Organic farming – environmental benefit, yield cost?

[row layout=”side-right”]While most consumers may choose organic foods for their potential health characteristics (e.g., lower chance of pesticide residue and potentially greater nutrient value), these same consumers generally believe that organic farming is “good” for the environment and thus worth supporting.  But is the assumption of environmental benefit correct? And is there a cost? Let’s take a look at how the newer studies compare to older research findings.

Many studies of the environmental effects of “organic” versus “conventional” have been done, and organic often does show environmental benefits.  In 2000, Stolze et al. attempted to synthesize the then-available data and knowledge on this question with regards to European countries.  They surveyed specialists in 18 different countries as their primary source, and did an extensive literature review as a secondary source.  They found organic systems generally increased soil organic matter and soil biology, but information on soil erosion was scarce.  There were similar or lower levels of nitrate leaching with organic systems and no water quality contamination from synthetic pesticides since they were not used.  Organic had lower emissions of CO2 per hectare, but higher emissions per unit of product due to generally lower yields on organic farms.  The trend for N2O was similar based on limited data.  Ammonia emissions were lower with organic systems.  Organic systems typically had a nutrient balance near zero (inputs equaled outputs).  Thus, organic systems did appear to provide environmental benefits, more so for some parameters than others.

Since that time, much more research has been done.  A recent paper by Tuomisto et al. (2012) reports on their meta-analysis of published research regarding the environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe.  Tuomisto and colleagues found that soil organic matter was an average of 7% greater on organic farms, mostly due to higher inputs (+65%) of organic materials, often manure.  Nitrate leaching was 31% lower per unit area with organic, but 49% higher per unit of product.  There were no significant differences between systems in field studies, while modeling studies predicted the greater leaching for organic, and may in fact be overestimating this.  N2O emissions were 31% lower per unit area for organic and 8% higher per unit of product.  Energy use averaged 21% less on organic farms per unit of product, with wide variation among products and studies.

The main conclusion of the 2012 paper was that organic farming generally has positive environmental impacts per unit of area relative to conventional systems, but not necessarily per unit of product, something Stolze et al. alluded to in 2000.  On average, Tuomisto and colleagues found that organic crop yields were 75% of conventional yields looking at 13 crops.  Variability ranged widely among crops.  For potato, organic yields ranged from 11-132% of conventional, with a mean of 68%.  For spring wheat, the range was only 70-87% of conventional, with a mean of 78%.  So while environmental benefits are evident in organic systems, lower yields remain a factor to consider, especially when looking at land use.  In this study, the lower yields and crop rotations that included non-harvested crops (e.g. green manures for nutrients) meant that organic farming would require 84% more land in Europe to produce the equivalent amount of harvest as conventional.  Clearly, not a lot of new land is being made; is the tradeoff sustainable?  Or perhaps the question is: how can yields be improved without compromising the environmental benefits of organic systems?

Increasing yields in organic systems would help address the contrasting findings between per area and per unit of product results, but the push to increase yields could also erode some of the benefits.  Soil nutrient deficiencies were cited as a major cause of reduced yields, something that can be addressed through better use of the range of organic residuals available.  The authors noted that in experiment station trials with high soil fertility, yields were more comparable between the two systems.  Yields were also often reduced by inadequate control of weeds, insect pests, and diseases.  Thus, there is clearly opportunity for research and education to help improve organic crop yields, which will lessen the environmental impact per unit of product and address the question of the increased land area needed for organic systems to produce the same food output as conventional.  Yields do matter, and better data on yields from a large number of organic farms would help improve our understanding of this issue.


Stolze M., Piorr A., Härring A., Dabbert S. 2000.  The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy; Volume 6. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. 143 pp.

Tuomisto H.L., Hodge I.D., Riordan P., Macdonald D.W. 2012. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environmental Management 112:309-320.UPDATE! Since this blog was posted, Granatstein published a journal article showing some techniques that increase organic fruit yields and income. Click image for link to article.

UPDATE! Since this blog was posted, Granatstein published a journal article showing some techniques that increase organic fruit yields and income. Click HERE or on the image for link to article.

Recent data are presented in this poster on relative yields for various organic and conventional crops in WA State.

Interested in related research?  Please browse our Organic Conferences & Proceedings and our BIOAg Conferences & Proceedings for videos, posters and abstracts.  Also, don’t miss our Grants Database where you’ll find abstracts and reports from our recent funding investments in sustainable ag research.

Organic Statistics – Data and statistics from the organic sector in Washington agriculture are available here.


4 comments on "Organic farming – environmental benefit, yield cost?"
  1. Good post and set of observations. From my work and recent travels, the gap between conventional and organic crop yields is narrowing on successful, commercial farms, and indeed is usually not over 10% on equally well-managed farms in the same region. When the gap is larger, it is because of either a weed management problem or lack of usually N on an organic farm in a particular year, or unusually high yields on conventional farms, because of near-perfect weather and ample N. Sometimes a virus, like early blight, wipes out an organic crop. However, when comparing equally well-managed, rain-fed organic and conventional farms, organic operations tend to have a yield advantage in dry years. It is also important to recognize the typical decline in nutrient density as yields go up, brought on by the dilution effect. Overall, this factor makes up for a share, perhaps 1/2, of the average yield difference, when the comparison is “pounds of nutrients/nutrition” harvested per acre instead of “pounds of crop harvested.” Work by Preston Andrews in the hort dept at WSU on tomatoes produced data suggesting that organic production on healthy, rich soils can raise the point of the yield curve where the dilution effect kicks in. In general, this makes sense, given that most vitamin and antioxidant nutrients are complex molecules that contain several micro-nutrients in soil. Healthier soil tends to have higher levels of bioavailable micro-nutrients, along with various enzymes etc that contribute to nutrient density.

  2. Thanks for a good article by Dave Granatstein & response from Chuck Benbrook. This reminds me of a 2002 Colloquium of Organic Researchers at University of Aberystwyth in Wales, when Prof. Willie Lockeretz from Tufts gave a plenary on strategies for organic research. Lockeretz suggested the gap between organic & conventional yields could close, but first we need more scientifically designed studies, as you suggest.


  3. […] you feel like getting your numbers and research fix, here’s a recent WSU article comparing some new studies to older research on the topic of environmental benefit and yield costs […]

  4. One thing not mentioned is that the organic food is more nutrient dense so less would be needed to feed one person. Since the average person in a developed country eats more calories and less nutrients than is healthy, a smaller more nutrient dense crop doesn’t sound bad. Is it really not capable of feeding as many people?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *