sustainability
Article
Does Organic Farming Provide a Viable Alternative
for Smallholder Rice Farmers in India?
Frank Eyhorn 1, * , Marrit van den Berg 2 , Charlotte Decock 3,4 , Harro Maat 2
Ashish Srivastava 5
1
2
3
4
5
*
and
HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, Advisory Services Department, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland
Wageningen University, Department of Social Sciences, 6706KN Wageningen, The Netherlands;
marrit.vandenberg@wur.nl (M.v.d.B.); harro.maat@wur.nl (H.M.)
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Department of Environmental Systems Science,
8092 Zurich, Switzerland; cdecock@calpoly.edu
California Polytechnic State University, Department of Natural Resources Management and Environmental
Sciences, San Luis Obispo, 93407 CA, USA
Intercooperation Social Development India, Rural Economy Department, 500003 Hyderabad, India;
ashish.srivastava@ltgroup.in
Correspondence: frank.eyhorn@helvetas.org; Tel.: +41-44-368-65-32
Received: 5 November 2018; Accepted: 22 November 2018; Published: 27 November 2018
Abstract: Smallholder rice farming is characterized by low returns and substantial environmental
impact. Conversion to organic management and linking farmers to fair trade markets could offer
an alternative. Engaging in certified cash-crop value chains could thereby provide an entry path to
simultaneously reduce poverty and improve environmental sustainability. Based on comprehensive
data from a representative sample of approximately 80 organic and 80 conventional farms in northern
India, we compared yield and profitability of the main rotation crops over a period of five years.
Contrary to the widespread belief that yields in organic farming are inevitably lower, our study
shows that organic farmers achieved the same yields in cereals and pulses as conventional farmers,
with considerably lower external inputs. Due to 45% lower production costs and higher sales
prices, organic basmati cultivation was 105% more profitable than cultivating ordinary rice under
conventional management. However, since holdings are small and the share of agricultural income
of total household income is declining, conversion to organic basmati farming alone will not provide
households a sufficiently attractive perspective into the future. We propose that future efforts
to enhance the long-term viability of rice-based organic farming systems in this region focus on
diversification involving higher value crops.
Keywords: farming systems; sustainable development; rural livelihoods; traditional varieties; system
of rice intensification; contract farming
1. Introduction
Uptake of organic practices is growing worldwide, particularly among smallholders in lowand middle-income countries. India plays an important role in this development, hosting 835,000 of
a global total of 2.7 million certified organic farms in 2016 [1]. The shift towards organic farming
raises questions not only about sustainability but also about profitability and food security. A global
meta-study found that organic farming systems produce lower yields, but they are more profitable and
environmentally friendly in terms of soil quality, minimized energy use, biodiversity and minimized
water pollution, compared with conventional agriculture [2]. An important mechanism to enhance
profitability is farm–gate premium prices. Especially in combination with reduced production costs,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424; doi:10.3390/su10124424
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
2 of 15
an average yield drop of 10–18% can be more than compensated, resulting in a net profitability
22–35% higher than conventional agriculture [3]. Critics argue that due to lower productivity, a wider
adoption of organic agriculture would exacerbate the challenge of providing sufficient food to feed
the world [4–6]. However, transition processes are always long-term and gradual, requiring models
that incorporate multiple factors and scenarios that include advances in technological options, for
example in resource use efficiency, and other changes affecting food security, for example climate
change resilience and reduction of food waste [7,8]. Moreover, ongoing changes in the agricultural
sector need proper monitoring and assessment to better understand the dynamics of the transition
process in particular places. Here, we present results of such an assessment, based on a study of rice
farming in northern India.
Rice-based farming systems provide a suitable study field to investigate the question whether
conversion to organic farming enables smallholders to earn a higher income and improve their
livelihoods, without jeopardizing food security. Rice is the staple food for the largest number of
people on Earth, and the inundated fields make paddy rice the largest single land-use food crop [9].
