Editing Organic farming (section)

== Economics ==
The [[economics]] of organic farming, a subfield of [[agricultural economics]], encompasses the entire process and effects of organic farming in terms of human society, including [[social cost]]s, [[opportunity cost]]s, [[unintended consequence]]s, [[information asymmetries]], and [[economies of scale]].

Labour input, carbon and [[methane emissions]], energy use, eutrophication, acidification, soil quality, effect on biodiversity, and overall land use vary considerably between individual farms and between crops, making general comparisons between the economics of organic and conventional agriculture difficult.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for-the-environment|title=Is organic really better for the environment than conventional agriculture?|journal=Our World in Data|date=2 February 2024 |last1=Ritchie |first1=Hannah |last2=Roser |first2=Max }}</ref><ref name="auto2">Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6).</ref>

In the [[European Union]] "organic farmers receive more subsidies under agri-environment and animal welfare subsidies than conventional growers".<ref name=mar2019>{{Cite web |title=Organic farming in the EU|url=https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/market-brief-organic-farming-in-the-eu_mar2019_en.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210519171914/https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/market-brief-organic-farming-in-the-eu_mar2019_en.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=19 May 2021|quote=Organic production is characterised by a significantly lower yield than under conventional production. The gap is particularly important for wheat, with a yield ranging between 40% (Germany) and 85% (Italy) of conventional yields. The gap for organic maize yields and milk yields is lower, but may still represent a strong disincentive if not compensated by higher prices. Lower yields seem however to be counterbalanced by higher producer prices. In Germany, organic wheat producers received up to 150% price premium over conventional prices. Price premium for milk producers are on average lower.}}</ref>

=== Geographic producer distribution ===

The markets for organic products are strongest in North America and Europe, which as of 2001 are estimated to have $6 and $8 billion respectively of the $20 billion global market.<ref name=Lotter2003/>{{rp|6}} As of 2007 [[Australasia]] has 39% of the total organic farmland, including Australia's {{convert|11,800,000|ha}} but 97% of this land is sprawling [[rangeland]] ([[#refWorldStats2007|2007:35]]). US sales are 20x as much.<ref name=Lotter2003/>{{rp|7}} Europe farms 23% of global organic farmland ({{convert|6,900,000|ha||abbr=on}}), followed by [[Organic farming by country#Latin America and the Caribbean|Latin America and the Caribbean]] with 20% ({{convert|6,400,000|ha|abbr=on}}). Asia has 9.5% while North America has 7.2%. Africa has 3%.<ref name="Willer2016">{{Cite web|url=http://orgprints.org/29790/13/willer-lernoud-2016-global-data-biofach.pdf|title=Organic Agriculture Worldwide 2016: Current Statistics|last=Willer|first=Helga|date=February 10, 2016|website=|publisher=FiBL and IFOAM Organics International|access-date=}}</ref>

Besides Australia,<ref name=Atlas>Paull, John & Hennig, Benjamin (2016) [https://www.academia.edu/25648267/Atlas_of_Organics_Four_maps_of_the_world_of_organic_agriculture Atlas of Organics: Four Maps of the World of Organic Agriculture] Journal of Organics. 3(1): 25-32.</ref> the countries with the most organic farmland are Argentina ({{convert|3.1|e6ha|abbr=off}}), China ({{convert|2.3|e6ha|abbr=off}}), and the United States ({{convert|1.6|e6ha|abbr=off}}). Much of Argentina's organic farmland is pasture, like that of Australia ([[#refWorldStats2007|2007:42]]). Spain, Germany, Brazil (the world's largest agricultural exporter), Uruguay, and England follow the United States in the amount of organic land ([[#refWorldStats2007|2007:26]]).

