research into soil and soil organisms has proven beneficial to organic farming.
Varieties of bacteria and fungi break down chemicals, plant matter and animal waste into
productive soil nutrients. In turn, they produce benefits of healthier yields and more
productive soil for future crops.[30] Fields with less or no manure display significantly lower
yields, due to decreased soil microbe community. Increased manure improves biological
activity, providing a healthier, more arable soil system and higher yields.[31]

Weed management

Organic weed management promotes weed suppression, rather than weed elimination, by
enhancing crop competition and phytotoxic effects on weeds.[32] Organic farmers integrate
cultural, biological, mechanical, physical and chemical tactics to manage weeds without
synthetic herbicides.

Organic standards require rotation of annual crops,[33] meaning that a single crop cannot be
grown in the same location without a different, intervening crop. Organic crop rotations
frequently include weed-suppressive cover crops and crops with dissimilar life cycles to
discourage weeds associated with a particular crop.[32] Research is ongoing to develop organic
methods to promote the growth of natural microorganisms that suppress the growth or
germination of common weeds.[34]

Other cultural practices used to enhance crop competitiveness and reduce weed pressure
include selection of competitive crop varieties, high-density planting, tight row spacing, and
late planting into warm soil to encourage rapid crop germination.[32]

Mechanical and physical weed control practices used on organic farms can be broadly
grouped as:[35]
  Tillage - Turning the soil between crops to incorporate crop residues and soil
amendments; remove existing weed growth and prepare a seedbed for planting;
turning soil after seeding to kill weeds, including cultivation of row crops;
 Mowing and cutting - Removing top growth of weeds;
 Flame weeding and thermal weeding - Using heat to kill weeds; and
 Mulching - Blocking weed emergence with organic materials, plastic films, or
landscape fabric.[36]

Some critics, citing work published in 1997 by David Pimentel of Cornell University,[37]
which described an epidemic of soil erosion worldwide, have raised concerned that tillage
contribute to the erosion epidemic.[38] The FAO and other organizations have advocated a 'no-
till' approach to both conventional and organic farming, and point out in particular that crop
rotation techniques used in organic farming are excellent no-till approaches.[38][39] A study
published in 2005 by Pimentel and colleagues[40] confirmed that 'Crop rotations and cover
cropping (green manure) typical of organic agriculture reduce soil erosion, pest problems,
and pesticide use.' Some naturally sourced chemicals are allowed for herbicidal use. These
include certain formulations of acetic acid (concentrated vinegar), corn gluten meal, and
essential oils. A few selective bioherbicides based on fungal pathogens have also been
developed. At this time, however, organic herbicides and bioherbicides play a minor role in
the organic weed control toolbox.[35]

Weeds can be controlled by grazing. For example, geese have been used successfully to weed
a range of organic crops including cotton, strawberries, tobacco, and corn,[41] reviving the
practice of keeping cotton patch geese, common in the southern U.S. before the 1950s.
Similarly, some rice farmers introduce ducks and fish to wet paddy fields to eat both weeds
and insects.[42]

Controlling other organisms

Chloroxylon is used for Pest Management in Organic Rice Cultivation in Chhattisgarh, India
See also: Biological pest control and Integrated Pest Management

Organisms aside from weeds that cause problems on organic farms include arthropods (e.g.,
insects, mites), nematodes, fungi and bacteria. Organic practices include, but are not limited
to:

 encouraging predatory beneficial insects to control pests by serving them nursery

plants and/or an alternative habitat, usually in a form of a shelterbelt, hedgerow, or
beetle bank;
 encouraging beneficial microorganisms;
 rotating crops to different locations from year to year to interrupt pest reproduction
cycles;
 planting companion crops and pest-repelling plants that discourage or divert pests;
 using row covers to protect crops during pest migration periods;
 using biologic pesticides and herbicides
 using stale seed beds to germinate and destroy weeds before planting[43]
 using sanitation to remove pest habitat;
 Using insect traps to monitor and control insect populations.
  Using physical barriers, such as row covers