Paddy rice is grown by 150 million smallholders, mostly in Asia, who are increasingly vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change [10]. Paddy rice cultivation is environmentally relevant: it consumes
34–43% of global irrigation water, is the cereal crop with the highest emission of greenhouse gases
(particularly methane) and accounts for 13% of global nitrogen fertilizer use [9–11]. Less than 10% of
the rice produced is placed on international markets, mostly high (‘export’)-quality rice, including
aromatic varieties like basmati [9]. These aromatic varieties have yields that are typically lower than
hybrid or open-pollinated local rice varieties (hereafter referred to as ‘coarse paddy’) but achieve
substantially higher market prices. Market demand for organic and fair trade-certified basmati rice
has been robust and growing over the past years [12].
Field experiments under optimized conditions have shown that after a conversion period in which
soil fertility is built up organic cultivation methods can achieve approximately the same or even higher
yields in basmati and rotation crops compared to the conventional system, provided that sufficient
quantities of organic manures are applied [13,14]. Previous on-farm studies on conversion to organic
rice farming systems in Asia indicated that organic farms achieve approximately the same yields but
increased profitability due to lower input costs [15,16]. However, these studies were mainly based on
interviews, and only covered farm data from one season. In this paper, we analyze how conversion to
organic basmati cultivation and fair trade is a viable option for smallholder rice producers in northern
India. We compare cropping patterns, yields and profitability of main crops in a representative sample
of approximately 80 organic and 80 conventional farms over a period of five years.
2. Materials and Methods
The data analyzed in this paper originate from a project initiated by Coop, the second largest
retailer in Switzerland. Since 2011, Coop has supported smallholder rice farmers in Uttarakhand
State in northern India in converting to organic farming and selling their produce under fair-trade
conditions [12]. The project is part of the company’s strategy to convert its own rice brand to fair trade
and organic. In recent years, Coop’s rice processing and trading company Reismuehle Brunnen has
continuously increased the share of sustainable rice, and today, it is the largest supplier of organic and
fair trade specialty rice in the European market [12]. The Swiss development organization Helvetas was
mandated to assist the establishment of an organic basmati rice value chain in collaboration with its
sister organization Intercooperation Social Development India, local farmer organizations, processing
companies and research institutes. The key partner in India is the company Nature Bio-Foods Ltd.
(NBF) based in Sonepat, which buys the basmati paddy directly from the farmers, mills it in their own
processing facilities, and exports it to Reismuehle Brunnen and other clients. It also sells some rice and
rotation crops in the emerging domestic organic market under its “Ecolife” brand.
The project is located in Nainital District of Uttarakhand State in the foothills of the Indian
Himalayan range. It spreads over approx. 140 villages and hamlets in three Blocks (Ramnagar,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
3 of 15
Kotabagh and Betalghat), located 300–800 m above sea level. The region receives, on average,
1650 mm rainfall, mainly during the monsoon season (June–September). Rainfall and irrigation
from mainly seasonal water sources allow for two cropping cycles: Kharif (June–November) and Rabi
(November–March). During the study period (2012–2016), rainfall in the Kharif season was 970 mm,
on average [14].
In 2011, before the project started, trained surveyors collected agronomic and household baseline
data in the project region. The number of farms participating in the project grew from 145 in 2011 to
2212 in 2016, and the total area under organic farming from 115 ha to 2730 ha over the same period.
For the comparison of organic and conventional farming, field data were collected over five years
(June 2012 to April 2017) from a representative sample of organic and conventional farms in the
project area for main crops both in Kharif and Rabi seasons. To compare organic farming with the
prevailing practice in the same region, we randomly selected 11 of the 81 village clusters where the
organic basmati project was active. In the selected village clusters, we randomly selected a total of
approximately 80 organic and 80 conventional farms that cultivated basmati and/or coarse paddy
(clustered sample). Sample size varied slightly from year to year, due to changes in farmer availability
and resulting from a rigorous quality check of survey data (Table 1). Farmers who, over the years,
dropped out of the sample (conventional farmers who converted to organic farming, farmers who
stopped basmati or paddy farming altogether) were replaced by randomly selected farmers in order to
maintain the sample size. Due to delays in rains or provision of seeds, not all organic farmers were
eventually able to grow basmati in every year. From 2013 onwards, following the example of organic
farmers, some conventional farmers also grew basmati, for which they applied organic inputs only.