In the European Union ([[EU25#2004 Enlargement|EU25]]) 3.9% of the total utilized agricultural area was used for organic production in 2005. The countries with the highest proportion of organic land were Austria (11%) and Italy (8.4%), followed by the Czech Republic and Greece (both 7.2%). The lowest figures were shown for Malta (0.2%), Poland (0.6%) and Ireland (0.8%).<ref>{{cite web
 |title        = Organic Farming in the European Union
 |url          = http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/consumer-confidence/consumer-demand/facts_en.pdf
 |access-date   = 19 January 2012
 |publisher    = European Commission
 |page         = 30
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20120906213432/http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/consumer-confidence/consumer-demand/facts_en.pdf
 |archive-date = 6 September 2012
 |url-status     = dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
 |title       = Eurostat press release 80/2007
 |url         = http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF
 |access-date  = 7 October 2007
 |author      = European Commission – Eurostat
 |page        = 1
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20071129051841/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF
 |archive-date = 29 November 2007
}}</ref>
In 2009, the proportion of organic land in the EU grew to 4.7%. The countries with the highest share of agricultural land were Liechtenstein (26.9%), Austria (18.5%) and Sweden (12.6%).<ref>{{cite web|first=Helga |last=Willer |publisher=Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL |location=Switzerland |url=http://orgprints.org/18365/2/willer-2011-european-market.pdf |title=Organic Agriculture in Europe: Production and Market BioFach Congress |date=18 February 2011}}</ref> 16% of all farmers in Austria produced organically in 2010. By the same year the proportion of organic land increased to 20%.<ref name="BZ">{{cite web
| title=Bio hat Zukunft, aber auch viele Probleme
| url=http://www.bauernzeitung.at/?id=2500%2C124738%2C%2C
| access-date=19 January 2012
| author=Bauernzeitung (RollAMA survey)
}}</ref> In 2005, {{convert|168,000|ha|abbr=off}} of land in Poland was under organic management.<ref>{{cite web| title=The organic food market in Poland: Ready for take-off|url=http://www.sixtytwo.biz/en/__organicfood1.htm| access-date=8 October 2007| author=SixtyTwo International Consultants
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927035437/http://www.sixtytwo.biz/en/__organicfood1.htm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 27 September 2007}}</ref> In 2012, {{convert|288,261|ha|abbr=off}} were under organic production, and there were about 15,500 organic farmers; retail sales of organic products were EUR 80 million in 2011. As of 2012 organic exports were part of the government's economic development strategy.<ref>IFOAM. [http://www.ifoam-eu.org/en/romania IFOAM EU: Romania profile] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402101413/http://www.ifoam-eu.org/en/romania |date=2 April 2015 }} Page accessed 4 March 2015</ref>

After the collapse of the [[Soviet Union]] in 1991, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased from [[Eastern bloc]] countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.<ref>{{cite web
| title=Farming with Fidel
| url=http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/cubanfarms.htm
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090304033343/http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/cubanfarms.htm
| archive-date=4 March 2009
| access-date=4 February 2012
| author=Auld, Alison
}}</ref> Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries.<ref name=Commission>Anna Glayzer for The Food Commission. 19 July 2010
[http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/articles/cubas_food_production_revolution/ Cuba's food production revolution]</ref><ref>Andrea Swenson for Modern Farmer. 17 November 2014 [http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/cuban-farming-stepping-backward-future/ Photo Essay: Cuban Farmers Return to the Old Ways]</ref> Cuba's organic strategy includes development of [[genetically modified crops]]; specifically corn that is resistant to the palomilla moth.<ref name=Commission/>

=== Growth ===

[[File:Growth of organic farmland since 2000.png|thumb|right|Organic farmland by world region (2000–2008)]]

In 2001, the global market value of certified organic products was estimated at US$20 billion. By 2002, this was US$23 billion and by 2015 more than US$43 billion.<ref name="OrgWorldYearbook2011">{{Cite news|url=https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031|title=U.S. organic sales post new record of $43.3 billion in 2015|publisher=OTA|year=2016}}</ref> By 2014, retail sales of organic products reached US$80 billion worldwide.<ref name="OrgWorldYearbook2016">{{cite news|last1=Willer|first1=Helga|last2=Lernoud|first2=Julia|title=The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2016|url=http://www.organic-world.net/yearbook/yearbook-2016.html|publisher=Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, and IFOAM – Organics International|date=2016|location=Bonn}}</ref> North America and Europe accounted for more than 90% of all organic product sales.<ref name="OrgWorldYearbook2016"/> In 2018 Australia accounted for 54% of the world's certified organic land with the country recording more than {{convert|35,000,000|ha||adj=pre| verified organic}}.<ref name=oamaps>Paull, John & Hennig, Benjamin (2018) [https://www.academia.edu/37851248/Maps_of_Organic_Agriculture_in_Australia Maps of Organic Agriculture in Australia], Journal of Organics. 5 (1): 29–39.</ref>

