Complements to Dr A. K. Sharma Sir for initiating discussion on a pertinent issue. The points and issues forwarded are worthy and appreciable. In this context, two famous sayings may be too relevant:

“The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing”

“Many times lessons learned from error or mistake prove to be of great worth”

The contribution of “Green Revolution” to dramatic increases in agricultural production in the second half of the twentieth century and food security is extraordinary without any doubt despite increasing land scarcity and rising land values.

But, as discussed by Dr Sharma, one of the impacts of conventional farming with fertilizer responsive HYV is low varietal diversity index (VDI). Besides, an increase in intensity and number of pest and diseases and decrease in beneficial insects had been reported with continuous conventional (input-intensive) farming. More holistic approach of farming is the need of the hour aimed at achieving sustainable food security in the long run without sacrificing the quality of food and natural resources. Both input-intensive farming and farming based on resource recycling are relevant to specific purpose and sites. The following few links may provide sources of useful reading and look forward to see more relevant discussion and literatures from our colleagues:

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjx9LPEvafQAhWLv48KHbufCxAQFggZMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2071-1050%2F4%2F11%2F2970&usg=AFQjCNHcLRHyMhYj3NdWBAwxFzLcS_3NWQ&bvm=bv.138493631,d.c2I

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mU66XHaulksC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=rice-wheat+indo-gangetic+plains+insect+dynamics&source=bl&ots=NdPa6i6XkZ&sig=M_uGaTccFUyOVzcsc8tiE5VQaYI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM5IS3p6fQAhVMr48KHXjRADYQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=rice-wheat%20indo-gangetic%20plains%20insect%20dynamics&f=false

http://libcatalog.cimmyt.org/download/cim/76137.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411969/pdf/pnas.200912953.pdf

Complements to Dr A. K. Sharma Sir for initiating discussion on a pertinent issue. The points and issues forwarded are worthy and appreciable. In this context, two famous sayings may be too relevant:

“The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing”

“Many times lessons learned from error or mistake prove to be of great worth”

The contribution of “Green Revolution” to dramatic increases in agricultural production in the second half of the twentieth century and food security is extraordinary without any doubt despite increasing land scarcity and rising land values.

But, as discussed by Dr Sharma, one of the impacts of conventional farming with fertilizer responsive HYV is low varietal diversity index (VDI). Besides, an increase in intensity and number of pest and diseases and decrease in beneficial insects had been reported with continuous conventional (input-intensive) farming. More holistic approach of farming is the need of the hour aimed at achieving sustainable food security in the long run without sacrificing the quality of food and natural resources. Both input-intensive farming and farming based on resource recycling are relevant to specific purpose and sites. The following few links may provide sources of useful reading and look forward to see more relevant discussion and literatures from our colleagues:

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjx9LPEvafQAhWLv48KHbufCxAQFggZMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2071-1050%2F4%2F11%2F2970&usg=AFQjCNHcLRHyMhYj3NdWBAwxFzLcS_3NWQ&bvm=bv.138493631,d.c2I

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mU66XHaulksC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=rice-wheat+indo-gangetic+plains+insect+dynamics&source=bl&ots=NdPa6i6XkZ&sig=M_uGaTccFUyOVzcsc8tiE5VQaYI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM5IS3p6fQAhVMr48KHXjRADYQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=rice-wheat%20indo-gangetic%20plains%20insect%20dynamics&f=false

http://libcatalog.cimmyt.org/download/cim/76137.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411969/pdf/pnas.200912953.pdf

Dear Dr. Arun,

I do not recommend and I do not compare organic to conventional farming. I have suggested to members of my class room to avoid it. The conventional agriculture is a method developed along 80 years and it has developing some drawbacks faster than expected by its practionners while organic farming is claiming its first results in the last ten year. This comparison has negative effects on both methods. 

Great response Arun! A complicated question that requires a sophisticated response.

