<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Update on viability of organic
agriculture</title></head><body>
<div><font color="#000000">PNAS early edition<font face="Times">
Published online before print June 1, 2015</font></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000">doi:
10.1073/pnas.1423674112</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+3" color="#181818">Financial
competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000000">David W. Crowder and John P.
Reganold</font></div>
<div><font size="+2" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+2"
color="#000000">Significance</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000000">Some recognize organic
agriculture as being important for future global food security,
whereas others project it to become irrelevant. Although organic
agriculture is rapidly growing, it currently occupies only 1% of
global cropland. Whether organic agriculture can continue to expand
will likely be determined by whether it is economically competitive
with conventional agriculture. Accordingly, we analyzed the financial
performance of organic and conventional agriculture from 40 y of
studies covering 55 crops grown on five continents. We found that, in
spite of lower yields, organic agriculture was significantly more
profitable than conventional agriculture and has room to expand
globally. Moreover, with its environmental benefits, organic
agriculture can contribute a larger share in sustainably feeding the
world.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#262626"><br>
</font><font face="Times" size="+3"
color="#181818">Abstract</font></div>
<div><font face="Times"
color="#000000"
>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/27/1423674112.abstract</font
></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000000">To promote global food and
ecosystem security, several innovative farming systems have been
identified that better balance multiple sustainability goals. The most
rapidly growing and contentious of these systems is organic
agriculture. Whether organic agriculture can continue to expand will
likely be determined by whether it is economically competitive with
conventional agriculture. Here, we examined the financial performance
of organic and conventional agriculture by conducting a meta-analysis
of a global dataset spanning 55 crops grown on five continents. When
organic premiums were not applied, benefit/cost ratios (?8 to ?7%) and
net present values (?27 to ?23%) of organic agriculture were
significantly lower than conventional agriculture. However, when
actual premiums were applied, organic agriculture was significantly
more profitable (22-35%) and had higher benefit/cost ratios
(20-24%) than conventional agriculture. Although premiums were
29-32%, breakeven premiums necessary for organic profits to match
conventional profits were only 5-7%, even with organic yields being
10-18% lower. Total costs were not significantly different, but
labor costs were significantly higher (7-13%) with organic farming
practices. Studies in our meta-analysis accounted for neither
environmental costs (negative externalities) nor ecosystem services
from good farming practices, which likely favor organic agriculture.
With only 1% of the global agricultural land in organic production,
our findings suggest that organic agriculture can continue to expand
even if premiums decline. Furthermore, with their multiple
sustainability benefits, organic farming systems can contribute a
larger share in feeding the world.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab></font></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"
color="#000000"
>=============================================================<br>
"On the other hand, maybe when Malaysia's prime minister spoke about
transforming the country into a developed nation, he meant that it
really had to suffer through a deep real-estate recession, like those
experienced by the U.S. and the U.K."</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1"
color="#000000"><i>Barron's</i></font><font face="Times New Roman"
color="#000000">, August 12, 1996. "Thriving Malaysia Propels an
Office-Tower Boom In Its Biggest City, and You Know What Follows a
Boom," Steven Bergman.</font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1"
color="#000000"
>====================================================================<span
></span>===========<br>
"Bank panics invariably reveal the poor quality of lending that
accompanied the preceding boom."<br>
<br>
Edward Chancellor<br>
"Panic passes but the causes remain"<br>
<i>Financial Times</i>, October 14 2008<br>
=====================================================================<span
></span>======<br>
"Housing markets are notoriously prone to boom and bust. Š.. After
a big boom, the housing bust will be a wrenching affair."</font><br>
<font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000"><i>The
Economist</i>, Boom and Gloom. May 18, 2013</font><br>
<font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
</font><font face="Bookman Old Style" color="#000000"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
</font><font face="Geneva" size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>