Editing Organic farming (section)

== Issues ==
[[File:Organic-vs.-Conventional-Impacts-FINAL-01-768x556.png|thumb|upright=2|Comparison of the environmental impact of organic versus conventional agriculture. A value of 1.0 means the impact of both systems are the same; values greater than 1.0 mean the impacts of organic systems are higher (worse). On most parameters organic farming scores worse than conventional farming. (Note that the impacts on biodiversity are not compared).<ref>{{cite journal|language=en |url=https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for-the-environment|title=Is organic really better for the environment than conventional agriculture?|date=19 October 2017|author=Hannah Ritchie|author-link=Hannah Ritchie |journal=[[Our World in Data]]}}</ref>]]
According to a meta analysis published in 2017, compared to conventional agriculture, biological agriculture has a higher land requirement per yield unit, a higher eutrophication potential, a higher acidification potential and a lower energy requirement, but is associated with similarly high greenhouse gas emissions.<ref name="auto2" />

A 2003 to 2005 investigation by the [[Cranfield University]] for the [[Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs]] in the UK found that it is difficult to compare the [[global warming potential]], acidification and eutrophication emissions but "Organic production often results in increased burdens, from factors such as nitrogen leaching and N<sub>2</sub>O emissions", even though primary energy use was less for most organic products. N<sub>2</sub>O is always the largest global warming potential contributor except in tomatoes. However, "organic tomatoes always incur more burdens (except pesticide use)". Some emissions were lower "per area", but organic farming always required 65 to 200% more field area than non-organic farming. The numbers were highest for bread wheat (200+ % more) and potatoes (160% more).<ref>[http://www.organicagcentre.ca/ResearchDatabase/res_enviro_burdens.asp Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140329093718/http://www.organicagcentre.ca/ResearchDatabase/res_enviro_burdens.asp |date=29 March 2014 }}, Williams, A.G. et al., Cranfield University, U.K., August 2006. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada.</ref><ref>[http://www.smmi.nu/IS0205_3959_FRP.pdf Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. - IS0205] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927150719/http://www.smmi.nu/IS0205_3959_FRP.pdf |date=27 September 2013 }}, Williams, A.G. et al., Cranfield University, U.K., August 2006. Svensk mat- och miljöinformation. Pages 4-6, 29 and 84-85.</ref>

=== Environmental impact and emissions ===

Researchers at Oxford University analysed 71 peer-reviewed studies and observed that organic products are sometimes worse for the environment.<ref name="oxford">{{cite web |url-status=dead |via=[[Oregon State University]] |url=http://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites/people.forestry.oregonstate.edu.steve-strauss/files/Organic%20farms%20not%20necessarily%20better%20for%20environment%20-%20University%20of%20Oxford_2012.pdf |title=Organic farms not necessarily better for environment |publisher=University of Oxford |date=September 12, 2004 |archive-date=November 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129022724/http://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites/people.forestry.oregonstate.edu.steve-strauss/files/Organic%20farms%20not%20necessarily%20better%20for%20environment%20-%20University%20of%20Oxford_2012.pdf }}</ref> Organic milk, cereals, and pork generated higher [[greenhouse gas emissions]] per product than conventional ones but organic beef and olives had lower emissions in most studies.<ref name=oxford/> Usually organic products required less energy, but more land.<ref name=oxford/> Per unit of product, organic produce generates higher nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, [[eutrophication]], and acidification potential than conventionally grown produce.<ref name=tuomisto>[https://www.academia.edu/1907461/Does_organic_farming_reduce_environmental_impacts_-_A_meta-analysis_of_European_research Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? - A meta-analysis of European research], H.L. Tuomisto, I.D. Hodge, P. Riordan & D.W. Macdonald, Authors’ version of the paper published in: Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 309-320</ref> Other differences were not significant.<ref name=tuomisto/> The researchers concluded that public debate should consider various manners of employing conventional or organic farming, and not merely debate conventional farming as opposed to organic farming. They also sought to find specific solutions to specific circumstances.<ref name="tuomisto" />{{clarify|reason=I have tried to clean up this very awkward and vague sentence (changed into the previous two sentences) but it still needs a lot of work to clearly state what the original editor intended to communicate from the source.|date=February 2018}}