Organic agricultural land increased almost fourfold in 15 years, from {{convert|11|e6ha|abbr=off}} in 1999 to {{convert|43.7|e6ha|abbr=off}} in 2014.<ref name="OrgWorldYearbook2016"/> Between 2013 and 2014, organic agricultural land grew by {{convert|500|e3ha|abbr=off}} worldwide, increasing in every region except Latin America.<ref name="OrgWorldYearbook2016"/> During this time period, Europe's organic farmland increased {{convert|260|e3ha|abbr=off}} to {{convert|11.6|e6ha|abbr=off}} (+2.3%), Asia's increased {{convert|159|e3ha|abbr=off}} to {{convert|3.6|e6ha|abbr=off}} (+4.7%), Africa's increased {{convert|54|e3ha|abbr=off}} to {{convert|1.3|e6ha|abbr=off}} total (+4.5%), and North America's increased {{convert|35|e3ha|abbr=off}} to {{convert|3.1|e6ha|abbr=off}} total (+1.1%).<ref name="OrgWorldYearbook2016"/> As of 2014, the country with the most organic land was Australia ({{convert|17.2|e6ha|abbr=off}}), followed by Argentina ({{convert|3.1|e6ha|abbr=off}}), and the United States ({{convert|2.2|e6ha|abbr=off}}).<ref name=OrgWorldYearbook2016/> Australia's organic land area has increased at a rate of 16.5% per annum for the past eighteen years.<ref name=oamaps/>

In 2013, the number of organic producers grew by almost 270,000, or more than 13%.<ref name=OrgWorldYearbook2016/> By 2014, there were a reported 2.3 million organic producers in the world.<ref name=OrgWorldYearbook2016/> Most of the total global increase took place in the Philippines, Peru, China, and Thailand.<ref name=OrgWorldYearbook2016/> Overall, the majority of all organic producers are in India (650,000 in 2013), Uganda (190,552 in 2014), Mexico (169,703 in 2013) and the Philippines (165,974 in 2014).<ref name=OrgWorldYearbook2016/>

In 2016, organic farming produced over {{Convert|1|e6MT|abbr=off}} of bananas, over {{convert|800|e3MT|abbr=off}} of soybean, and just under {{convert|500|e3MT|abbr=off}} of coffee.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Market Coverage|url=https://www.iisd.org/ssi/market-coverage/|website=State of Sustainability Initiatives}}</ref>

=== Productivity ===

Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.<ref name="Welsh, Rick 1999">{{cite journal | author=Welsh, Rick | title=Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States | journal=Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture | series=Policy Studies Report No. 13 | year=1999 | url=http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/134120}}</ref> These differences among findings can often be attributed to variations between study designs including differences in the crops studied and the methodology by which results were gathered.

A 2012 meta-analysis found that productivity is typically lower for organic farming than conventional farming, but that the size of the difference depends on context and in some cases may be very small.<ref name=Verena2013>{{cite journal | last1 = Seufert | first1 = Verena | last2 = Ramankutty | first2 = Navin | last3 = Foley | first3 = Jonathan A. | year = 2012 | title = Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture | journal = Nature | volume = 485 | issue = 7397| pages = 229–232 | doi=10.1038/nature11069| bibcode = 2012Natur.485..229S | pmid = 22535250 | s2cid = 2702124 }}</ref> While organic yields can be lower than conventional yields, another meta-analysis published in Sustainable Agriculture Research in 2015, concluded that certain organic on-farm practices could help narrow this gap. Timely weed management and the application of manure in conjunction with legume forages/cover crops were shown to have positive results in increasing organic corn and soybean productivity.

Another meta-analysis published in the journal ''Agricultural Systems'' in 2011 analyzed 362 datasets and found that organic yields were on average 80% of conventional yields. The author's found that there are relative differences in this yield gap based on crop type with crops like soybeans and rice scoring higher than the 80% average and crops like wheat and potato scoring lower. Across global regions, Asia and Central Europe were found to have relatively higher yields and Northern Europe relatively lower than the average.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=de Pont |first1=Tomek |last2=Rijk |first2=Bert |last3=van Ittersum |first3=Martin K. |date=19 December 2011 |title=The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture |journal=Agricultural Systems |volume=108 |pages=1–9 |doi=10.1016/j.agsy.2011.12.004}}</ref>