Table 1. Sample sizes of organic and conventional farms.
Sample Size
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Conventional
Organic
Conventional farms growing basmati
Organic farms growing basmati
Total conventional area in sample (ha)
Total organic area in sample (ha)
84
72
0
56
47.8
54.2
76
73
23
54
36.8
51.3
76
73
20
49
39.9
53.2
96
73
38
49
53.7
55.6
80
90
24
61
45.0
59.2
During each cropping cycle, trained surveyors visited the selected farms in regular intervals to
monitor and verify land use, input and harvest data kept or recalled by the farmers. To get accurate
per-hectare data, for all major crops, the area of one plot per farm was measured, and all inputs and
harvests were recorded for that specific plot. Gross margins were calculated as yields into prices minus
direct costs for inputs and hired labor. The cost of family own labor was not taken into consideration,
since it would have been very difficult to get reliable data. Processed data were shared with the
participating farmers both in individual and aggregated form at the end of the study period.
In 2013 and 2014, data were also collected for additional Kharif crops in order to better understand
the relative profitability of basmati cultivation. In 2014 and 2016, household income data were
collected from the sample in order to get a better understanding on the relevance of crop revenues
for overall household income. The information obtained from these data is used as reference in
the discussion chapter. Additionally, two masters students at Wageningen University conducted
semi-structured interviews in April and May 2017 with 51 organic farmers, 28 conventional farmers,
representatives of the producer organization, local governments, traders, processors and facilitating
NGOs. The interviews were based on questionnaires that included three different types of questions:
Likert scale [17], open-end and closed-end questions [18]. Results from these interviews are used as
background information in the discussion chapter.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
4 of 15
We compared key indicators between production systems using analysis of variance (ANOVA) in
STATA14. ANOVA uses ordinary least squares regression to assess whether means are statistically
significant between groups. For pooled data we corrected for location effects (village clusters) and
year effects. To compare monetary results over the years, prices, costs and returns were corrected by
consumer price index (CPI of 31 December 2012 = 100, Government of India data).
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of the Organic and Conventional Farming Systems
Smallholder farmers interested in converting to organic basmati farming joined the organic
farmer organization Fair Farming Foundation – Ramnagar and signed a production contract with the
processing company Nature Bio-Foods Ltd. in which they committed to adhere to organic standards
(Indian National Program for Organic Production, EU Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 and
BIO SUISSE Standards) on their entire farm. The company provided them with organic seeds of
traditional basmati (varieties Dehraduni Type 3 and Taraori HBC 19) and commercial bio-inputs (neem
oil, pseudomonas, trichoderma, micro-nutrients) at cost-prices.
Nature Bio-Foods Ltd. managed an internal control system to ensure organic integrity and
arranged and paid for third-party certification as per the specified organic standards and Fairtrade
International standards. It purchased the certified basmati paddy, as well as some pulses directly
from the farmers, following an agreed pricing mechanism (guaranteed fair-trade minimum price or
market rates, whichever was higher, plus defined organic premiums of approx. 10–15%, and rebates
for sub-standard quality).
Organic farmers participating in the project received initial training on organic farming practices
and were assisted in testing different organic methods in their fields (participatory technology
development). Farmers were also trained in improved paddy cultivation techniques based on the
System of Rice Intensification (SRI), combining earlier and wider transplanting of seedlings, alternate
wetting and drying, and mechanical weeding using hand-pushed “conoweeders” [19]. While a majority
of farmers adopted the alternate wetting and drying regime in irrigation, the complete SRI system was
only adopted by 19% of the farms in 2016. Farmers sold their organic basmati to Nature Bio-Foods Ltd.,
but sold most of their rotation crops on the general market, without getting a price premium for the
organic quality. Conventional farmers in the region received some training and advice on best farming
practices from the District’s agricultural department. They sold their paddy and rotation crops to local
traders or to local agricultural markets (‘mandis’).