A 2018 review article in the ''[[Annual Review of Resource Economics]]'' found that organic agriculture is more polluting per unit of output and that widespread upscaling of organic agriculture would cause additional loss of natural habitats.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last1=Meemken|first1=Eva-Marie|last2=Qaim|first2=Matin|date=2018|title=Organic Agriculture, Food Security, and the Environment|journal=Annual Review of Resource Economics|volume=10|issue=1|pages=39–63|doi=10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023252 |issn=1941-1340|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Proponents of organic farming have claimed that organic agriculture emphasizes closed [[nutrient cycle]]s, biodiversity, and effective [[soil management]] providing the capacity to mitigate and even reverse the effects of [[climate change]]<ref>Meleca (2008). [https://web.archive.org/web/20081211111856/http://www.organicguide.com/community/education/the-organic-answer-to-climate-change/ The Organic Answer to Climate Change].</ref> and that organic agriculture can decrease [[Flue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustion|fossil fuel emissions]].<ref name="Rodale2014">Rodale Institute 18 April 2014. [http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/RegenOrgAgricultureAndClimateChange_20140418.pdf Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change]</ref> "The carbon sequestration efficiency of organic systems in temperate climates is almost double ({{convert|575–700|kg/ha/year}}) that of conventional treatment of soils, mainly owing to the use of grass clovers for feed and of cover crops in organic rotations."<ref>UNEP, 2011, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, www.unep.org/greeneconomy</ref> However, studies acknowledge organic systems require more acreage to produce the same yield as conventional farms. By converting to organic farms in developed countries where most arable land is accounted for,<ref name="FAOARABLE">{{cite web|url=https://www.fao.org/3/y4252e/y4252e06.htm |title=Crop production and natural resource use |publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |date=2015}}</ref> increased deforestation would decrease overall carbon sequestration.<ref name="STRATEGIES">{{Cite journal |last1=Muller |first1=Adrian |last2=Schader |first2=Christian |last3=Scialabba |first3=Nadia El-Hage |last4=Brüggemann |first4=Judith |last5=Isensee |first5=Anne |last6=Erb |first6=Heinz |last7=Smith |first7=Pete |last8=Klocke |first8=Peter |last9=Leiber |first9=Leiber |last10=Stolze |first10=Matthias |last11=Niggli |first11=Urs |date=2017 |title=Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture |journal=Nature Communications |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=1290 |doi=10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w |pmid=29138387 |pmc=5686079 |issn=2041-1723 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2017NatCo...8.1290M }}</ref>

Smith et al. (2019) analysed the net greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a hypothetical full conversion of agriculture in England and Wales to 100% organic production. They estimated that such a transition would lead to a 40% reduction in food production compared to conventional farming. Domestic greenhouse gas emissionsemissions would decrease by 6%, but the lower yields would require increased food imports, resulting in [[land-use change]] abroad. In the medium scenario—where half of the additional land is converted from grassland and moderate soil carbon sequestration is assumed—this would lead to a 21% increase in global greenhouse gas emissions emissions compared to the conventional system.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Laurence G. |last2=Kirk |first2=Guy J.D. |last3=Jones |first3=Philip J. |last4=Williams |first4=Adrian G. |title=The greenhouse gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales to organic methods |journal=Nature Communications |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=4641 |year=2019 |doi=10.1038/s41467-019-12622-7 |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12622-7 |pmc=6805889 }}</ref>