Examples of predatory beneficial insects include minute pirate bugs, big-eyed bugs, and to a
lesser extent ladybugs (which tend to fly away), all of which eat a wide range of pests.
Lacewings are also effective, but tend to fly away. Praying mantis tend to move more slowly
and eat less heavily. Parasitoid wasps tend to be effective for their selected prey, but like all
small insects can be less effective outdoors because the wind controls their movement.
Predatory mites are effective for controlling other mites.[29]:66–90

Naturally derived insecticides allowed for use on organic farms use include Bacillus
thuringiensis (a bacterial toxin), pyrethrum (a chrysanthemum extract), spinosad (a bacterial
metabolite), neem (a tree extract) and rotenone (a legume root extract). Fewer than 10% of
organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable
growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum.[44]:26 These pesticides are not
always more safe or environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides and can cause harm.
[29]:92
The main criterion for organic pesticides is that they are naturally derived, and some
naturally derived substances have been controversial. Controversial natural pesticides include
rotenone, copper, nicotine sulfate, and pyrethrums[45][46] Rotenone and pyrethrum are
particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most
conventional insecticides. Rotenone is extremely toxic to fish[47] and can induce symptoms
resembling Parkinson's disease in mammals.[48][49] Although pyrethrum (natural pyrethrins) is
more effective against insects when used with piperonyl butoxide (which retards degradation
of the pyrethrins),[50] organic standards generally do not permit use of the latter substance.[51]
[52][53]

Naturally derived fungicides allowed for use on organic farms include the bacteria Bacillus
subtilis and Bacillus pumilus; and the fungus Trichoderma harzianum. These are mainly
effective for diseases affecting roots. Compost tea contains a mix of beneficial microbes,
which may attack or out-compete certain plant pathogens,[54] but variability among
formulations and preparation methods may contribute to inconsistent results or even
dangerous growth of toxic microbes in compost teas.[55]

Some naturally derived pesticides are not allowed for use on organic farms. These include
nicotine sulfate, arsenic, and strychnine.[56]

Synthetic pesticides allowed for use on organic farms include insecticidal soaps and
horticultural oils for insect management; and Bordeaux mixture, copper hydroxide and
sodium bicarbonate for managing fungi.[56] Copper sulfate and Bordeaux mixture (copper
sulfate plus lime), approved for organic use in various jurisdictions,[51][52][56] can be more
environmentally problematic than some synthetic fungicides dissallowed in organic
farming[57][58] Similar concerns apply to copper hydroxide. Repeated application of copper
sulfate or copper hydroxide as a fungicide may eventually result in copper accumulation to
toxic levels in soil,[59] and admonitions to avoid excessive accumulations of copper in soil
appear in various organic standards and elsewhere. Environmental concerns for several kinds
of biota arise at average rates of use of such substances for some crops.[60] In the European
Union, where replacement of copper-based fungicides in organic agriculture is a policy
priority,[61] research is seeking alternatives for organic production.[62]

Livestock
For livestock like these healthy cows vaccines play an important part in animal health since
antibiotic therapy is prohibited in organic farming

Raising livestock and poultry, for meat, dairy and eggs, is another traditional farming activity
that complements growing. Organic farms attempt to provide animals with natural living
conditions and feed. Organic certification verifies that livestock are raised according to the
USDA organic regulations throughout their lives.[63] These regulations include the
requirement that all animal feed must be certified organic.

Organic livestock may be, and must be, treated with medicine when they are sick, but drugs
cannot be used to promote growth, their feed must be organic, and they must be pastured.
[64]:19ff[65]

Also, horses and cattle used to be a basic farm feature that provided labor, for hauling and
plowing, fertility, through recycling of manure, and fuel, in the form of food for farmers and
other animals. While today, small growing operations often do not include livestock,
domesticated animals are a desirable part of the organic farming equation, especially for true
sustainability, the ability of a farm to function as a self-renewing unit.