Thank you for wide-ranging question. Organic farming is being widely discussed in the same forum.  I think, as mentioned above despite organic farming being a new approach in farming, we can compare conventional farming with organic farming in different ways. For instance, in terms of soil health/quality, crop yield and quality, environmental protection, sustaining productivity and fulfilling the needs of the ever increasing global population, particularly the developing world. All the economic, environmental and social issues of  both production approaches can be compared in broader perspectives. This may help researchers, development practitioners and policy makers to devise appropriate and feasible production approaches, using two methods. 

As to me, I prefer the integrated approach, that is the combined application of organic and inorganic nutrient resources coupled with suitable cropping systems may improve and maintain soil quality, enhance and sustain agriculture productivity, and protect the environment.  

Indicators that are used to compare ‘organic production systems’ vs. ‘conventional production systems’ make a huge difference in the final results related to this comparison.  When expressed in terms of ‘per unit land area’ basis organic systems perform better than conventional systems in terms of the environmental impacts such as ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions.

Generally, there is a yield gap between organic vs. conventional systems; however, according to a recent comprehensive meta-analysis that include a world-wide dataset from large number of long-term field experiments, this yield gap is considerably lower than previously thought.  Please see the following link for the full paper.

Considering the fact that conventional agricultural research have received the largest focus on ‘research and development’ during the past 100 or more years compared with that for organic systems, this yield gap is not surprising.  Organic agriculture is beginning to receive its due attention in terms of ‘Research and Development’ funding only now.  So, it may be likely that this yield gap between organic vs. conventional may be further diminished in the future?

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1799/20141396

Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap

Authors: Lauren C. Ponisio, Leithen K. M'Gonigle, Kevi C. Mace, Jenny Palomino, Perry de Valpine, Claire Kremen

Published 10  December 2014.

DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396

Shameless self promotion here. We compared soil physical properties plus crop yields in organic and conventional farming for wheat and sugar beet in adjacent similarly managed experiments. May be useful for you.

 Discussion about organic farming Vs Conventional farming so far is quiet interesting. I also wish to share some of my thoughts. I am having a different opinion, whether you apply organic or inorganic source of nutrients, plants may not able to differentiate , since it will take the nutrients in ionic form only. Hence there will not be any difference in the nutritional quality or so on. Many research results also share the same view. But some research papers are claiming that organic produces are better in quality. I also agree with that. because in inorganic cultivation, we are applying only specific nutrients, but in the case of organic it may contain all the essential nutrients, growth promoters even in small proportion, so that might have resulted in good quality. So if we can apply all by way of inorganic also plants may able to produce the same quality of that organic way. Availability of organic materials are always in question and there are reports available that organic manure also contains heavy metals/ pollutants etc and because in a open cycle of agroecosystem, you cant eliminate these things .

But only thing is that now we are using high analysis fertilizers ( N, P and K ) and hence it is imbalanced resulting in nutrient mining / depletion and ultimately a stagnation in food production. Most of my research studies also confirmed that. Hence the best option is we can integrate both orgnaic and inorganic for sustaining the production and soil fertility.

But with respect to Pestcicides ( Insecticide/ Fungicide/ herbicide) we should think of an organic alternative, since it is harmful to environment particularly soil and water. Hence as mentioned, it should not be blindly following any one method and I also suggest that it will be better if we follow an integrated approach.

Thanks to all a have contributed and hope many more will contribute.  Just a reply  to Mr 'Stephen'  that I have nothing put "SHAMELESS" rather elaborated  the whole story. May be this terminology having different meaning in your country  and request let me know.                    The Discussion is going  towards debate between organic vs conventional while my simple query is  can we compare them on the basis of grain yield or is there any methodology developed or need to develop for logical comprehensive comparison.

 Nice discussion Mr. Arun K Sharma. I think there is a misunderstanding, Mr. Stephen is talking about the self promotion of his own article. I think he has used this sentence as a jock and then posted his article.

