conventional farms is no necessarily mono crop base. Conventional farming refers to a method of farming in which the use of GMO's, chemical pesticides/herbicides and chemical fertilisers is allowed. While organic agriculture integrates cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Thus the basis of single cropping may not be a factor. Apart from money which may reflect the true value, shelf life of produce, chemical residues in produce with it associated health hazards, destruction of soil micro-organisms which peculates the soil for aeration and water peculation are destroyed, Health of the farmer is at risk to these chemicals, percentage water saving, etc. we did similar studies in Ghana: Impact of Small Scale Irrigation Technologies on Poverty Alleviation among Peri-urban and Urban Farmers.

Thanks for answering. I guess I should have explained my question better. what I wanted to ask was as organic in general have greater diversity compared to conventional (many studies have pointed to it) and also they can have different cropping cycle (for example (hypothetical) an organic system has 7 crops in a year whereas the conventional has 4 crops in a year) then how do I compare the yeilds, do I just take the major crops that both have in common or convert the yeild into biomass / ha / year or in terms of money. 

Ooh Ok, to really do comparative study between conventional and organic, they must have the same conditions under the different cropping systems. for example if you want to compare the yields of say lettuce under organic and conventional, farm size must be same, irrigation same, but weed control, yield, organic fert and conventional one, date of harvest, etc may differ, and these variations may tell you which is better. dont forget other variables such us soil structure, leaving organisms in the soil, moisture content etc may all be taken into consideration.

 However, if your studies is looking at the impact of both conventional and organic, then base on your assumptions, your can look beyond the cropping system but under the same conditions and location.

Some of the points Kwamina  has  covered  I would suggest if it is only the yield comparison of two systems from first year you will get input response ( organic or chemicals) but in real sense if you would like to test both systems, first developed both systems in about one ha (10000 m 2) area for each,  accommodate perennials,  flowering plants  and crops in rotation. After 3-4 year you may compare both system in terms of yield , soil health, fauna diversity  and many more parameters.  I deliberately  suggested area of  on ha   to clearly see/estimate  the effect of agro and fauna diversity and better averagning.

One study that I am aware of compared yield of onions in an organic production to conventional production.  The yield comparisons were for comparable cropping intervals.

Moore, S. R. (2010). "Energy efficiency in small-scale biointensive organic onion production in Pennsylvania, USA." Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(03): 181-188.

Or just try to compare it in gross energy yield of the rotation on a basis per year.

Hi.

I don't think comparison between two production system is a question of fairness but more importantly it should be assessed from a sustainable view point.  For instance form the productivity point of view, the trend of the  harvest index of the crop over time between system provides a measure of their relative to maintain and manage the soil production capacity.

Soil indices such as microbial load, nutrient availability indices, pH-water against pH-KCl and microbial population e.g. fungi v/s bacteria, nematode, disease incidence and its control required, are all parameters that can adequately address the relative impacts of organic & inorganic farming on the conservation or depletion of soil fertility.

However there is a limitation attributed to organic farming is the absence or limited control of confounding factors such as pest and disease incidence as well as weed competition, which are in principle better control in a conventional inorganic farming system.  Allowance for these undermining element to organic farming need to be accounted for in then final assessment.

Hi,

maybe a look in this book will give you some inspiration. 

https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/i410a/ofeurope/organicfarmingineurope-vol6.pdf 

There is two studies from Norway and California, which compares farming systems with respect to sustainability. The comparison is done on a farm level based on ecological and economic indicators: 

Eltun, R., A. Korsæth, and O. Nordheim 2002. A comparison of environmental, soil fertility, yield, and economical effects in six cropping systems based on an 8-year experiment in Norway. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90: p. 155–168.

Poudel, D.D. W.R. Horwath, W.T. Lanini, S.R. Temple, and A.H.C. van Bruggen 2002. Comparison of soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields and weeds in organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90: p. 125–137.

Those are two cases, where authors could come up with a farm-level comparison and where the authors were able to publish on a high level.

However, if you want to compare cropping systems, it might be appropriate to compare the indicators based on crop-rotations. There is one efficiency study, which tries to analyze the effect of crop-rotation diversity on (economic) efficiency.

Sipiläinen, T. and A. Huhtala 2012. Opportunity costs of providing crop diversity in organic and conventional farming: would targeted environmental policies make economic sense? European Review of Agricultural Economics 40(3): p. 441-462.

I hope that helps a bit, even if the studies might appear a bit complicated, but those are system-comparisons, which you might like to use as comparisons.

Apart from all the above suggestion, please attempt the nutrient budgeting of two systems to compare. Nutrient budgeting should be at farm level, In addition account the changes happening in soil in terms of soil OC, physical, chemical and microbial status also. Above all you need previous history of soil fertility and inputs etc. also to understand the changes and budgeting. 

Hi Meenakshi, What you are proposing is very complex and usually with good science be best way to investigate a topic is to look at questions in their simplest form. I work with a very simple example of  convention and organic regimes running side by side and both very successful, it is the New Zealand Kiwifruit industry. For more information The email address for the Secretary (Liz Espin) of the NZ Certified Organic Kiwifruit Growers Association Liz Espin .

Both grow the same crop but there use of sheep under the vines for organic weed control is common. Both market their product through the same marketing organisation Zespri. With this example many of the complexities are removed.