Genetic modification

Main articles: Genetically modified crops, Genetically modified food and Genetically
modified food controversies

A key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and
animals. On October 19, 1998, participants at IFOAM's 12th Scientific Conference issued the
Mar del Plata Declaration, where more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted
unanimously to exclude the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and
agriculture.

Although opposition to the use of any transgenic technologies in organic farming is strong,
agricultural researchers Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales continue to
advocate integration of transgenic technologies into organic farming as the optimal means to
sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world,[66] as does author and scientist
Pamela Ronald, who views this kind of biotechnology as being consistent with organic
principles.[67]

Although GMOs are excluded from organic farming, there is concern that the pollen from
genetically modified crops is increasingly penetrating organic and heirloom seed stocks,
making it difficult, if not impossible, to keep these genomes from entering the organic food
supply. Differing regulations among countries limits the availability of GMOs to certain
countries, as described in the article on regulation of the release of genetic modified
organisms.
Standards
Standards regulate production methods and in some cases final output for organic agriculture.
Standards may be voluntary or legislated. As early as the 1970s private associations certified
organic producers. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production
guidelines. In the 1990s, a trend toward legislated standards began, most notably with the
1991 EU-Eco-regulation developed for European Union,[68] which set standards for 12
countries, and a 1993 UK program. The EU's program was followed by a Japanese program
in 2001, and in 2002 the U.S. created the National Organic Program (NOP).[69] As of 2007
over 60 countries regulate organic farming (IFOAM 2007:11). In 2005 IFOAM created the
Principles of Organic Agriculture, an international guideline for certification criteria.[70]
Typically the agencies accredit certification groups rather than individual farms.

Organic production materials used in and foods are tested independently by the Organic
Materials Review Institute.[71]

Composting

Using manure as a fertiliser risks contaminating food with animal gut bacteria, including
pathogenic strains of E. coli that have caused fatal poisoning from eating organic food.[72] To
combat this risk, USDA organic standards require that manure must be sterilized through
high temperature thermophilic composting. If raw animal manure is used, 120 days must pass
before the crop is harvested if the final product comes into direct contact with the soil. For
products which do not come into direct contact with soil, 90 days must pass prior to harvest.
[73]

Economics
The economics of organic farming, a subfield of agricultural economics, encompasses the
entire process and effects of organic farming in terms of human society, including social
costs, opportunity costs, unintended consequences, information asymmetries, and economies
of scale. Although the scope of economics is broad, agricultural economics tends to focus on
maximizing yields and efficiency at the farm level. Economics takes an anthropocentric
approach to the value of the natural world: biodiversity, for example, is considered beneficial
only to the extent that it is valued by people and increases profits. Some entities such as the
European Union subsidize organic farming, in large part because these countries want to
account for the externalities of reduced water use, reduced water contamination, reduced soil
erosion, reduced carbon emissions, increased biodiversity, and assorted other benefits that
result from organic farming.[45]

Traditional organic farming is labor and knowledge-intensive whereas conventional farming

is capital-intensive, requiring more energy and manufactured inputs.[74]

Organic farmers in California have cited marketing as their greatest obstacle.[75]

Geographic producer distribution

The markets for organic products are strongest in North America and Europe, which as of
2001 are estimated to have $6 and $8 billion respectively of the $20 billion global market.[44]:6
As of 2007 Australasia has 39% of the total organic farmland, including Australia's 1,180,000
hectares (2,900,000 acres) but 97 percent of this land is sprawling rangeland (2007:35). US
sales are 20x as much.[44]:7 Europe farms 23 percent of global organic farmland (6.9 million
hectares), followed by Latin America with 19 percent (5.8 million hectares). Asia has 9.5
percent while North America has 7.2 percent. Africa has 3 percent.[76]

Besides Australia, the countries with the most organic farmland are Argentina (3.1 million
hectares), China (2.3 million hectares), and the United States (1.6 million hectares). Much of
Argentina's organic farmland is pasture, like that of Australia (2007:42). Spain, Germany,
Brazil (the world's largest agricultural exporter), Uruguay, and the UK follow the United
States in the amount of organic land (2007:26).