I found the discussion very interesting and posted literature is also very helpful to understand the comparisons. 

Dear Arun,

I have read and studied with interest your question. Being a biologist who for more than 40 years of his career has worked as agrobiologist in African countries (see my web-site AgroBioAfrica), I have the carrying capacity of agro-ecosystems as one of my fields of interest. Being biologist as well as “green” and “red”, the question “how feeding the world and its growing population?” interests me also. Some years ago, I formulated a first answer “What type of agriculture can nourish the growing world population? A personal reflection”. It can be found on the web-site of the Dutch NGO OXFAM-NOVIB: HTTP://OXFAMBLOGS.ORG/FP2P/

Progressing insight and a other angle of incidence implies that the article is not a precise answer on your question; it insists that feeding the world is not possible without the use of chemical fertilizer. This conviction has not changed and is used when trying to answer your question. Nevertheless, please continue reading; I have been trying since long bridging agro-ecological approaches with conventional technologies for sustainable high production agriculture. Personally, I identified at least two extreme weaknesses which make it difficult to believe that the present conventional agriculture can feed the world in a sustainable way: a) The increasing decision making by shareholders (the industrial version of conventional agriculture) replacing family decisions, and b) the environmental costs of transporting inputs and food over the entire globe.

Your questions; as far as the first concerns I agree, the comparison of the two forms of agriculture should not been based on yield alone. Indeed, social and environmental benefits have a meaning. However, to be sustainable, yield levels to be obtained are a crucial element in the question how to feed the world also in the future. Do not suggest that the higher yields of conventional agriculture is not a crucial factor  in judging which approach is the most appropriate.

I like to make a similar comment regarding the second half of your first question. It is too easy to judge both systems on the value of input optimization or output maximization; in this way, you are making a persiflage of conventional agriculture. Indeed, as Dutchman -having been head of the department of production systems of an agricultural research institute- I know very well that a period existed when fertilizer (and pesticide?) maximization has been a strategy for many farmers. It has been the case when the contribution of the costs of these inputs to the overall production costs was (very) low and when negative environmental side effects were not yet (well) known. In fact it has been this reality that gave born to organic agriculture.

Environmental regulations and a changing supply and demand have made these external inputs more expensive. What counted in the past counts to-day for conventional agriculture, the benefit:costs ratio. Without a positive benefit:costs ratio, sustainable agriculture is impossible; this is as important for conventional as for organic agriculture. And at present, in general the ratio is more favorable for conventional farming.

I agree with your statement under the second question, that the total organic matter production of multi-component systems is in general higher than for mono-cropping. As agroforestry expert, I even quantified the difference for different systems under different conditions. However, it requires a lot of detailed knowledge and a hell of work (inherent to high production costs) to obtain more human food from such multi-cropping systems in comparison to the best mono-cropping systems. And the negative effects from the latter can be controlled by crop rotation in time and in space.

You neglect one key factor in reasoning that the plot sizes have to be larger than those used for studying conventional production, when the comparison of conventional and organic farming is at stake (question 3). You neglect the need to produce the organic inputs required in organic farming. This factor is neglected in general, and I regret that visiting organic farms in the Netherlands and in Belgium, I never found one that appeared to be a closed system, taking this factor into account. Inputs from outside the farm area concerned grazing or mowing in nature reserves and/or straw, fodder or concentrates bought on the market.

Not having been able to identify a study of organic farming taking the organic manure production into account, I recently decided to make a first estimate myself. To be honest, I was shocked by the results. For identifying possible mistakes, I have circulated the estimate among promotors of organic farming, but I did not receive yet a reaction. I have used the production of wheat in the Netherlands as an example and I used organic milk production as the source of organic manure. The result: For producing in a sustainable way 6,5 t of organic wheat on one hectare, the farmer needs 6 hectares of organic milk production, producing beside the manure also 24.000 l of milk. A conventional farmer can make the decision to produce 7 x 8,5 t of wheat on these 7 hectares, or -for example- 8,5 t of wheat plus 120.000 l of conventional milk. If you like receiving my reasoning behind it, please request the note through the e-mail address on my web-site AgroBioAfrica.