====Long term studies====
A study published in 2005 compared conventional cropping, organic animal-based cropping, and organic legume-based cropping on a test farm at the [[Rodale Institute]] over 22 years.<ref>Pimentel DP et al. (2005) [http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/02/20/Pimental_EnvironmentalEnergeticAndEconomicComparisonsOfOrganicAndConventionalFarmingSystems.pdf Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130601032933/http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/02/20/Pimental_EnvironmentalEnergeticAndEconomicComparisonsOfOrganicAndConventionalFarmingSystems.pdf |date=1 June 2013 }} Bioscience 55(7): 573-582.</ref> The study found that "the crop yields for corn and soybeans were similar in the organic animal, organic legume, and conventional farming systems". It also found that "significantly less [[fossil energy]] was expended to produce corn in the Rodale Institute's organic animal and organic legume systems than in the conventional production system. There was little difference in energy input between the different treatments for producing soybeans. In the organic systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were generally not used". As of 2013 the Rodale study was ongoing<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/|title=Farming Systems Trial}}</ref> and a thirty-year anniversary report was published by Rodale in 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf |title=The Farming Systems Trial Rodale 30 year report|access-date=March 7, 2017}}</ref>

A long-term field study comparing organic/conventional agriculture carried out over 21 years in Switzerland concluded that "Crop yields of the organic systems averaged over 21 experimental years at 80% of the conventional ones. The fertilizer input, however, was 34 – 51% lower, indicating an efficient production. The organic farming systems used 20 – 56% less energy to produce a crop unit and per land area this difference was 36 – 53%. In spite of the considerably lower pesticide input the quality of organic products was hardly discernible from conventional analytically and even came off better in food preference trials and picture creating methods."<ref>Fliessbach, et al. ([[Research Institute of Organic Agriculture]]), [http://www.soilace.com/pdf/pon2004/1.Fliessbach.pdf "D-O-K (Biodynamic-Bioorganic-Conventional): Results From 21 Year Old Field Experiment"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120710044051/http://www.soilace.com/pdf/pon2004/1.Fliessbach.pdf |date=10 July 2012 }}.</ref>

=== Profitability ===

In the United States, organic farming has been shown to be 2.7 to 3.8 times more profitable for the farmer than conventional farming when prevailing price premiums are taken into account.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moyer|first=Jeff|date=2013|title=Perspective on Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial|journal=Crop Management|volume=12|pages=1–3|doi=10.1094/CM-2013-0429-03-PS}}</ref> Globally, organic farming is 22–35% more profitable for farmers than conventional methods, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of studies conducted across five continents.<ref name="Crowder 7611–7616">{{Cite journal|last1=Crowder|first1=David W.|last2=Reganold |first2=John P.|date=16 June 2015|title=Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=112|issue=24|pages=7611–7616|doi=10.1073/pnas.1423674112|issn=0027-8424|pmc=4475942 |pmid=26034271|bibcode=2015PNAS..112.7611C|doi-access=free}}</ref>

The profitability of organic agriculture can be attributed to a number of factors. First, organic farmers do not rely on synthetic fertilizer and pesticide inputs, which can be costly. In addition, organic foods currently enjoy a price premium over conventionally produced foods, meaning that organic farmers can often get more for their yield.

The price premium for organic food is an important factor in the economic viability of organic farming. In 2013 there was a 100% price premium on organic vegetables and a 57% price premium for organic fruits. These percentages are based on wholesale fruit and vegetable prices, available through the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-prices.aspx|title=USDA Economic Research Service - Organic Prices|last=Greene|first=Catherine|website=www.ers.usda.gov|access-date=25 March 2016}}</ref> Price premiums exist not only for organic versus nonorganic crops, but may also vary depending on the venue where the product is sold: farmers' markets, grocery stores, or wholesale to restaurants. For many producers, direct sales at farmers' markets are most profitable because the farmer receives the entire markup, however this is also the most time and labour-intensive approach.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Understanding Organic Pricing and Costs of Production|last=Post|first=Emily|publisher=NCAT|year=2012}}</ref>

There have been signs of organic price premiums narrowing in recent years, which lowers the economic incentive for farmers to convert to or maintain organic production methods.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=McBride|first1=William D.|last2=Greene |first2=Catherine R.|date=2013|title=Organic Data and Research from the ARMS Survey: Findings on Competitiveness of the Organic Soybean Sector|journal=Crop Management|volume=12|pages=1–11|doi=10.1094/CM-2013-0429-04-RS}}</ref> Data from 22 years of experiments at the Rodale Institute found that, based on the current yields and production costs associated with organic farming in the United States, a price premium of only 10% is required to achieve parity with conventional farming.<ref name=":2" /> A separate study found that on a global scale, price premiums of only 5-7% were needed to break even with conventional methods.<ref name="Crowder 7611–7616"/> Without the price premium, profitability for farmers is mixed.<ref name="Lotter2003" />{{rp|11}}