In the European Union (EU25) 3.9% of the total utilized agricultural area was used for
organic production in 2005. The countries with the highest proportion of organic land were
Austria (11%) and Italy (8.4%), followed by the Czech Republic and Greece (both 7.2%).
The lowest figures were shown for Malta (0.1%), Poland (0.6%) and Ireland (0.8%).[77][78] In
2009, the proportion of organic land in the EU grew to 4.7%. The countries with highest
share of agricultural land were Liechtenstein (26.9%), Austria (18.5%) and Sweden (12.6%).
[79]
16% of all farmers in Austria produced organically in 2010. By the same year the
proportion of organic land increased to 20%.:[80] In 2005 168,000 ha of land in Poland was
under organic management.[81] In 2012, 288,261 hectares were under organic production, and
there were about 15,500 organic farmers; retail sales of organic products were EUR 80
million in 2011. As of 2012 organic exports were part of the government's economic
development strategy.[82]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, agricultural inputs that had previously been
purchased from Eastern bloc countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban
farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.[83] Consequently, organic agriculture is a
mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries.
[84][85]
Cuba's organic strategy includes development of genetically modified crops;
specifically corn that is resistant to the palomilla moth[84]

Growth

Organic farmland by world region (2000-2008)

As of 2001, the estimated market value of certified organic products was estimated to be $20
billion. By 2002 this was $23 billion and by 2007 more than $46 billion.[86] By 2012 the
market had reached $63 billion worldwide.[5]:25

Europe (2011: 10.6 million hectares, which is 5.4 percent of Europe's farmland and an
increase of 6% from the prior year; Europe has 29% of the world’s organic agricultural land)
and North America (2011: 2.8 million hectares, 7.5% of the world’s organic agricultural land)
have experienced strong growth in organic farmland.[5]:26 In the EU it grew by 21% in the
period 2005 to 2008.[87] However, this growth has occurred under different conditions. While
the European Union shifted agricultural subsidies to organic farmers due to perceived
environmental benefits in the early 2000s, the United States did not, continuing to subsidize
some but not all traditional commercial crops, such as corn and sugar.[88]
As of 2012 the country with the most organic land was Australia (12 million hectares),
followed by Argentina (3.8 million hectares), and the United States (1.9 million hectares).[5]:26

Productivity

Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.[89]

A meta-analysis study published in 2012 suggests farmers should take a hybrid approach to
producing enough food for humans while preserving the environment.[90]

A 2007 study[91] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to
assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that "organic
methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human
population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land
base." The researchers also found that while in developed countries, organic systems on
average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture, organic systems
produce 80% more than conventional farms in developing countries, because the materials
needed for organic farming are more accessible than synthetic farming materials to farmers in
some poor countries. This study was strongly contested by another study published in 2008
which stated, and was entitled, "Organic agriculture cannot feed the world"[92] and said that
the 2007 came up with "a major overestimation of the productivity of OA" "because data are
misinterpreted and calculations accordingly are erroneous."

Long term studies

A study published in 2005 compared conventional cropping, organic animal-based cropping,

and organic legume-based cropping on a test farm at the Rodale Institute over 22 years.[93]
The study found that "the crop yields for corn and soybeans were similar in the organic
animal, organic legume, and conventional farming systems". It also found that "significantly
less fossil energy was expended to produce corn in the Rodale Institute’s organic animal and
organic legume systems than in the conventional production system. There was little
difference in energy input between the different treatments for producing soybeans. In the
organic systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were generally not used". As of 2013 the
Rodale study was ongoing[94] and a thirty-year anniversary report was published by Rodale in
2012.[95]