Average holding of arable land was 33% higher in organic farms (0.72 ha) compared to
conventional farms (0.54 ha). The number of cattle per farm and therefore the access to manure
did not differ between the two groups. In both organic and conventional farms, the main crops grown
in the Kharif season were paddy, soybean and amaranth, while in the Rabi season, wheat was the
dominant crop, with some farmers also growing pulses, vegetables and spices (Figure 1). Organic farms
had higher shares of arable land under basmati and pulses in Kharif season. In the first three years, the
share of basmati in organic farms increased from 9% to 21%, but then declined to 14% and 13% in 2015
and 2016 due to unfavorable rain patterns. The reason that some of the conventional farms also grew
basmati starting from 2013 onwards is that they wanted to try out the proposed innovation. Some of
them converted to organic farming in subsequent years.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
5 of 15
5 of 16
Figure 1. Crop shares in Kharif and Rabi season in organic and conventional farms, average
Figure 1.ofCrop
shares in Kharif and Rabi season in organic and conventional farms, average of 2012–
2012–2016.
2016.
In Rabi season, cropping patterns did not significantly differ between organic and conventional
farms, with wheat being the predominant crop. Only in the last year (Rabi 2016–2017), when the buyer
In Rabi
season, cropping patterns did not significantly differ between organic and conventional
started promoting organic lentil and chick pea production, organic farms had a higher share of pulses
farms, with
wheat being the predominant crop. Only in the last year (Rabi 2016–2017), when the
(13%) compared to conventional farms (10%). The recommendation to increase the share of nitrogen
buyer started
promoting
organic
lentil
and chick
pea
production,
organic farms
had aextent.
higher share
fixing leguminous
crops
in organic
rotations
[20] has
so far
only been implemented
to a limited
Cropcompared
management
practices differed
Conventional farmers
used urea,
of pulses (13%)
to conventional
farmsconsiderably:
(10%). The recommendation
to increase
the share of
−1 in
di-ammonium
phosphate
(DAP)
and
compound
NPK-fertilizers
(on
an
average
98
kg
N
ha
nitrogen fixing leguminous crops in organic rotations [20] has so far only been implemented to a
coarse paddy and 107 kg N ha−1 in wheat, ranging from 25–350 kg N ha−1 ), along with farmyard
limited extent.
manure, as nutrient sources. Synthetic fertilizer input in conventional paddy substantially decreased
Crop
management practices differed considerably: Conventional farmers used urea, di‐
over time, from 179 kg N ha−1 in 2012 to 62 kg N ha−1 in 2016. Conventional farmers also applied
−1 N
ammonium
phosphate
(DAP) and
compound
NPK‐fertilizers
average
kg
ha−1 in coarse
various
types of commercial
insecticides,
fungicides
and herbicides(on
(on an
an average
5.698
L ha
in coarse
−
1
paddy
ha−1 ininwheat,
wheat). ranging
Organic farmers
used farmyard
compost
andfarmyard
green manure
paddy and
107and
kg1.0
N Lha
from 25–350
kg N manure,
ha−1), along
with
manure, as
Sesbania
aculeate)
grown in input
situ. They
applied bio-inputs
provided
by the buyer decreased
(Pseudomonas,
nutrient (mostly
sources.
Synthetic
fertilizer
in conventional
paddy
substantially
over time,
Trichoderma,
Neem
oil,
micro-nutrients
derived
from
biomass)
and
home-made
preparations
based
from 179 kg N ha−1 in 2012 to 62 kg N ha−1 in 2016. Conventional farmers also applied various types
on cow urine and other natural ingredients for pest and disease control. Average cattle holding was
of commercial
insecticides, fungicides and herbicides (on an average 5.6 L ha−1 in coarse paddy and
the same in organic and conventional farms: 3.6 adult animals and 1.4 calves.
