23
Sep
Organic Farming Competes with Chemical-Intensive Practices on Resilience, Input Costs, and Profitability
(Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2025) A study published in European Journal of Agronomy, based on a 16-year, long-term experiment (LTE), finds that organic crops (cotton production with wheat and soybean rotations) in tropical climates are competitive with chemical-intensive (conventional) systems when evaluating systems’ resilience (to weather and insect resistance), input costs, and profitability. One of the underlying assumptions of continuous pesticide use is that they will continue to serve as effective weapons in the never-ending war against insects, weeds, and fungal diseases that threaten the economic viability and sustainability of the farming operations. While organic systems faced reduced yields due to pest pressures from pink bollworm infestations, their relative decline was much smaller than that of the chemical-intensive operations. This study’s findings indicate that a different direction is not only possible, but necessary, for the long-term financial viability of farms. Farmers understand that the health of the soil is a compounding investment that will help or hurt you depending on the actions taken yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
The authors state in the study introduction that the long-term study is critical when studying organic productivity and profitability because short-term studies fail to capture. “Critical variables like soil health, pest dynamics, and nutrient cycling often change slowly and can have cumulative effects over the long term,” the authors note.
The authors note that the study does not explore in detail the adverse impact of chemical-intensive farming on water, biodiversity, and climate, and the costs associated with these “externalities.” The authors write: “It is important to note that this study focuses on farm-gate transactions and does not account for the broader environmental and social externalities associated with each production system. A true cost accounting framework, which incorporates the internalization of these externalities – deemed crucial for achieving the sustainability of agri-food systems (Sandhu, 2021, Sandhu et al., 2019) – would likely alter the perceived balance of productivity and profitability between organic and conventional production systems.” See the previous Daily News, Study Shows Value of Organic Practices in Lowering Environmental Impact of Agriculture, which addresses the benefits of organic land management as a public good.
Background and Methodology
This study was conducted in Madhya Pradesh, India, a climate known for roughly 1,200 millimeters (or 47 inches) of annual rainfall, largely in the monsoon season (June to September). This tropical environment was selected because of the gap in research on LTEs in tropical farmland “managed by smallholders with limited resources who face economic challenges, including price volatility and crop failure.” Many pesticide products and genetically engineered seeds (in this study, for Bt incorporated plants) are marketed in tropical regions to farmers who disproportionately face the effects of environmentally induced illness, biodiversity loss, and the climate crisis, despite the opportunity with organic practices to move away from the very petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers associated with these threats.
The study followed a 16-year rotational crop cycle between 2007 and 2022. The experimental design of the plots was randomized with four systems: BIOORG (organic according to European Union and U.S. standards), BIODYN (biodynamic standards that run stricter than organic certification), CON (conventional without the use of Bt Cotton, using local practices alongside synthetic inputs), and CONBtC (conventional with the Bt cotton and synthetic inputs). Each treatment was replicated four times for posterity and data gathering reassurances. The management practices for CON and ConBtC include synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, as well as fertilizer inputs aligned with regional recommendations. The organic system practices included pest management (botanicals and biological methods) and nutrient augmentation (farmyard manure, compost, and green manures), consisting of no synthetic inputs in accordance with organic principles. The rotational cycle moved in the following chronological order: Corn, soybeans, wheat (with a second wheat or chickpea rotated in after a set number of years). The cotton varieties were non-Bt hybrids for CON and organic systems, and it was a Bt hybrid for CONBtC.
In terms of data collection, the yields were measured annually for each crop and harvested from central subplots to avoid potential spillage and subsequent potential data distortion. The production costs were recorded and largely based on local market prices. The profitability was generally calculated as gross revenue subtracted from the variable costs, with the market premiums of organic products assumed after the standard 3-year conversion period.
This study was published in partnership with Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Bern University of Applied Sciences (Switzerland), and the organic farming research and advocacy group bioRe Association (India). The researchers disclosed that funding for this study was provided by the Coop Sustainability Fund, as well as additional support from the Biovision Foundation for Ecological Development, the Liechtenstein Development Service (LED), and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The authors declared that “the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”
Results
The main findings of this study in terms of performance of organic systems can be broken down into three main categories: crop yields, production (input and labor) costs, and gross margins (profitability).
- Crop Yields
- Organic cotton was more stable during pink bollworm outbreaks relative to the other three farming models in terms of conventional options. Additionally, organic cotton was not as competitive relative to conventional yields (although yields were sometimes comparable in non-Bt conventional plots).
- Organic soybeans yielded on average 102% of chemical-intensive yields, which researchers note as an intrinsic benefit of biological nitrogen fixation, permitting organic soybeans to thrive without synthetic fertilizer in this system.
- Organic wheat generally underperformed compared to chemical-intensive alternatives (77-80% of conventional yields), with the critical limiting factor being the slow release of nutrients and nitrogen deficiency post-cotton harvest. A follow-up experiment could intercrop leguminous plants, grasses, and/or other natural nitrogen fixers for one season before planting the wheat crops to see if there is a positive difference in yields.