A long-term field study comparing organic/conventional agriculture carried out over 21 years
in Switzerland concluded that "Crop yields of the organic systems averaged over 21
experimental years at 80% of the conventional ones. The fertilizer input, however, was 34 –
51% lower, indicating an efficient production. The organic farming systems used 20 – 56%
less energy to produce a crop unit and per land area this difference was 36 – 53%. In spite of
the considerably lower pesticide input the quality of organic products was hardly discernible
from conventional analytically and even came off better in food preference trials and picture
creating methods"[96]

Profitability

The decreased cost of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide inputs, along with the higher prices
that consumers pay for organic produce, contribute to increased profits. Organic farms have
been consistently found to be as or more profitable than conventional farms. Without the
price premium, profitability is mixed.[44]:11 Organic production was more profitable in
Wisconsin, given price premiums.[97]

For markets and supermarkets organic food is profitable as well, and is generally sold at
significantly higher rates than non-organic food.[98]

Energy efficiency

A study of the sustainability of apple production systems showed that in comparing a

conventional farming system to an organic method of farming, the organic system in this case
is more energy efficient.[99] A more comprehensive study compared efficiency of agriculture
for products such as grain, roughage crops, and animal husbandry. While the study did not
investigate specific additional requirements of arable land or numbers of farm laborers to
produce total yields for organic farming vs. conventional farming, leaving open the question
of overall capacity of organic farming to meet current and future agricultural needs, it
concluded that organic farming had a higher yield per unit of energy over multiple crops and
for livestock. However, conventional farming had higher total yield.[100] Conversely, another
study noted that organic wheat and corn production was more energy efficient than
conventional methods while organic apple and potato production was less energy efficient
than conventional methods.[101]

A study done with apple orchards in the state of Washington found that organic orchards
found to be at least 7% more energy efficient.[99]

Sales and marketing

Most sales are concentrated in developed nations. In 2008, 69% of Americans claimed to
occasionally buy organic products, down from 73% in 2005. One theory for this change was
that consumers were substituting "local" produce for "organic" produce.[102][103]

Distributors

In the United States, 75% of organic farms are smaller than 2.5 hectares. In California 2% of
the farms account for over half of sales.[44]:4 Small farms join together in cooperatives such as
Organic Valley, Inc. to market their goods more effectively.

Most small cooperative distributors have merged or were acquired by large multinationals
such as General Mills, Heinz, ConAgra, Kellogg, and others. In 1982 there were 28 consumer
cooperative distributors, but as of 2007 only 3 remained.[104] This consolidation has raised
concerns among consumers and journalists of potential fraud and degradation in standards.
Most sell their organic products through subsidiaries, under other labels.[105]

Organic foods also can be a niche in developing nations. It would provide more money and a
better opportunity to compete internationally with the huge distributors. Organic prices are
much more stable than conventional foods, and the small farms can still compete and have
similar prices with the much larger farms that usually take all of the profits.[106]
Farmers markets

Price premiums are important for the profitability of small organic farmers. Farmers selling
directly to consumers at farmers' markets have continued to achieve these higher returns. In
the United States the number of farmers' markets tripled from 1,755 in 1994 to 5,274 in 2009.
[107]

Labor and employment

Organic production is more labor-intensive than conventional production.[108] On the one

hand, this increased labor cost is one factor that makes organic food more expensive.[108] On
the other hand, the increased need for labor may be seen as an "employment dividend" of
organic farming, providing more jobs per unit area than conventional systems.[109] The 2011
UNEP Green Economy Report suggests that "[a]n increase in investment in green agriculture
is projected to lead to growth in employment of about 60 per cent compared with current
levels" and that "green agriculture investments could create 47 million additional jobs
compared with BAU2 over the next 40 years." [110] The UNEP also argues that "[b]y greening
agriculture and food distribution, more calories per person per day, more jobs and business
opportunities especially in rural areas, and market-access opportunities, especially for
developing countries, will be available."