For markets and supermarkets organic food is profitable as well, and is generally sold at significantly higher prices than non-organic food.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/business/18organic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0|title=Sticker Shock in the Organic Aisles |last=Martin|first=Andrew|author2=Kim Severson |date=18 April 2008|newspaper=New York Times|access-date=5 March 2015}}</ref>

=== Energy efficiency ===

Compared to conventional agriculture, the energy efficiency of organic farming depends upon crop type and farm size.<ref name="auto2"/><ref name="Pimental 1983 359–372">{{cite journal | author=Pimental | title=Energy efficiency of farming systems: Organic and conventional agriculture | journal=[[Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment]]| year=1983 | volume=9 | pages=359–372 | doi=10.1016/0167-8809(83)90021-X | last2=Berardi | first2=Gigi | last3=Fast | first3=Sarah | issue=4| bibcode=1983AgEE....9..359P |display-authors=etal}}</ref>

Two studies – both comparing organically- versus conventionally-farmed apples – declare contradicting results, one saying organic farming is more energy efficient, the other saying conventionally is more efficient.<ref name="Pimental 1983 359–372"/><ref name="Reganold et al. 2001 926–930">{{cite journal |last1=Reganold |first1=JP|title=Sustainability of three apple production systems |journal=Nature |date=April 2001 |volume=410 |pages=926–930 |doi=10.1038/35073574 |pmid=11309616 |last2=Glover |first2=JD |last3=Andrews |first3=PK |last4=Hinman |first4=HR |issue=6831 |display-authors=etal| bibcode=2001Natur.410..926R |s2cid=4338786}}</ref>

It has generally been found that the labour input per unit of yield was higher for organic systems compared with conventional production.<ref name="Pimental 1983 359–372"/>

=== Sales and marketing ===

Most sales are concentrated in developed nations. In 2008, 69% of Americans claimed to occasionally buy organic products, down from 73% in 2005. One theory for this change was that consumers were substituting "local" produce for "organic" produce.<ref>CNN. [https://money.cnn.com/2008/04/23/news/companies/organics_backlash/index.htm?postversion=2008042308 Consumer surveys show slipping interest in organic products]</ref><ref>[http://www.hartman-group.com/publications/reports/organic-marketplace/ The Hartman Group Organic Marketplace Reports] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517044835/http://www.hartman-group.com/publications/reports/organic-marketplace/ |date=17 May 2008 }}.</ref>

=== Distributors ===

The [[United States Department of Agriculture|USDA]] requires that distributors, manufacturers, and processors of organic products be certified by an accredited state or private agency.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/192533/vgs32901.pdf|title=Using Vertically Coordinated Relationships To Overcome Tight Supply in the Organic Market|last1=Dimitri|first1=Carolyn|last2=Oberholtzer|first2=Lydia|date=October 2008|publisher=USDA|access-date=2016-04-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160518010404/http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/192533/vgs32901.pdf|archive-date=18 May 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2007, there were 3,225 certified organic handlers, up from 2,790 in 2004.<ref name="ers.usda.gov">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=44432|title=Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends From Farms to Consumers (EIB-58)|first1=Carolyn|last1=Dimitri|first2=Lydia|last2=Oberholtzer|website=[[Economic Research Service]]|date=September 2009}}</ref>

Organic handlers are often small firms; 48% reported sales below $1 million annually, and 22% between $1 and $5 million per year.<ref name="Oberholtzer">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2008-september/us-organic-handlers-mostly-small,-focus-on-fruit-and-vegetables.aspx#.VxTnWRMrI6h|title=USDA Economic Research Service - U.S. Organic Handlers Mostly Small, Focus on Fruit and Vegetables |last1=Dimitri |first1=Carolyn |last2=Oberholtzer |first2=Lydia |website=www.ers.usda.gov|access-date=2016-04-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160426205152/http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2008-september/us-organic-handlers-mostly-small,-focus-on-fruit-and-vegetables.aspx#.VxTnWRMrI6h|archive-date=26 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> Smaller handlers are more likely to sell to independent natural grocery stores and natural product chains whereas large distributors more often market to natural product chains and conventional supermarkets, with a small group marketing to independent natural product stores.<ref name="ers.usda.gov"/> Some handlers work with conventional farmers to convert their land to organic with the knowledge that the farmer will have a secure sales outlet. This lowers the risk for the handler as well as the farmer. In 2004, 31% of handlers provided technical support on organic standards or production to their suppliers and 34% encouraged their suppliers to transition to organic.<ref name="auto"/> Smaller farms often join in [[cooperative]]s to market their goods more effectively.