=== Nutrient leaching ===

According to a 2012 [[meta-analysis]] of 71 studies, nitrogen leaching, [[nitrous oxide]] emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication potential and acidification potential were higher for organic products. Specifically, the emission per area of land is lower, but per amount of food produced is higher.<ref name=tuomisto/> This is due to the lower crop yield of organic farms. Excess nutrients in lakes, rivers, and groundwater can cause [[algal blooms]], [[eutrophication]], and subsequent [[dead zone (ecology)|dead zones]]. In addition, [[nitrate]]s are harmful to aquatic organisms by themselves.<ref name="Science 2001-04-13">{{Cite journal|title=Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Climate Change|journal=Science|date=21 March 2006|pmid=11303102|doi=10.1126/science.1057544|last1=Tilman|first1=D|last2=Fargione|first2=J|last3=Wolff|first3=B|last4=d'Antonio|first4=C|last5=Dobson|first5=A|last6=Howarth|first6=R|last7=Schindler|first7=D|last8=Schlesinger|first8=WH|last9=Simberloff|first9=D|volume=292|issue=5515|pages=281–4|bibcode=2001Sci...292..281T|last10=Swackhamer|first10=D|s2cid=23847498}}</ref>

=== Land use ===

A 2012 Oxford meta-analysis of 71 studies found that organic farming requires 84% more land for an equivalent amount of harvest, mainly due to lack of nutrients but sometimes due to weeds, diseases or pests, lower yielding animals and land required for fertility building crops.<ref name=tuomisto/> While organic farming does not necessarily save land for wildlife habitats and forestry in all cases,<ref name=oxford/> the most modern breakthroughs in organic are addressing these issues with success.<ref>{{cite web|title=Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial|url=http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/farming-systems-trial-30-year-report/|publisher=Rodale Institute|access-date=24 February 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Undersander|first=Dan|title=Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing|url=http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/A3529.PDF|work=University of Wisconsin|publisher=Cooperative extension publishing|access-date=24 February 2014|display-authors=etal}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Undersander|first=Dan|title=Grassland Birds: Fostering Habitats Using Rotational Grazing|url=http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/a3715.pdf|work=University of Wisconsin|publisher=Cooperative extension publishing|access-date=24 February 2014|display-authors=etal}}</ref>

Professor Wolfgang Branscheid says that organic animal production is not good for the environment, because organic chicken requires twice as much land as "conventional" chicken and organic pork a quarter more.<ref name=wn>[http://www.wn.de/Mobil-Home/Experte-zur-Nachhaltigkeit-in-der-Landwirtschaft-Bio-ist-auch-keine-Loesung Experte zur Nachhaltigkeit in der Landwirtschaft: „Bio ist auch keine Lösung"], Westfälischen Nachrichten, 19 November 2012. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150609112506/http://www.wn.de/Mobil-Home/Experte-zur-Nachhaltigkeit-in-der-Landwirtschaft-Bio-ist-auch-keine-Loesung |date=9 June 2015 }}</ref> According to a calculation by Hudson Institute, organic beef requires three times as much land.<ref>[http://www.cgfi.org/pdfs/nofollow/beef-eco-benefits-paper.pdf The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130418112704/http://www.cgfi.org/pdfs/nofollow/beef-eco-benefits-paper.pdf |date=18 April 2013 }}, Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues, Figure 5, page 22.</ref> On the other hand, certain organic methods of animal husbandry have been shown to restore desertified, marginal, and/or otherwise unavailable land to agricultural productivity and wildlife.<ref name="greenbiz">{{cite web|last=Coughlin|first=Chrissy|title=Allan Savory: How livestock can protect the land|date=10 March 2013 |url=http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/03/10/allan-savory-how-livestock-can-protect-land|publisher=GreenBiz|access-date=5 April 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Dagget|first=Dan|title=Convincing Evidence|url=http://www.maninnature.com/Bovines/Cattle/Cattle1a.html|publisher=Man in Nature|access-date=5 April 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010306044501/http://www.maninnature.com/Bovines/Cattle/Cattle1a.html|archive-date=6 March 2001}}</ref> Or by getting both forage and cash crop production from the same fields simultaneously, reduce net land use.<ref>{{cite web|last=Bradley|first= Kirsten| title=Why Pasture Cropping is such a Big Deal|date= 7 December 2010|url=http://milkwood.net/2010/12/07/why-pasture-cropping-is-such-a-big-deal/|publisher=Milkwood|access-date=10 January 2014}}</ref>