- The diversification of chickpeas as the second rotation instead of wheat reduced potential risk and strengthened the profitability of the organic system as a whole
- Production Costs
- Organic soybeans were found to have 28% less production costs compared to chemical-intensive counterparts due to no need for synthetic fertilizers or pesticides.
- Organic cotton was cost-competitive in earlier cycles due to lower input costs; however, labor and input costs increased in later cycles, making it less competitive than chemical-intensive plots.
- Organic wheat had 6% lower production costs than conventional wheat; however, the reduced yields in the researchers’ experimental design negate these gains.
- Profitability
- A combination of wheat and chickpea intercropped on shared plots could help compensate for challenges with the former’s yield challenges.
- The profitability of organic soybeans is greater than chemical-intensive farming because of the significant reduction in production costs.
- Organic wheat and cotton margins fall below chemical-intensive counterparts.
Previous Research
The U.S. is currently the fourth largest cotton producer (domestic and export) and the largest cotton exporter in the world, accounting for 30% of all cotton produced, valued at $5.7 billion (2021). The farm value of U.S. organic cotton is $35.55 million (2021). There are 83 certified organic cotton farms in the United States compared to roughly 7,724 non-organic farms (2022). According to the Organic Trade Association, organic cotton comprises approximately 0.95% of global cotton production. Despite its small size, there are viable organic alternatives to the chemical-intensive status quo, even for commodities like cotton, which face significant pest pressures regardless of the land management system.
There are efforts to increase organic certified cotton production. In August 2024, the Center for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) earned the 2024 Innovators Award from The Better Cotton Initiative (Better Cotton) for its leadership in developing capacity and expansion of organic standards and practices in the Pakistani cotton sector, according to a press release by Better Cotton. Given the millions of pounds of some of the most toxic chemicals used to produce cotton, and Pakistan being an exporter of $3.5 billion worth of cotton (2021), including $240 million to the U.S. (2022), cotton production is a worldwide contamination problem. (See Daily News here.)
While eliminating the toxic pesticides, organic cotton processing is still reliant on the toxic hydrogen chloride to delint cotton seeds before planting. Under the banner of “continuous improvement,” Beyond Pesticides has called for more urgency in supporting research on alternatives that are more compatible with organic principles. “It is our understanding, from conversations with a representative of the Texas Organic Cotton Marketing Cooperative, that organic cotton growers in the U.S. currently do not have a lot of choice about how their seed is prepared for planting,” says Terry Shistar, Ph.D., Board of Directors at Beyond Pesticides. See Beyond Pesticides’ full NOSB comments on relisting hydrogen chloride to support organic cotton growers and the call for less toxic alternatives.
A significant barrier to accessing or maintaining organic transition for aspiring, transitioning, and existing organic farmers is the lack of trained experts in organic production at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including other agricultural support grants, initiatives, and programs including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) (administered by Natural Resources Conservation Service), and crop insurance (administered by Risk Management Agency).
Crop insurance serves as an important example of the deficiency in assistance. “Many of the farmers who had diversified operations did not purchase crop insurance and expressed little to no interest in doing so in the future,” according to the survey of 34 individual farmers and organic advocates interviewed for a study conducted by researchers at New York University (NYU). For the handful of farmers who did participate in insurance, they were disappointed in the benefits. “A key recommendation from this study is the creation of specialized, highly trained crop insurance and conservation agents with expertise in organic farming systems to facilitate the application process and program use for conservation programs and crop insurance,” according to the researchers.
Call to Action
The future of organic depends on the public’s willingness to advocate for its continued success and growth through public comments. It becomes more challenging for elected officials to ignore the broad support for organic farming, land management, and unrestricted access to toxic-free spaces and products on the open market when people, businesses, farms, and communities speak up.
You can demand change by signing up here to become an advocate for the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program. Organic is not just a food label, but a set of criteria and practices codified in federal law and enforced by USDA that can be applied to other forms of land and pest management, including public green spaces. See here for one of our newest pilot projects in partnership with the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, written in Environment+Energy Leader. You can also contact your U.S. Representative and Senators to cosponsor relevant legislation, including Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act, S.1385, the New Producer Economic Security Act, S.1237, (previously Increasing Land, Security, and Opportunities (LASO) Act, H.R.3955, in 2023-24), the newly-introduced Organic Imports Verification Act (OIVA), S.1398, and Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Act, (H.R.4782).
There is currently an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the integrity of national organic standards, as the National Organic Standards Board convenes to discuss key issues and allowed materials in organic agriculture. The public can see a discussion of issues before the board and submit comments (using Beyond Pesticides’ positions) by October 8. To submit comments, please click HERE. For more background, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2025 issues page.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: European Journal of Agronomy