93% of organic sales are through conventional and natural food supermarkets and chains, while the remaining 7% of U.S. organic food sales occur through farmers' markets, [[foodservice]]s, and other marketing channels.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx|title=USDA Economic Research Service - Organic Market Overview|last=Greene|first=Catherine|website=www.ers.usda.gov|access-date=2016-04-19|archive-date=26 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826120318/http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref>

==== Direct-to-consumer sales ====

In the 2012 Census, direct-to-consumer sales equalled $1.3 billion, up from $812 million in 2002, an increase of 60 percent. The number of farms that utilize direct-to-consumer sales was 144,530 in 2012 in comparison to 116,733 in 2002.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/2012-census-organic-local/|title=2012 Census Drilldown: Organic and Local Food {{!}} National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition|website=sustainableagriculture.net|date=16 May 2014|access-date=2016-04-19}}</ref> Direct-to-consumer sales include farmers' markets, [[Community-supported agriculture|community supported agriculture]] (CSA), on-farm stores, and roadside farm stands. Some organic farms also sell products direct to retailer, direct to restaurant and direct to institution.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/138324/err128_2_.pdf|title=Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States|last=Low|first=Sarah|date=November 2011|publisher=USDA|access-date=2016-04-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160518003010/http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/138324/err128_2_.pdf|archive-date=18 May 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey, approximately 7% of organic farm sales were direct-to-consumers, 10% went direct to retailers, and approximately 83% went into wholesale markets. In comparison, only 0.4% of the value of convention agricultural commodities were direct-to-consumers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=44506|title=The Role of Contracts in the Organic Supply Chain: 2004 and 2007 (EIB-69)|first1=Carolyn|last1=Dimitri|first2=Lydia|last2=Oberholtzer|first3=Michelle|last3=Wittenberger|website=[[Economic Research Service]]|date=December 2010}}</ref>

While not all products sold at farmer's markets are certified organic, this direct-to-consumer avenue has become increasingly popular in local food distribution and has grown substantially since 1994. In 2014, there were 8,284 farmer's markets in comparison to 3,706 in 2004 and 1,755 in 1994, most of which are found in populated areas such as the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=48561&ref=collection&embed=True|title=Number of U.S. farmers' markets continues to rise|last=Vogel|first=Stephen|date=August 2014|publisher=USDA|access-date=2016-04-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160426162736/http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=48561&ref=collection&embed=True|archive-date=26 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Labour and employment ===

Organic production is more labour-intensive than conventional production.<ref name=FAOFAQ>Staff, FAO [http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq5/en/ Organic Agriculture FAQ]</ref> Increased labour cost is one factor that contributes to organic food being more expensive.<ref name=FAOFAQ/> Organic farming's increased labour requirements can be seen in a good way providing more job opportunities for people. The 2011 UNEP Green Economy Report suggests that "[a]n increase in investment in green agriculture is projected to lead to growth in employment of about 60 per cent compared with current levels" and that "green agriculture investments could create 47 million additional jobs compared with BAU2 over the next 40 years".<ref>Citation used: UNEP, 2011, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, www.unep.org/greeneconomy</ref>

Much of the growth in women labour participation in agriculture is outside the "male dominated field of conventional agriculture". Organic farming has a greater percentage of women working in the farms with 21% compared to farming in general with 14%.{{fact|date=May 2025}}

=== World's food security ===

In 2007 the United Nations [[Food and Agriculture Organization]] (FAO) said that organic agriculture often leads to higher prices and hence a better income for farmers, so it should be promoted. However, FAO stressed that organic farming could not feed the current human population, much less the larger future population. Both data and models showed that organic farming was far from sufficient. Therefore, chemical fertilizers were needed to avoid hunger.<ref name=fao>{{cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000726/index.html|title=Organic agriculture can contribute to fighting hunger - But chemical fertilizers needed to feed the world|website=Food and Agriculture Organization|date=2007-12-10|access-date=|archive-date=2 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130502120829/http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000726/index.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> Others have argued that organic farming is particularly well-suited to food-insecure areas, and therefore could be "an important part of increased food security" in places like sub-Saharan Africa<ref name="Halweil">{{cite web|last=Halweil|first=Brian|title=Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?.|url=http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060|publisher=World Watch Magazine|access-date=2 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140209135230/http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060|archive-date=9 February 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref>