SRI methods for rice production, without external inputs, have produced record yields on some farms,<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.3763/ijas.2003.0105 | volume=1 | title=Higher Yields with Fewer External Inputs? The System of Rice Intensification and Potential Contributions to Agricultural Sustainability | year=2003 | journal=International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability | pages=38–50 | last1 = Uphoff | first1 = Norman| issue=1 | bibcode=2003IJAgS...1...38U | s2cid=153721720 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Piras|first=Nicola|title=New record in Bihar thanks to SRI|url=http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/resources/extra/bihar-sri|work=Agri Cultures Network|access-date=20 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130911031158/http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/resources/extra/bihar-sri|archive-date=11 September 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> but not others.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/S1672-6308(12)60010-9 | volume=18 | title=Assessment of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and Conventional Practices under Organic and Inorganic Management in Japan | year=2011 | journal=Rice Science | pages=311–320 | last1 = Chapagain | first1 = Tejendra | issue=4 }}</ref>

=== Pesticides ===
[[File:Organic Apples Pateros WA cropped.jpg|thumb|A sign outside of an organic [[apple]] orchard in [[Pateros, Washington]], reminding orchardists not to spray pesticides on these trees]]

In organic farming the use of synthetic pesticides and certain natural compounds that are produced using chemical synthesis are prohibited. The organic labels restrictions are not only based on the nature of the compound, but also on the method of production.

A non-exhaustive list of organic approved pesticides with their [[median lethal dose]]s:

* [[Boric acid]] is used as an insecticide (LD<sub>50</sub>: 2660&nbsp;mg/kg).
* [[Copper(II) sulfate]] is used as a fungicide and is also used in conventional agriculture ([[Copper(II) sulfate|LD<sub>50</sub> 300 mg/kg]]). Conventional agriculture has the option to use the less toxic [[Mancozeb]] ([http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/mancozeb-ext.html LD<sub>50</sub> 4,500 to 11,200 mg/kg])
* [[Lime sulfur]] (aka calcium polysulfide) and sulfur are considered to be allowed, synthetic materials<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resourceguide/pdf/resource-guide-for-organic-insect-and-disease-management.pdf|page=172|title=Material Fact Sheet: Sulfur (Resource Guide for Organic Insect Disease and Management)|publisher=[[New York State Agricultural Experiment Station]]}}</ref> (LD<sub>50</sub>: 820&nbsp;mg/kg)
* [[Neem oil]] is used as an insect repellant in India;<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151146 |pmid=16332203 |title=Botanical Insecticides, Deterrents, and Repellents in Modern Agriculture and an Increasingly Regulated World |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |volume=51 |pages=45–66 |year=2006 |last1=Isman |first1=Murray B}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |pmid=8936291 |year=1995 |last1=Mishra |first1=A. K. |title=Use of neem oil as a mosquito repellent in tribal villages of mandla district, madhya pradesh |journal=Indian Journal of Malariology |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=99–103 |last2=Singh |first2=N. |last3=Sharma |first3=V. P.}}</ref> since it contains [[azadirachtin]] its use is restricted in the UK and Europe.<ref>{{cite web| title=CRD - Enforcement - Products Containing Azadirachtin (also known as Neem Oil)| website=webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk| url=http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/enforcement/products-containing-azadirachtin-also-known-as-neem-oil| last=CRD| access-date=4 July 2017| url-status=dead| archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20151023155227/http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/enforcement/products-containing-azadirachtin-also-known-as-neem-oil| archive-date=23 October 2015}}</ref>
* [[Pyrethrin]] comes from chemicals extracted from flowers of the genus ''[[Pyrethrum]]'' ([http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/pyrethrins-ext.html LD<sub>50</sub> of 370 mg/kg]). Its potent toxicity is used to control insects.