The crop yield is measurable and economic ratios can be established.

What's about the satisfaction and happyness of the farmers and their families? May be they make less monney but have a life style to be happy with less. What is more important:  To like what you do by conviction or being stressed all the time to reach more?  I'm calling that: CREATIVE INEFFICIENCY. Here, not the economic optimum counts, but the optimal satisfaction. Worthwhile to consider that in our steaddy running after "Efficiency". Enjoy and be creatif. Good luck. ([email protected])

It is not true that conventional farms follow only monocropping.  If you want to compare, follow the same cropping pattern for conventional management and organic management except the fact that you will introduce a green manures to substitute nutrient demand of crops in the organic system. Follow the same intercropping system for the conventional and organic management system. We can have further discussions if you need at my mail address: [email protected] 

For comparison purpose please follow same cropping pattern in both the system and also work out nutrient budgeting which will give you a meaningful comparison.

You may be interested to see a recent presentation that Michel Cavigelli and I gave titled 'Organic versus conventional Comparisons:  A devil without details'. See YouTube link below.  Making valid comparisons can be difficult and researchers need to be very careful to provide enough details on the systems being compared to ensure that the comparisons are meaningful.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os-aM4FqPUA

What pet is better for your pleasure? a cat or a dog?.......

If you do not know, trye both and make your mind.

Organic or conventional farming is a similar question.

The advantage in Science is (so as well in Agronomy): you are allowed to do what you like to do......but you have to say WHAT you do and HOW you did it.

If you have the will and the time, then you should compare both growing methods after having optimised both ways relatively to some critical growth parameters (density of plants, treatments,.....any thing you think is important). 

Finally you rank the results according to your criteria: e.g. crop yield, labor, total costs, etc and finally you choose what fitts your needs most.

In some cases low yield, but less work and lower costs may be preferable (for you, and your situation, but not for enyone).

Consider, what I'm calling: "Creative INEFFICIENCY". good luck

[email protected] 

Most farmers that I know do it for money. It may not be everything but unless the farmer has inherited wealth they usually need to make money. I am a conventional farmer (Australia) but have an area I operate organically. I have been making a living from farming for just on 50 years but my interest in the scientific basis of modern agriculture took me off the world of research for a few years while still running the farm. The organic part is small and I do it just to see if I can. If I cannot with my experience and scientific background then I doubt anybody can in my area. I have sheep on legume based pastures and wheat, canola and barley. The organic has been pasture but now the challenge is to make it profitable in the cropping phase.

Some points.

You have to compare like with like and there are so many differences in what it takes to do the organic that it is hard to do anything valid scientifically. For example I will have to have 2 seasons in pasture for every one in crop to have any hope of controlling weeds in the organic, compared to 1 or 2 of crop for every one of pasture in the conventional.

Yields of crop are less than half in the organic. I could rectify this by bringing in composted cow manure at very high rates. The transport and spreading costs would make it unprofitable even if I was able to source the material for free. It would give me an input of N and P, but that input would be sourced from grain grown on conventional farms so the N and P is actually ultimately sourced from fertilizer. It would all be much less of a problem if I grew perennial crops in soil which was inherently fertile.

Sometimes comparisons can be made, as in the yields quoted above. The difficulty for me is that I have to try to compare not just the yields, but the proportion of the farm that can be used for crops and the source of the nutrients which in my case is principally P. I currently source P as composted reactive rock phosphate, applied at 4 times the rate I apply on the conventional area. Given that resources of rock phosphate are being depleted faster than resources of oil, what is the moral position of not utilizing it well by processing it properly to make it plant available?

My conventional system is inherently unsustainable due to the evolution of the weeds to herbicide resistance. The organic is inherently unsustainable because of the soil erosion that has again become and issue due to the use of cultivation to control weeds. Cultivation was the norm when I started farming and one of the most positive things in my time as a farmer has been the elimination of cultivation in the conventional systems, and the resulting minimal soil loss through erosion.

I measure the financials just comparing what seems to be best practice in both systems. The organic looks sad.

I test soil and have not found anything yet that would be positive for the organic but I am not saying that something will not turn up. The major problem for me is plant available P, and that is way behind in spite of the higher rates of P input.   

I do not try to measure my happiness but I know I am happier harvesting a high yielding crop from the conventional than a low yielding from the organic. The price of the organic product would have to be at least twice as high and I might be unhappy about my organic product being for the rich people rather than the ordinary people. I persevere with the organic hoping I can find a way forward but on what I can do with my soils and climate it is not looking promising. 

Meenakshi, I wish you well because we do need to know what the yield penalties are in organic. There must of course be yield penalties in almost all instances because there are very few reasons to use fertilizers and pesticides other than to increase the yield of saleable product. Then, we also need to know the things about organic that might offset the yield penalties and get some measure on them. Compare the whole systems if you can and include the externalities as best you can but I doubt it can be easily be done well scientifically.  

Beside the economic factor, I think nutrient use efficiency will be a good one to look at. Biomass production per unit area rather than yield production is also a better estimating factor.

1- based on economic return

2- water use efficiency

3- nutrient budget

4- soil health and fertility

economic return is not possible in Comparison of conventional and organic farming. the only way is nutrient budget and water efficiency