World's food security

In 2007 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said that organic
agriculture often leads to higher prices and hence a better income for farmers, so it should be
promoted. However, FAO stressed that by organic farming one could not feed the current
mankind, even less the bigger future population. Both data and models showed then that
organic farming was far from sufficient. Therefore, chemical fertilizers were needed to avoid
hunger.[111] Other analysis by many agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological
scientists, and international agriculture experts revealed the opinion that organic farming
would not only increase the world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate
hunger.[112]

FAO stressed that fertilizers and other chemical inputs can much increase the production,
particularly in Africa where fertilizers are currently used 90% less than in Asia.[111] For
example, in Malawi the yield has been boosted using seeds and fertilizers.[111] FAO also calls
for using biotechnology, as it can help smallholder farmers to improve their income and food
security.[113]

Also NEPAD, development organization of African governments, announced that feeding

Africans and preventing malnutrition requires fertilizers and enhanced seeds.[114]

According to a more recent study in ScienceDigest, organic best management practices

shows an average yield only 13% less than conventional.[115] In the world's poorer nations
where most of the world's hungry live, and where conventional agriculture's expensive inputs
are not affordable by the majority of farmers, adopting organic management actually
increases yields 93% on average, and could be an important part of increased food security.
[112][116]
Capacity building in developing countries

Organic agriculture can contribute to ecologically sustainable, socio-economic development,

especially in poorer countries.[117] The application of organic principles enables employment
of local resources (e.g., local seed varieties, manure, etc.) and therefore cost-effectiveness.
Local and international markets for organic products show tremendous growth prospects and
offer creative producers and exporters excellent opportunities to improve their income and
living conditions.[citation needed]

Organic agriculture is knowledge intensive. Globally, capacity building efforts are underway,
including localized training material, to limited effect. As of 2007, the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements hosted more than 170 free manuals and 75
training opportunities online.[citation needed]

In 2008 the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stated that "organic agriculture can be
more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and
that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long-term"[118] and that "yields had more than
doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used" and that soil fertility and
drought resistance improved.[119]

Organic Agriculture and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The value of organic agriculture (OA)in the achievement of the MDGs particularly in poverty
reduction efforts in the face of climate change can be shown in its contribution to both
income and non-income aspects of the MDGs. A series of case studies conducted by the
Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) in Tokyo showed that OA contributes to both
income and non-income aspects of the MDGs in all the study areas in selected Asian
countries. OA’s outcomes on MDGs include contributions to the alleviation of poverty by
way of higher incomes, improved farmers' health owing to less chemical exposure,
integration of sustainable principles into rural development policies, improvement of access
to safe water and sanitation, and expansion of global partnership for development.[120]

A related ADBI study on OA estimates costs of OA programs and sets them in the context of
the costs of attaining the MDGs. The results show considerable variation across the case
studies, suggesting that there is no clear structure to the costs of adopting OA. Costs depend
on the efficiency with which the OA adoption programs are run. The lowest cost programs
were more than ten times less expensive than the highest cost ones. A further analysis of the
gains resulting from OA adoption reveals that the costs per person taken out of poverty was
much lower than the estimates of the World Bank,[121] based on income growth in general or
based on the detailed costs of meeting some of the more quantifiable MDGs (e.g., education,
health, and environment).[122]

Externalities
Agriculture imposes negative externalities (uncompensated costs) upon society through land
and other resource use, biodiversity loss, erosion, pesticides, nutrient runoff, water usage,
subsidy payments and assorted other problems. Positive externalities include self-reliance,
entrepreneurship, respect for nature, and air quality. Organic methods reduce some of these
costs.[123] In 2000 uncompensated costs for 1996 reached 2,343 million British pounds or 208
pounds per hectare.[124] A study of practices in the USA published in 2005 concluded that
cropland costs the economy approximately 5 to 16 billion dollars ($30 to $96 per hectare),
while livestock production costs 714 million dollars.[125] Both studies recommended reducing
externalities. The 2000 review included reported pesticide poisonings but did not include
speculative chronic health effects of pesticides, and the 2004 review relied on a 1992 estimate
of the total impact of pesticides.