I do not agree with statements in your fourth and last question. If organic farmers use crop varieties with a low harvest index, it will be very difficult if not impossible to reach a yield of 80% of that of conventional farming and to satisfy the fodder requirements significantly better than in case of conventional production with varieties with high HI.

My second objection, animals are technically not the best way of recycling organic by-products. Losses will be less (but labor costs higher) by optimal composting or by using the by-products directly, without (much) composting.

Your final question, at the end of question four is “no”; a practical methodology does not exist for comparing both production systems taking all factors into account. The only way doing so is using 2 entirely comparing island with its entire and equally large population, with one single difference, organic or conventional farming to feed these populations. Nevertheless, comparisons can be made, paying attention to one or more factors in a given comparison. It is wise, for doing so, to create an order of importance as far as the mentioned factors concern. I am afraid that we will be obliged doing so if feeding the growing world population in a sustainable way is the final goal.

To finish, I hope that my reaction will be appreciated positively.   

Dear Breman, I appreciate your comprehensive analysis of organic vs. conventional production systems. I think the separate use of both systems may not be a sustainable system for agriculture and environment. As current research reports show the seed and fertilizer system that has been efficient to increase productivity and feed the growing population has been reaching its diminishing returns. That means a comprehensive approach that integrates organic and inorganic nutrient sources, soil and water management, improved germplasm and local adaptation is required to fulfill the demand  of the population.

Building sustainable soil fertility management is a long-term process that would require a system approach integrating various components. Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) approaches have proven to be viable options for improving land productivity and increasing yield. Many tropical soils are poor in inorganic nutrients and rely on the recycling of nutrients from soil organic matter (SOM) to maintain fertility. However, the competing uses of organic sources such as crop residues and manure are used as a feed source and cooking fuel in developing countries. On the other hand, despite organic resources being the major nutrient sources for smallholders’ Agriculture, the nutrient contents of organic materials, ranging from crop residues through manure to agro-industrial wastes widely vary. Moreover, bulkiness in terms of transport and application, and nutrient imbalances due to continuous application of are the constraints of organic nutrient sources.

Soil management practices for sustainable use can be best practiced through the adoption of an ISFM practice. “ISFM is an integrated approach that seeks to enhance agricultural productivity and improve ecosystem services for sustainable future use through combined application of soil fertility management practices, and the knowledge to adapt these to local conditions to maximize fertilizer and water use efficiency. Overall, adoption of ISFM has the potential not only to improve farm productivity and farmers’ livelihood but also to bring about environmental benefits.

Dear Agegnehu, Thanks for your positive reaction. I share your opinion regarding ISFM. I helped developing, promoting and introducing it in sub-Sahara Africa. On my web-site you will find my literature list with many publications about ISFM and its use.

First of all I would like to thanks to Dr Breman for his comprehensive, practical and clear reply that will help to me and all for further development of methodology for comparison.

However, regarding last  submission  of  Breman about   Low  HI crops and use of animal for resource recycler , This may or may not be true in the irrigated intensive ( organic or conventional) farming prevailing in Europe/USA but  I found this reality in the drylands of INDIA  and may be true for other parts of the world where extensive agriculture is prevailed and animal/fish/poultry  that provide regular income to the small farmers with the use of their farm waste and by that way these animals helps in recycling and there is no transportation from outside.

Just one line it is well known fact that food security is more a distribution related problem rather than production.

Dear  Agegnehu, it looks theoretically  very nice  of integrated use of  chemical and organic inputs  but  the moment our mindset shift from  need to greed the use of chemicals becoming higher and secondly  the small and marginal farmers , in my experience, is not able to do rational use of this INM and  also it is  a  general tendency to prefer ready use technology like chemicals in stead of bulky ,cumbersome organic inputs, therefore making a balance use is very difficult in practical .Therefore, I suggest to farmers for gradual shift from chemical to organic and ultimately complete organic.   