=== Food quality and safety ===
{{Main|Organic food}}
While there may be some differences in the amounts of nutrients and anti-nutrients when organically produced food and conventionally-produced food are compared, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results, and there is insufficient evidence to make claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food.<ref name=2014meta>{{cite journal|last1=Barański|first1=M|last2=Srednicka-Tober|first2=D|last3=Volakakis|first3=N|last4=Seal|first4=C|last5=Sanderson|first5=R|last6=Stewart|first6=GB|last7=Benbrook|first7=C|last8=Biavati|first8=B|last9=Markellou|first9=E|last10=Giotis|first10=C|last11=Gromadzka-Ostrowska|first11=J|last12=Rembiałkowska|first12=E|last13=Skwarło-Sońta |first13=K|last14=Tahvonen |first14=R|last15=Janovská|first15=D |last16=Niggli|first16=U|last17=Nicot|first17=P |last18=Leifert|first18=C |title=Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.|journal=The British Journal of Nutrition|date=26 June 2014|pages=794–811|pmid=24968103 |doi=10.1017/S0007114514001366 |volume=112 |issue=5 |pmc=4141693}}</ref><ref name="Blair1">Blair, Robert. (2012). Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. {{ISBN|978-0-8138-1217-5}}</ref><ref name=MagkosSafety2006>{{cite journal | last1 = Magkos | first1 = F | display-authors = etal | year = 2006 | title = Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature | journal = Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr | volume = 46 | issue = 1| pages = 23–56 | pmid = 16403682 | doi = 10.1080/10408690490911846 | s2cid = 18939644 }}</ref><ref name=Smith-Spangler2012>{{cite journal|last=Smith-Spangler|first=C |author2=Brandeau, ML|author2-link= Margaret Brandeau |author3=Hunter, GE |author4=Bavinger, JC |author5=Pearson, M |author6=Eschbach, PJ |author7=Sundaram, V |author8=Liu, H |author9=Schirmer, P |author10=Stave, C |author11=Olkin, I |author12=Bravata, DM|title=Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review.|journal=Annals of Internal Medicine|date=4 September 2012|volume=157|issue=5|pages=348–366|pmid=22944875 |doi=10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007|s2cid=21463708 }}</ref><ref name=FSA>{{cite web|title=Organic food|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605025656/http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/farmingfood/organicfood/|publisher=UK Food Standards Agency|archive-date=5 June 2011 |url=http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/farmingfood/organicfood/}}</ref>

=== Soil conservation ===
{{Main|Soil conservation}}
Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher [[soil quality|quality]]<ref>{{cite journal | author=Johnston, A. E. | title=Soil organic-matter, effects on soils and crops | journal=Soil Use Management | year=1986 | volume=2 | issue=3 | pages=97–105 | doi=10.1111/j.1475-2743.1986.tb00690.x| bibcode=1986SUMan...2...97J }}</ref> and higher [[Water retention curve|water retention]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.adb.org/publications/organic-agriculture-and-post-2015-development-goals|title=Carbon Sequestration in Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Path to a Brighter Future (Chapter 11 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=293–321|first1=Paul Reed|last1=Hepperly|first2=Sununtar|last2=Setboonsarng}}</ref> This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years. Organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming.<ref>ARS (2007) [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070710.htm Organic Farming Beats No-Till?]</ref> An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrient-depleted soil concluded that conventional methods were superior for [[soil fertility]] and yield for nutrient-depleted soils in cold-temperate climates, arguing that much of the benefit from organic farming derives from imported materials that could not be regarded as self-sustaining.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Kirchmann H | year = 2007 | title = Comparison of Long-Term Organic and Conventional Crop-Livestock Systems on a Previously Nutrient-Depleted Soil in Sweden | journal = Agronomy Journal | volume = 99 | issue = 4| pages = 960–972 | doi = 10.2134/agronj2006.0061 | last2 = Bergström | first2 = Lars | last3 = Kätterer | first3 = Thomas | last4 = Mattsson | first4 = Lennart | last5 = Gesslein | first5 = Sven | bibcode = 2007AgrJ...99..960K |display-authors=etal}}</ref>