1.0 L ha−1 in wheat). Organic farmers used farmyard manure, compost and green manure (mostly
Yields grown in situ. They applied bio‐inputs provided by the buyer (Pseudomonas,
Sesbania 3.2.
aculeate)
There
wasoil,
no significant
difference
in five-year
average
yieldsand
of main
rotation crops
in Kharif based
Trichoderma,
Neem
micro‐nutrients
derived
from
biomass)
home‐made
preparations
(basmati,
coarse
paddy
and
soy
bean)
and
Rabi
season
(wheat,
lentils
and
chick
peas)
between
organic
on cow urine and other natural ingredients for pest and disease control. Average cattle
holding was
and conventional farms (Table 2). In single years, the only differences were in lentils in 2012 (organic
the same in organic and conventional farms: 3.6 adult animals and 1.4 calves.
yields were 14% lower than conventional yields) and in 2016 (organic yields were 2% higher). However,
sample size was relatively small for lentils. Yield effects of the cropping system were also not significant
3.2. Yields
when controlling for location (village).
There was no significant difference in five‐year average yields of main rotation crops in Kharif
(basmati, coarse paddy and soy bean) and Rabi season (wheat, lentils and chick peas) between
organic and conventional farms (Table 2). In single years, the only differences were in lentils in 2012
(organic yields were 14% lower than conventional yields) and in 2016 (organic yields were 2%
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
6 of 15
Table 2. Average yields of main rotation crops in organic and conventional farms.
Yield (kg ha−1 )
Basmati
Coarse
paddy
Soybean
Wheat
Lentil
Chickpea
1
System
2
org.
conv. 3
F4
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
2012
(n) 1
2013
(n)
2014
(n)
2015
(n)
2016
(n)
Average of Five Years
2137
n.a.
4299
4363
0.08
1684
1708
0.46
2742
2827
0.55
1088
1272
4.41
1243
1381
0.52
(56)
(0)
2074
2431
0.63
4821
4324
0.65
999
1167
0.17
2455
2659
0.02
744
571
0.35
n.a.
n.a.
(51)
(23)
2129
1927
2.49
3080
2999
0.40
891
873
2.68
2383
2507
0.61
313
295
0.01
726
740
0.76
(49)
(20)
2035
1979
0.00
4235
4249
0.51
744
825
0.66
2172
2234
0.30
614
647
0.03
691
671
2.19
(49)
(38)
1734
2035
0.41
2779
2861
0.04
696
821
0.61
2309
2842
0.85
1144
1124
4.59
902
1094
0.80
(61)
(24)
2022
2093
0.02
3843
3759
0.03
1003
1079
0.05
2412
2614
1.16
781
782
0.40
891
972
0.05
(50)
(78)
(16)
(6)
(60)
(70)
(15)
(8)
*
(10)
(11)
(42)
(52)
(34)
(33)
(72)
(78)
(13)
(8)
(0)
(0)
(41)
(51)
(33)
(41)
(73)
(73)
(31)
(24)
(23)
(26)
(55)
(81)
(58)
(69)
(71)
(93)
(28)
(35)
(21)
(23)
(63)
(57)
(34)
(31)
(89)
(79)
(32)
(30)
**
(32)
(29)
sample size; 2 organic farms; 3 conventional farms; 4 analysis of variance including the effects of years (five year averages only) and location (village cluster). ** and * denote significance
at 5% and 10%, respectively.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
7 of 15
3.3. Profitability
Organic farms achieved the same or higher gross margins compared to conventional farms
(Table 3). Five-year averages of gross margins were not only higher in organic basmati, for which
farmers received a premium price, but also in coarse paddy, wheat and lentil. Effects of the cropping
system were also significant when controlling for location (villages). Rotation crops were sold in local
markets without premium price, except for Rabi 2016, when the buyer purchased lentils and chickpeas
with a 7–13% organic premium. Production costs (for seeds, external inputs and hired labor) in organic
farms were lower than in conventional farms only in some crops: −23% for coarse paddy (9434 INR
ha−1 vs. 12,230 INR ha−1 , F = 15.9), and −25% for wheat (7748 INR ha−1 vs. 10,361 INR ha−1 , F = 37.0;