Dear Arun, I think based on the current challenge that agriculture faces ISFM/INM  approach is not theoretically nice rather it is feasible in terms of its applicability, economic profitability and environmental management and sustainability. 

The separate use of either input will not be practically feasible in the long term, specially in developing countries where farming is predominantly practiced by small scale farmers. As you may know, first,  use of complete and full recommended rate of chemical fertilizer is a problem for smallholders because of the escalating fertilizer prices. Second, fertilizer and water use efficiency is also decreasing because of severe decline in soil organic matter. Third, use of chemical fertilizer alone is not sustainable in terms of agricultural productivity and environmental management. For instance, the global nitrogen use efficiency is about 333%, the other 67% is unaccounted for. It is either lost as gasses to the atmosphere or via leaching. Fourth, the consistent use of major nutrients, such as NPK may have created nutrient imbalances, and the availability of some secondary and micro-nutrients are decreasing due to depletion of these nutrients in the soil.

  So ISFM/INM is an an alternative approach that can improve the resource base (the soil) and sustain agricultural productivity, while protecting the environment. But its implementation needs to be based on the availability of the resources and socio-economic situation of a particular community, i.e.  locally tailored. 

Dear Arun, dear Getachew

I appreciate your discussion, it is a key one. Indeed, also among those considering the conventional agriculture using chemical fertilizer as first source of nutrients, many realize that chemical fertilizer alone is unsustainable. The first meta-study that I know about this matter is from Christian Pieri. In his book (Fertilité des terres de savanes, bilan de trente ans de recherché et de développement agricole au Sud du Sahara, CIRAD-IRAT, 1989) he formulate an answer for the question why the introduction of fertilizer failed in sub-Saharan Africa: On poor soils under difficult climates, farmers will find never organic sources of nutrient enough for increasing in a sustainable and significant way crop production. But also the use of fertilizers alone is unsustainable. Indeed, at the beginning, yields increase a lot, but over the years, yields start to decrease by depletion of soil organic matter. As far as I know, he is one of the first insisting that for developing African agriculture, one needs both organic and inorganic sources of nutrients. And I do not see any reason, except very low population density on rich soils, that the conclusion should be different elsewhere.

I like to add an argument to those used by Getachew for supporting ISFM (integrated nutrient management). Using organic sources only, the biological agriculture –in particular in the tropics, where not clay but soil organic matter forms the basis of the cation exchange capacity- takes a serious risk. To be able to obtain high yields, which are required for feeding growing populations, a biological farmer –like conventional ones- has to control crop growth as good as possible; nutrients have to be available for the crop at moments the crop needs it. This is in the first place for starting growth and development and during the exponential growth. It is therefore that biological farmers need and use organic manures with high nutrient use and fast mineralization. Obtaining enough of this type of organic matter is difficult, in particular in regions with poor soils and difficult climates: a) it is rare; and b) to obtain it from organic sources with low quality, a lot of this material, a lot of time and labor is required. The third and possibly the most difficult problem is the fast mineralization rate and the high demand of high yielding crops: one does not obtain significant improvement of the soil organic matter status! And, as mentioned, such improvement is a must to realize a cation exchange capacity that is high enough, and to create a good water and phosphate holding capacity.

It is therefore that I do not promote an ISFM which is simply a combination of chemical fertilizer and organic manure. I promote a combination of a) sources of organic matter of (rather) low quality if used as organic manure, to improve and maintain the soil quality; and b) chemical fertilizer to nourish the crops. Of sources, both sources support also each others goal.

Agriculture is highly location specific and every worker has own EXPERIENCE and on the basis of that hypothesis and belief is developed. I share my experience and other shared experience of their areas that may not be denied completly and at the same time can not be imposed on others.  I would request please not to divert my question  towards debate on organic vs chemical/ISFM..