In ''Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations'', geomorphologist David Montgomery outlines a coming crisis from soil [[erosion]]. Agriculture relies on roughly one meter of [[topsoil]], and that is being depleted ten times faster than it is being replaced.<ref>Seattle PI (2008). [http://www.seattlepi.com/national/348200_dirt22.html?source=mypi The lowdown on topsoil: it's disappearing]</ref> [[No-till]] farming, which some claim depends upon [[pesticides]], is one way to minimize erosion. However, a 2007 study by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service has found that manure applications in tilled organic farming are better at building up the soil than no-till.<ref name="organicsoil">{{cite web| title=No Shortcuts in Checking Soil Health |  publisher=USDA ARS | url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/soil0707.htm | access-date=2 October 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Hepperly/publication/332031711_Developments_in_Organic_No_Till_agriculture_the_best_of_both_worlds/links/5c9bf530299bf111694bc67f/Developments-in-Organic-No-Till-agriculture-the-best-of-both-worlds.pdf|last1=Hepperly|first1= Paul|first2= Jeff |last2=Moyer|first3= Dave |last3=Wilson|title=Developments in Organic No-till Agriculture |publisher=Acres USA: The Voice of Eco-agriculture |date=September 2008 |pp=16-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Roberts |first=Paul |url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=aniW3gclsMUC}}|title=The End of Food |date=2008 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |isbn=978-0-618-60623-8 |language=en}}</ref>Roberts, Paul. "The End of Food: Investigating a Global Crisis." Interview with Acres USA. Acres USA: The Voice of Eco-Agriculture October 2008: 56-63.</ref>

Gunsmoke Farms, a {{convert|137|km2|abbr=off}} organic farming project in [[South Dakota]], suffered from massive soil erosion as result of tiling after it switched to organic farming.<ref>{{Cite news|title=A Giant Organic Farm Faces Criticism That It's Harming The Environment|language=en|work=NPR.org|url=https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/989984124/a-giant-organic-farm-faces-criticism-that-its-harming-the-environment|access-date=2021-11-29}}</ref>

=== Biodiversity ===
{{Main|Organic farming and biodiversity}}

The conservation of natural resources and biodiversity is a core principle of organic production. Three broad management practices (prohibition/reduced use of chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilizers; sympathetic management of non-cropped habitats; and preservation of mixed farming) that are largely intrinsic (but not exclusive) to organic farming are particularly beneficial for farmland wildlife.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Pilgeram |first1=Ryanne |last2=Amos |first2=Bryan |date=September 7, 2015 |title=Beyond "Inherit It or Marry It": Exploring How Women Engaged in Sustainable Agriculture Access Farmland |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ruso.12054 |journal=[[Rural Sociology (journal)|Rural Sociology]] |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=16–38 |doi=10.1111/ruso.12054 |via=[[Wiley Online Library]]}}</ref> Using practices that attract or introduce beneficial insects, provide habitat for birds and mammals, and provide conditions that increase soil biotic diversity serve to supply vital ecological services to organic production systems. Advantages to certified organic operations that implement these types of production practices include: 1) decreased dependence on outside fertility inputs; 2) reduced pest-management costs; 3) more reliable sources of clean water; and 4) better pollination.<ref name="Agricultural Marketing Service 2016">"USDSA Guidance Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation"(PDF). ''Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program''. United States Department of Agriculture. 15 January 2016. Retrieved 5 March 2016.</ref>

