Organic Farming Profitable Long-Term

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.agronomy.org/story/2011/sep/thu/organic-farming-profitable-long-term

Organic Farming Profitable Long-Term

…

Previous research has almost universally found the same thing: Organic farming practices can compete economically with conventional methods, says the current study’s leader, Timothy Delbridge, a Univ. of Minnesota doctoral student in agricultural economics. However, these conclusions are mostly based on findings from short-term trials in small plots.

What sets the Minnesota study apart is both the large size of its experimental farm plots (165 feet by 92 feet) and the trial’s longevity. “Doing an economic study like this, it’s important to get as complete a picture of the yield variability as we can,” Delbridge says. “So, the length of this trial is a big asset. We’re pretty confident that the full extent of the yield variability came through in the results.”

What gave organic production the edge wasn’t higher crop yields, however; instead it was organic price premiums. In their absence, the net return from a 2-yr, conventional corn-soybean rotation averaged $342 per acre, compared to $267/ac for a 4-yr organic rotation (corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa), and $273/ac for its 4-yr conventional counterpart. When a full organic premium was applied, though, the average net return from organic production rose to $538/ac, significantly outperforming the conventional systems both in terms of profitability and risk. And organic production was still more profitable when the price premium was reduced by 50%.

Organic price premiums are often the main reason why farmers think about switching to organic production, Delbridge explains, which means they also often wonder what would happen if the premiums declined. It’s for this reason that the researchers considered different premium levels (full, half, and none) in their analysis—not because they necessarily expect the premiums to go away anytime soon, he notes.

…

[TygrBright]

1. The problem here is they have their concepts totally upside-down.

The high-chemical, intensive-monocrop, short-rotation model may be "conventional," but it is also HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED. That is, the prices they get from their yield are artificially low based on an infrastructure of direct and indirect subsidies. Those "low" prices should not be regarded as the control/normal in the study.

The "premiums" the author refers to for unsubsidized, longer-rotation, sustainably-managed produce are actually more reflective of real production prices.

I don't regard myself as paying "premiums" for organic and locally, sustainably-grown products. I regard myself as paying the actual price of food with actual nutritional content and caloric value. The subsidized prices I pay for pseudo-food are on the same level as buying a plastic toy at the strip mall dollar store rather than buying an actual functional household item from a local shop.

Sustainable agricultural practices are actually cheaper in the long run for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the price of the yield.

Until people factor in the health, environmental, and social costs of living with a badly broken foodshed, we won't be able to make intelligent, informed decisions about what food to buy and how much to pay for it.

patiently,
Bright

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. If you will, they’re looking at it from the Farmers’ point-of-view

Hey! You know… you can make a living doing things this way.