It has been proposed that organic agriculture can reduce the level of some negative
externalities from (conventional) agriculture. Whether the benefits are private or public
depends upon the division of property rights.[126]

Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and
organic systems of farming and have found that organic techniques, while not without harm,
are less damaging than conventional ones because they reduce levels of biodiversity less than
conventional systems do and use less energy and produce less waste when calculated per unit
area.[127][128]

A 2003 to 2005 investigation by the Cranfield University for the Department for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs in the UK found that it is difficult to compare the
Global Warming Potential (GWP), acidification and eutrophication emissions but "Organic
production often results in increased burdens, from factors such as N leaching and N2O
emissions", even though primary energy use was less for most organic products. N20 is
always the largest GWP contributor except in tomatoes. However, "organic tomatoes always
incur more burdens (except pesticide use)". Some emissions were lower "per area", but
organic farming always required 65 to 200% more field area than non-organic farming. The
numbers were highest for bread wheat (200+ % more) and potatoes (160% more).[129][130]

The situation was shown dramatically in a comparison of a modern dairy farm in Wisconsin
with one in New Zealand in which the animals grazed extensively.[131] Using total farm
emissions per kg milk produced as a parameter, the researchers showed that production of
methane from belching was higher in the New Zealand farm, while carbon dioxide
production was higher in the Wisconsin farm. Output of nitrous oxide, a gas with an
estimated global warming potential 310 times that of carbon dioxide was also higher in the
New Zealand farm. Methane from manure handling was similar in the two types of farm. The
explanation for the finding relates to the different diets used on these farms, being based more
completely on forage (and hence more fibrous) in New Zealand and containing less
concentrate than in Wisconsin. Fibrous diets promote a higher proportion of acetate in the gut
of ruminant animals, resulting in a higher production of methane that has to be released by
belching. When cattle are given a diet containing some concentrates (such as corn and
soybean meal) in addition to grass and silage, the pattern of ruminal fermentation alters from
acetate to mainly propionate. As a result, methane production is reduced. Capper et al.
compared the environmental impact of US dairy production in 1944 and 2007.[132] They
calculated that the carbon “footprint” per billion kg of milk produced in 2007 was 37 percent
that of equivalent milk production in 1944.

Environmental impact and emissions

Researchers at Oxford university analyzed 71 peer-reviewed studies and observed that
organic products are sometimes worse for the environment.[133] Organic milk, cereals, and
pork generated higher greenhouse gas emissions per product than conventional ones but
organic beef and olives had lower emissions in most studies.[133] Usually organic products
required less energy, but more land.[133] Per unit of product, organic produce generates higher
nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication and
acidification potential than when conventionally grown.[134] Other differences were not
significant.[134] The researchers concluded "Most of the studies that compared biodiversity in
organic and conventional farming demonstrated lower environmental impacts from organic
farming." The researchers believe that the ideal outcome would be to develop new systems
that consider both the environment, including setting land aside for wildlife and sustainable
forestry, and the development of ways to produce the highest yields possible using both
conventional and organic methods.[133][135]

Proponents of organic farming have claimed that organic agriculture emphasizes closed
nutrient cycles, biodiversity, and effective soil management providing the capacity to
mitigate and even reverse the effects of climate change[136] and that organic agriculture can
decrease fossil fuel emissions.[137] "The carbon sequestration efficiency of organic systems in
temperate climates is almost double (575-700 kg carbon per ha per year) that of conventional
treatment of soils, mainly owing to the use of grass clovers for feed and of cover crops in
organic rotations." [138]

Critics of organic farming methods believe that the increased land needed to farm organic
food could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems.[139][140]

Nutrient leaching

According to the meta-analysis of 71 studies, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions,

ammonia emissions, eutrophication potential and acidification potential were higher for
organic products,[134] although in one study "nitrate leaching was 4.4-5.6 times higher in
conventional plots than organic plots".[141]