Nearly all non-crop, naturally occurring<ref name=":0">{{in lang|fr}} Institut de recherche de l'agriculture biologique, [https://shop.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1441-arguments.pdf « 100 arguments en faveur de l’agriculture biologique »] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305045459/https://shop.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1441-arguments.pdf|date=5 March 2016}}, second edition, September 2015 (page visited on 8 November 2015).</ref> species observed in comparative farm land practice studies show a preference for organic farming both by abundance and diversity.<ref name="Hole et al. 2005" /><ref name="Gabriel and Tscharntke 2006">{{cite journal |doi=10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2011:BDADSS]2.0.CO;2 |year=2006 |volume=16 |pages=2011–21 |title=Beta Diversity at Different Spatial Scales: Plant Communities in Organic and Conventional Agriculture |last1=Gabriel |first1=Doreen |last2=Roschewitz |first2=Indra |last3=Tscharntke |first3=Teja |last4=Thies |first4=Carsten |journal=Ecological Applications |issue=5 |pmid=17069391}}</ref> An average of 30% more species inhabit organic farms.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bengtsston |first1=J. |last2=Ahnström |first2=J. |last3=Weibull |first3=A. |year=2005 |title=The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis|doi=10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x |journal=Journal of Applied Ecology |volume=42|issue=2 |pages=261–269|doi-access=free |bibcode=2005JApEc..42..261B }}</ref> Birds, butterflies, soil microbes, beetles, earthworms,<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.1080/01448765.2000.9754876|last=Blakemore |first=R.J. |year=2000 |title= Ecology of Earthworms under the 'Haughley Experiment' of Organic and Conventional Management Regimes | journal= Biological Agriculture & Horticulture |volume=18|issue=2 |pages=141–159 |bibcode=2000BioAH..18..141B |s2cid=85386290 |url=http://www.annelida.net/earthworm/Haughley/Haughley.doc }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title= Blakemore, R.J |journal=Soil Systems |year=2018 |volume=2 |issue=2 |page=33 |doi=10.3390/soilsystems2020033 |doi-access=free |last1=Blakemore |first1=Robert J. }}</ref> spiders, vegetation, and mammals are particularly affected. Lack of herbicides and pesticides improve biodiversity fitness and population density.<ref name="Gabriel and Tscharntke 2006" /> Many weed species attract beneficial insects that improve soil qualities and forage on weed pests.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00096-1|last=van Elsen |first=T. |year=2000 |title=Species diversity as a task for organic agriculture in Europe | journal=Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment |volume=77|issue=1–2 |pages=101–109|bibcode=2000AgEE...77..101V }}</ref> Soil-bound organisms often benefit because of increased bacteria populations due to natural fertilizer such as manure, while experiencing reduced intake of [[herbicide]]s and pesticides.<ref name="Hole et al. 2005" /> Increased biodiversity, especially from beneficial soil microbes and [[mycorrhizae]] have been proposed as an explanation for the high yields experienced by some organic plots, especially in light of the differences seen in a 21-year comparison of organic and control fields.<ref name="Fließbach et al. 2006">{{Cite journal|last1=Fließbach |first1=A. |last2=Oberholzer |first2=H. |last3=Gunst |first3=L. |last4=Mäder |first4=P. |year=2006 |title=Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming |journal=Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment |volume=118 |issue=1–4 |pages=273–284|doi=10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.022}}</ref>

Organic farming contributes to human capital by promoting biodiversity. The presence of various species in organic farms helps to reduce human input, such as fertilizers, and pesticides, which enhances sustainability.

The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service published a ''Federal Register'' notice on 15 January 2016, announcing the National Organic Program (NOP) final guidance on Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation for Certified Organic Operations. Given the broad scope of natural resources which includes soil, water, wetland, woodland and wildlife, the guidance provides examples of practices that support the underlying conservation principles and demonstrate compliance with USDA organic regulations § 205.200.<ref name="Agricultural Marketing Service 2016"/> The final guidance provides organic certifiers and farms with examples of production practices that support conservation principles and comply with the USDA organic regulations, which require operations to maintain or improve natural resources.<ref name="Agricultural Marketing Service 2016"/> The final guidance also clarifies the role of certified operations (to submit an OSP to a certifier), certifiers (ensure that the OSP describes or lists practices that explain the operator's monitoring plan and practices to support natural resources and biodiversity conservation), and inspectors (onsite inspection) in the implementation and verification of these production practices.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%205020%20Biodiversity%20Guidance%20Rev01%20%28Final%29.pdf|title=USDSA Guidance Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation|date=15 January 2016|website=Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program|publisher=United States Department of Agriculture|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref>