My question still waiting answer of comparison methodology ?

Perhaps, one indicator to compare is: energy input per unit weight of product.  Except for very few food types, organic systems require considerably less fossil energy (MJ/one tonne of product) relative to conventional systems.   Please see the data in page 12 of the report in this link:

http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/233069/energy-use-oa.pdf

Dear Breman, thank you again for your comprehensive feedback.This discussion has got a great attention. I want to say something about the ISFM approach.

The most important factor any crop producer should consider is that the use of inorganic fertilizers only aims at feeding the crop plant but not the soil. Therefore, it is a time bomb that explodes to the benefit of the crop and not the soil. It is often necessary to care about the soils in order to avoid soil fertility issues related to fertilizer application. For example, soil acidity and alkalinity which may be caused by excessive use of inorganic fertilizers.

I think we need to view the integration of organic and inorganic soil amendments in a broader sense. When we say organic amendments, it doesn’t mean application of compost or manure, rather it comprises all the available forms organic nutrient sources including cropping systems (inclusion of legumes in cropping systems for biological N-fixation), incorporation of green manure crops, retention of crop residues in association with conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and the like. When one or more of these are combined with inorganic fertilizer, high yielding crops, soil and water management, appropriate agronomic practices and local adaptation significantly higher yields can be achieved in a sustainable way than inorganic fertilizer and system alone. Otherwise, if inorganic fertilizer alone is applied year to year the quality of soils, particularly soil organic matter content deteriorates significantly which in turn causes low cation exchange capacity, low nutrient and water retention capacity of soils.

Another worry mentioned in this discussion, which I absolutely agree up on, is that organic amendments such as manure and compost are liable for faster decomposition, especially in tropical soils where the agroecosystem is different. To tackle such problems, several research results have shown that biochar or biochar-compost mixture can be used as alternative soil amendments and carbon sequestration. Generally, at present, when a crop field is considered as food factory, we need to maintain a balanced ratio between organic and inorganic sources which cannot be avoided.

@Arun: thank you for this interesting question!

@Getachew: could you please give a citation for the 33% global nitrogen use efficiency?

kind regards

Irene

Yes, Irene, the following three publications are on the N-use efficiency of crops, the third one wheat in china.

Raun, W.R et al. 2002. Improving nitrogen use efficiency in cereal grain production with optical sensing and variable rate application. Agronomy Journal 94 (4): 815-820.

Raun, W.R. and Johnson, G.V. 1999. Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. Agronomy Journal 91 (3): 357-363.

Fan, X., Li, F Liu and Kumar, D. 2004. Fertilization with a new type of coated urea: Evaluation for nitrogen efficiency and yield in winter wheat. Journal of Plant Nutrition 27(5): 853-865.

@Getachew Thank you a lot!

A lot of the N not used up by the crops ends up in the rivers (nitrate). Would be interesting to see, whether - and how much - conventional and organic farming differ in this respect!

kind regards

Irene

Yes, it is the source of nitrate accumulation in the water bodies.  Depending on the soil type some portion the N is also lost as a gas through denitrification, e.g. in the water logged soils.

Thank you very much Arun Kumar. The topic you started reflects your care and concern with sincerity and truthfulness towards wellness of all living species in the world. Please keep it up and not to worry. Your expectations are for sure, to materialize in very near future in India. The critics of organic farming fall under exploitive class who lean towards chemical industries with utter disregard to the living potential of soils. Environmental quality, health, natural resources conservation, protection and improvement do not weigh any consideration in exploitive farming. Green revolution in India was intended to meet food emergency due to acute food shortage, as a contingent measure but not for its perpetuation forever. It turned out to be a greed revolution only to satisfy the human hunger at the cost of plant and animal species.  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1161030116302143

The grain yield in Organic farming is slightly less but the quality in the sense of residual  toxic substances is very high than the inorganic farming

comparing the grain yield of Organic to conventional is far different . The grain yield is less than Conventional, thou Organic might has high nutrient value because chemicals are not applied , even if applied they are Organic like the Neem extract.