FAO stressed that fertilizers and other chemical inputs can increase production, particularly in Africa where fertilizers are currently used 90% less than in Asia.<ref name=fao/> For example, in Malawi the yield has been boosted using seeds and fertilizers.<ref name=fao/>

Also [[NEPAD]], a development organization of African governments, announced that feeding Africans and preventing malnutrition requires fertilizers and enhanced seeds.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100304023531/http://www.africafertilizersummit.org/ Meeting Africa's Food Challenge], The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), 9–13 June 2006, Abuja, Nigeria.</ref>

According to a 2012 study from McGill University, organic best management practices show an average yield only 13% less than conventional.<ref>{{cite web|title=Can organic food feed the world? New study sheds light on debate over organic vs. conventional agriculture|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425140114.htm|website=Science Daily|access-date=2 March 2014}}</ref> In the world's poorer nations where most of the world's hungry live, and where conventional agriculture's expensive inputs are not affordable for the majority of farmers, adopting organic management actually increases yields 93% on average, and could be an important part of increased food security.<ref name="Halweil"/><ref>{{cite web|last=De Schutter|first=Olivier|title=Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food|url=http://3x39fmt0aja34zifjfnu4695x.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20110308_UN_agroecology_report.pdf|publisher=United Nations|access-date=3 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140308095001/http://3x39fmt0aja34zifjfnu4695x.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20110308_UN_agroecology_report.pdf|archive-date=8 March 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Capacity building in developing countries ===

Organic agriculture can contribute to ecological sustainability, especially in poorer countries.<ref>{{cite web | title = ICapacity Building Study 3: Organic Agriculture and Food Security in East Africa | publisher = University of Essex | url = http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/events/dsalaam2/Organic%20Agriculture%20and%20Food%20Security%20in%20East%20Africa%20FINAL%20May07.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071201140714/http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/events/dsalaam2/Organic%20Agriculture%20and%20Food%20Security%20in%20East%20Africa%20FINAL%20May07.pdf | url-status = dead | archive-date = 2007-12-01 }}</ref> The application of organic principles enables employment of local resources (e.g., local seed varieties, manure, etc.) and therefore cost-effectiveness. Local and international markets for organic products show tremendous growth prospects and offer creative producers and exporters excellent opportunities to improve their income and living conditions.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Going organic : mobilizing networks for environmentally responsible food production|last=Lockie, S.|date=2006|publisher=CABI|isbn=9781845931582|location=Wallingford|oclc=297145982}}</ref>

Organic agriculture is knowledge intensive. Globally, capacity building efforts are underway, including localized training material, to limited effect. As of 2007, the [[International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements]] hosted more than 170 free manuals and 75 training opportunities online.{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}}

In 2008 the [[United Nations Environmental Programme]] (UNEP) and the [[United Nations Conference on Trade and Development]] (UNCTAD) stated that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long-term"<ref name=UNEP2008>UNEP-UNCTAD. (2008). Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations. [http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf Free full-text] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090117052322/http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf |date=17 January 2009 }}.</ref> and that "yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used" and that soil fertility and [[drought tolerance|drought resistance]] improved.<ref>{{cite news|last=Howden |first=D. |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202151341/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-farming-could-feed-africa-968641.html |title=Organic farming 'could feed Africa' |publisher=The Independent}}</ref>

==== Millennium Development Goals ====

The value of organic agriculture (OA) in the achievement of the [[Millennium Development Goals]] (MDG), particularly in poverty reduction efforts in the face of climate change, is shown by its contribution to both income and non-income aspects of the MDGs. These benefits are expected to continue in the post-MDG era. A series of case studies conducted in selected areas in Asian countries by the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) and published as a book compilation by ADB in Manila document these contributions to both income and non-income aspects of the MDGs. These include poverty alleviation by way of higher incomes, improved farmers' health owing to less chemical exposure, integration of sustainable principles into rural development policies, improvement of access to safe water and sanitation, and expansion of global partnership for development as small farmers are integrated in value chains.<ref name="E&S">{{Cite book|url=https://www.adb.org/publications/organic-agriculture-and-post-2015-development-goals|title=Organic Agriculture, Poverty Reduction, Climate Change, and the Millennium Development Goals (Chapter 1 of Organic Agriculture and Post-2015 Development Goals: Building on the Comparative Advantage of Poor Farmers)|date=June 23, 2015|publisher=[[Asian Development Bank]]|pages=3–48|first=Sununtar|last=Setboonsarng}}</ref>

