“43% less yield”: defying popular wisdom, organic farming is “less efficient, more expensive and worse for the environment”


A study from the University of Melbourne in Australia shows that organic farming produces 43 to 72 percent less than conventional methods – and that to achieve the same yield requires 130 percent more farmland. For those who are skeptical of the results of a single study, you can find several here, here, here Where here. The last-mentioned study points to the fact that “if all US wheat production were grown organically, an additional 30.6 million acres would be needed to match 2014 production levels.”

Organic food requires more resources than conventional agriculture. The effects on biodiversity are severe: insects and pollinators can access fewer nature reserves with organic farming. On top of that, in a scenario of 100% adoption of organic farming, carbon dioxide emissions would increase by up to 70%, according to researchers in the UK. showed.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotechnology and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

So why do some people in the United States continue to buy organic food at sometimes double the price of conventional food? One under the hand, it is performative. Shopping at big organic food stores is popular and probably the kind of thing you’re supposed to do once you have a comfortable salary in a big city. On the other hand, some consumers are misled about the alleged benefits of organic farming. Organic foods are thought to be healthier (it’s not) and don’t use pesticides (it is).

This is an excerpt. Read the original article here

Previous Comparison of Westbury Bancorp (OTCMKTS: WBBW) and S&T Bancorp (NASDAQ: STBA)
Next Organic Agriculture Market Research Data 2022