The short-term goal in terms of grain yield at any cost is synonymous to conventional chemical or industrial agriculture, which declines over time on a longer time scale degrading and then killing the heart and soul of soil. The organic  agriculture, in contrast may offer comparatively less grain yield but it ensures sustainability. It considers soil not as mere dead soil but living SOIL - the  soul of infinite life. It can only be nourished and nurtured properly if we respect diversity of life and cooperation  among teeming millions of life. The organic input, sans synthetics, chemical fertilizers & pesticides, wealth of inherent potentials of the living organisms can help protect health of soil, agri-ecosystem and of course offer sustainable production, ensure food security, ecological protection and economic prosperity - the Triple Bottom Lines of sustainable development . 

Thank you very much for this interesting discussion. Not always the yields of the conventional agriculture are superior to the organic one. I do not dominate the information regarding the production of grains. However, in Chile the yields of organic berries are slightly higher than the conventional ones (inorganic).

On the other hand, it is necessary to adopt other indicators to measure yields, and that these are at the level of agroecosystems. Then, these returns must be evaluated on a time scale. The analysis of yields should be holistic. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil must be entered into the "formula" for calculating yield. We must necessarily move to sustainable models. So, we will not reduce the analysis to grain yields alone, but also to "yields and resilience of the agroecosystem".

I think one should look into this subject beyond the conventional reasoning of Profit and loss. Green revolution did not happen overnight. I also see this argument  baseless, as organic farming is holistic farming and conventionally farming is failing slowly.  I am an ardent organic gardener too, I see birds and bees visiting to my small farm has increased over the time

This productivity comparison between organic and conventional farming is hard to make because of exchanges between the two systems. In particular, nutrient transfers from conventional to organic farms may represent an indirect reliance of organic farms on "chemical" fertilizers. Please check our 2013 paper "To what extent does organic farming rely on nutrient inflows from conventional farming?" for more details.

Conventional farming provides food for higher plants, animals and humans whereas it does not do so in respect of soil sheltered flora and fauna. This situation endangers the healthy living of all  due to serious disturbance to balance of life on Earth. Rate of supply of nutrients to plants by use of chemical fertilizers is far greater and disproportionate to the rate of their absorption by them and majority of nutrients are lost either to atmosphere or to the soil, thereby causing pollution and health problems. The comparison between conventional and organic farming systems becomes meaningful in terms of investment for crop production and latter has the potential to lower the input costs in production. 

This is a long term comparative cropping trial in the US

https://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/

We not only need to consider yield but profitability. Farmers that don't make money don't stay farmers for long! 

@Alan Thatcher WOW, that is impressive (results in broschure). Did you also monitor organic farmer producing wheat or barley? (Yields for such crops are usually very low in organic farming)

I wasn't involved in this trial, I'm from New Zealand. However I was involved in a 10 year trial comparing organic with conventional dairy farming in a grassland situation - see organicdairy.massey.ac.nz if you're interested.

I have also had a bit to do with farming in Germany. Although my knowledge of cropping is very poor, the impression I got was if you feed an organic crop it will grow very well - this is where cows are really useful!

How many of us agree that Green revolution did more harm than good to nature and existence, living soil, flora and fauna, personal health?

That's it.

Kind regards to all

Agreed, but hindsight is 20:20. At the time people went into it with the best of intentions with little idea of the long term consequences. We are a bit wiser now, or at least some of us might be. The Green Revolution is still going like an express train. The major questions now are can we stop the train while still feeding everyone and can we reverse the degradation on the scale we need to? The answer may be a slow careful transition but I suspect we don't have the time.

We take natures services for granted until she stops to deliver.

@Alan Thatcher thank you for the additional info