A wide range of organisms benefit from organic farming, but it is unclear whether organic methods confer greater benefits than conventional integrated agri-environmental programs.<ref name="Hole et al. 2005">{{Cite journal| title = Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? |journal = Biological Conservation | volume = 122 | issue = 1 | pages = 113–130 | doi = 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.018 |last1=Hole |first1=D.G. |last2=Perkins |first2=A.J. |last3=Wilson |first3=J.D. |last4=Alexander |first4=I.H. |last5=Grice |first5=P.V. |last6=Evans |first6=A.D. |year=2005|bibcode = 2005BCons.122..113H }}</ref> Organic farming is often presented as a more biodiversity-friendly practice, but the generality of the beneficial effects of organic farming is debated as the effects appear often species- and context-dependent, and current research has highlighted the need to quantify the relative effects of local- and landscape-scale management on farmland biodiversity.<ref>{{Cite journal
| last = Henckel
| first = Laura
| date = 20 May 2015
| title = Organic fields sustain weed metacommunity dynamics in farmland landscapes
| journal = Proceedings of the Royal Society B
| doi = 10.1098/rspb.2015.0002
| pmid = 25994672
| volume=282
| issue = 1808
| page=20150002
| pmc =4455794
}}</ref> There are four key issues when comparing the impacts on biodiversity of organic and conventional farming: (1) It remains unclear whether a holistic whole-farm approach (i.e. organic) provides greater benefits to biodiversity than carefully targeted prescriptions applied to relatively small areas of cropped and/or non-cropped habitats within conventional agriculture (i.e. agri-environment schemes); (2) Many comparative studies encounter methodological problems, limiting their ability to draw quantitative conclusions; (3) Our knowledge of the impacts of organic farming in pastoral and upland agriculture is limited; (4) There remains a pressing need for longitudinal, system-level studies in order to address these issues and to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of the impacts of organic farming, before a full appraisal of its potential role in biodiversity conservation in agroecosystems can be made.<ref name=":1a">{{cite journal|last1=Hole|first1=D.G.|last2=Perkins|first2=A.J.|last3=Wilson|first3=J.D.|last4=Alexander|first4=I.H.|last5=Grice|first5=P.V.|last6=Evans|first6=A.D.|title=Does organic farming benefit biodiversity?|journal=Biological Conservation|date=March 2005|volume=122|issue=1|pages=113–130|doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.018|bibcode=2005BCons.122..113H }}</ref>

=== Labour standards ===
Organic agriculture is often considered to be more socially just and economically sustainable for farmworkers than conventional agriculture. However, there is little social science research or consensus as to whether or not organic agriculture provides better working conditions than conventional agriculture.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Shreck|first1=Aimee|last2=Getz|first2=Christy|last3=Feenstra|first3=Gail|date=2006-11-21|title=Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: Findings from an exploratory analysis|journal=Agriculture and Human Values|volume=23|issue=4|pages=439–449|doi=10.1007/s10460-006-9016-2|s2cid=154663923|issn=0889-048X}}</ref> As many consumers equate organic and sustainable agriculture with small-scale, family-owned organizations it is widely interpreted that buying organic supports better conditions for farmworkers than buying with conventional producers.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Getz|first1=Christy|last2=Brown|first2=Sandy|last3=Shreck|first3=Aimee|date=December 2008|title=Class Politics and Agricultural Exceptionalism in California's Organic Agriculture Movement|journal=Politics & Society|volume=36|issue=4|pages=478–507|doi=10.1177/0032329208324709|s2cid=154411924|issn=0032-3292}}</ref> Organic agriculture is generally more labour-intensive due to its dependence on manual practices for fertilization and pest removal. Although illnesses from inputs pose less of a risk{{dubious|date=March 2022}}, hired workers still fall victim to debilitating musculoskeletal disorders associated with agricultural work. The USDA certification requirements outline growing practices and ecological standards but do nothing to codify labour practices. Independent certification initiatives such as the Agricultural Justice Project, Domestic Fair Trade Working Group, and the Food Alliance have attempted to implement farmworker interests but because these initiatives require voluntary participation of organic farms, their standards cannot be widely enforced.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Brown|first1=Sandy|last2=Getz|first2=Christy|date=May 2008|title=Privatizing farm worker justice: Regulating labor through voluntary certification and labeling|journal=Geoforum|volume=39|issue=3|pages=1184–1196|doi=10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.002|issn=0016-7185}}</ref> Despite the benefit to farmworkers of implementing labour standards, there is little support among the organic community for these social requirements. Many actors of the organic industry believe that enforcing labour standards would be unnecessary,<ref name=":4" /> unacceptable,<ref name=":5" /> or unviable due to the constraints of the market.<ref name=":3" />