Excess nutrients in lakes, rivers, and groundwater can cause algal blooms, eutrophication, and
subsequent dead zones. In addition, nitrates are harmful to aquatic organisms by themselves.
[142]

Land use

The Oxford meta-analysis of 71 studies proved that organic farming requires 84% more land,
mainly due to lack of nutrients but sometimes due to weeds, diseases or pests, lower yielding
animals and land required for fertility building crops.[134] While organic farming does not
necessarily save land for wildlife habitats and forestry in all cases,[133] the most modern
breakthroughs in organic are addressing these issues with success.[143][144][145]

Professor Wolfgang Branscheid says that organic animal production is not good for the
environment, because organic chicken requires doubly as much land as "conventional"
chicken and organic pork a quarter more.[146] According to a calculation by Hudson Institute,
organic beef requires triply as much land.[147] On the other hand, certain organic methods of
animal husbandry have been shown to restore desertified, marginal, and/or otherwise
unavailable land to agricultural productivity and wildlife.[148][149] Or by getting both forage and
cash crop production from the same fields simultaneously, reduce net land use.[150]

In England organic farming yields 55% of normal yields.[151][152] While in other regions of the
world, organic methods have started producing record yields.[153][154]

Pesticides

A sign outside of an organic apple orchard in Pateros, Washington reminding orchardists not
to spray pesticides on these trees.

Food quality and safety

Main article: Organic food

While there may be some differences in the amounts of nutrients and anti-nutrients when
organically produced food and conventionally produced food are compared, the variable
nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results, and there is
insufficient evidence to make claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional
food.[155][156][157][158][159] Claims that organic food tastes better are not supported by evidence.[156]
[160]

Soil conservation

Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality[161] and higher water
retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years. Organic farming
can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests
long-term yield benefits from organic farming.[162] An 18-year study of organic methods on
nutrient-depleted soil, concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility
and yield for nutrient-depleted soils in cold-temperate climates, arguing that much of the
benefits from organic farming are derived from imported materials which could not be
regarded as "self-sustaining".[163]

In Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, geomorphologist David Montgomery outlines a coming

crisis from soil erosion. Agriculture relies on roughly one meter of topsoil, and that is being
depleted ten times faster than it is being replaced.[164] No-till farming, which some claim
depends upon pesticides, is one way to minimize erosion. However, a 2007 study by the
USDA's Agricultural Research Service has found that manure applications in tilled organic
farming are better at building up the soil than no-till.[165][166]

Biodiversity

A wide range of organisms benefit from organic farming, but it is unclear whether organic
methods confer greater benefits than conventional integrated agri-environmental programs.
[167]
Nearly all non-crop, naturally occurring species observed in comparative farm land
practice studies show a preference for organic farming both by abundance and diversity.[167]
[168]
An average of 30% more species inhabit organic farms.[169] Birds, butterflies, soil
microbes, beetles, earthworms,[170] spiders, vegetation, and mammals are particularly affected.
Lack of herbicides and pesticides improve biodiversity fitness and population density.[168]
Many weed species attract beneficial insects that improve soil qualities and forage on weed
pests.[171] Soil-bound organisms often benefit because of increased bacteria populations due to
natural fertilizer such as manure, while experiencing reduced intake of herbicides and
pesticides.[167] Increased biodiversity, especially from beneficial soil microbes and
mycorrhizae have been proposed as an explanation for the high yields experienced by some
organic plots, especially in light of the differences seen in a 21-year comparison of organic
and control fields.[31]

Biodiversity from organic farming provides capital to humans. Species found in organic
farms enhance sustainability by reducing human input (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides).[172]

Proponents of organic farming

"Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and
people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions,
rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition,
innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a
good quality of life for all involved..."

—International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements[173]

In India, states such as Sikkim[174][175][176][177] and Kerala[178][179] have planned to shift to fully
organic cultivation by 2015 and 2016 respectively.