A related ADBI study also sheds on the costs of OA programs and set them in the context of the costs of attaining the MDGs. The results show considerable variation across the case studies, suggesting that there is no clear structure to the costs of adopting OA. Costs depend on the efficiency of the OA adoption programs. The lowest cost programs were more than ten times less expensive than the highest cost ones. However, further analysis of the gains resulting from OA adoption reveals that the costs per person taken out of poverty was much lower than the estimates of the World Bank,<ref name="autogenerated1">World Bank. 2008. Global Monitoring Report 2008: MDGs and the Environment: Agenda for Inclusive and Sustainable Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.</ref> based on income growth in general or based on the detailed costs of meeting some of the more quantifiable MDGs (e.g., education, health, and environment).<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.adb.org/publications/organic-agriculture-and-post-2015-development-goals|title=The Costs of Achieving the Millennium Development Goals by Adopting Organic Agriculture (Chapter 2 of Organic Agriculture and Post-2015 Development Goals: Building on the Comparative Advantage of Poor Farmers)|date=June 23, 2015|publisher=[[Asian Development Bank]]|pages=49–78|first1=Anil|last1=Markandya|first2=Sununtar|last2=Setboonsarng|first3=Qiao|last3=YuHui|first4=Rachanee|last4=Songkranok|first5=Adam|last5=Stefan}}</ref>

=== Externalities ===

Agriculture imposes negative [[externalities]] upon society through public land and other public resource use, biodiversity loss, [[erosion]], [[pesticides]], [[nutrient pollution]], and assorted other problems. Positive externalities include self-reliance, entrepreneurship, respect for nature, and air quality.{{citation needed|date=May 2021}} Organic methods differ from conventional methods in the impacts of their respective externalities, dependent on implementation and crop type. Overall land use is generally higher for organic methods, but organic methods generally use less energy in production.<ref name="auto2"/><ref name=Marshall1991>{{Cite journal| last = Marshall | first = G. | year = 1991 | title= Organic Farming: Should Government Give it More Technical Support? | journal = Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics | volume = 59 | issue = 3 | pages = 283–296 | url=http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12390/1/59030283.pdf}}</ref> The analysis and comparison of externalities is complicated by whether the comparison is done using a per unit area measurement or per unit of production, and whether analysis is done on isolated plots or on farm units as a whole.<ref name="auto1">Stolze, M.; Piorr, A.; Häring, A.M. and Dabbert, S. (2000) Environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy Vol. 6. Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart-Hohenheim.</ref>

Measurements of biodiversity are highly variable between studies, farms, and organism groups. "Birds, predatory insects, soil organisms and plants responded positively to organic farming, while non-predatory insects and pests did not. A 2005 review found that the positive effects of organic farming on abundance were prominent at the plot and field scales, but not for farms in matched landscapes."<ref>{{Cite journal| last = Bengtsson | first = J. | year = 2005 | title= The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis | journal = Journal of Applied Ecology | volume = 42 | issue = 2 | pages = 261–269 | doi = 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x | doi-access = free | bibcode = 2005JApEc..42..261B }}</ref>

Other studies that have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming and have found that organic techniques reduce levels of biodiversity less than conventional systems do, and use less energy and produce less waste when calculated per unit area, although not when calculated per unit of output. "Farm comparisons show that actual (nitrate) leaching rates per hectare[/acre] are up to 57% lower on organic than on conventional fields. However, the leaching rates per unit of output were similar or slightly higher." "On a per-hectare[/-acre] scale, the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are 40{{Snd}}60% lower in organic farming systems than in conventional ones, whereas on a per-unit output scale, the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions tend to be higher in organic farming systems."<ref name="auto1"/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Hansen|first=Birgitt |author2=Alrøe, H. J. |author3=Kristensen, E. S.|title=Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark |journal = Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment| volume = 83|issue=1–2|pages = 11–26|date=January 2001| doi = 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00257-7|bibcode=2001AgEE...83...11H }}</ref>

It has been proposed that organic agriculture can reduce the level of some negative externalities from (conventional) agriculture. Whether the benefits are private, or public depends upon the division of property rights.<ref>{{cite web | author= New Zealand's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry | title= A Review of the Environmental/Public Good Costs and Benefits of Organic Farming and an Assessment of How Far These Can be Incorporated into Marketable Benefits | url= http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/organic-production/organic-farming-in-nz/org10005.htm | access-date= 20 April 2008 | url-status= dead | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081015111550/http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/organic-production/organic-farming-in-nz/org10005.htm | archive-date= 15 October 2008}}</ref>