1 EUR = 71.48 EUR in 2016).
3.4. Agronomic Performance of Basmati versus Coarse Paddy
Farmers who joined the project and shifted to organic production switched part of their paddy
cultivation to traditional basmati. Therefore, we are comparing the agronomic and economic
performance of organic basmati with conventional coarse paddy. Organic basmati production achieved
on average 46% lower yields, but 182% higher sales prices (Table 4). These differences are not surprising,
since traditional basmati generally has lower yields but higher market prices than coarse paddy,
irrespective of the production system [21]. Input costs (for external fertilizer and pest management
means) and overall production costs (including costs for seed and hired labor) were 50% and 45%
lower in organic basmati, respectively, resulting in 105% higher gross margins than in conventional
coarse paddy cultivation.
Gross margins in organic basmati were consistently higher (by 63% to 221%) than conventional
paddy in all five years (Figure 2). The particularly strong performance in 2013 was due to a temporary
price spike in the overall basmati market (organic farmers received 46.4 INR kg−1 on average, compared
to 29.9 INR kg−1 in the other years), while in 2016, unfavorable rainfalls affected coarse paddy yields
and profitability.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
8 of 15
Table 3. Gross margins of main rotation crops in organic and conventional farms.
Gross Margin (in
1000 INR ha−1 ) 1
Basmati
Paddy
Soybean
Wheat
Lentil
Chickpea
1
System
2012
(n) 2
2013
(n)
2014
(n)
2015
(n)
2016
(n)
Average of Five Years
org. 3
conv. 4
F5
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
org.
conv.
F
CPI
55.8
n.a.
36.0
34.3
2.55
42.1
36.1
1.41
30.1
30.6
0.68
43.5
40.3
0.35
49.7
46.9
0.01
104.90
(56)
(0)
85.4
90.9
0.03
40.3
35.8
1.03
23.2
27.4
0.54
26.0
26.2
0.06
24.8
19.1
0.33
n.a.
n.a.
(51)
(23)
42.7
27.7
29.3
23.9
22.1
3.76
16.3
14.2
5.38
21.1
19.4
4.74
8.7
8.1
0.05
25.3
17.4
0.92
120.30
(49)
(20)
***
(41)
(51)
*
(33)
(41)
**
(73)
(73)
**
(31)
(24)
36.9
24.9
43.0
26.7
22.3
9.61
12.1
10.1
22.13
20.1
17.7
21.09
40.1
40.1
0.15
34.5
29.5
2.13
127.90
(49)
(38)
***
(55)
(81)
***
(58)
(69)
***
(71)
(93)
***
(28)
(35)
34.5
38.3
0.60
16.8
10.7
0.16
6.8
7.1
0.02
22.0
24.9
0.08
38.1
33.1
8.51
9.8
11.2
0.50
132.80
(61)
(24)
51.0
45.5
13.0 ***
28.2
24.4
6.11 **
19.1
18.1
1.68
23.6
23.5
7.84 **
31.0
28.2
4.69 **
29.1
25.5
2.44
120.28
(50)
(78)
(16)
(6)
(60)
(70)
(15)
(8)
(10)
(11)
115.50
(42)
(52)
(34)
(33)
(72)
(78)
(13)
(8)
(0)
(0)
(23)
(26)
(21)
(23)
(63)
(57)
(34)
(31)
(89)
(79)
(32)
(30)
***
(32)
(29)
Financial values adjusted by Consumer Price Index (2012 = 100); 2 sample size; 3 organic farms; 4 conventional farms; 5 analysis of variance including the effects of years (five year
averages only) and location (village cluster); ***, ** and * denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. Please note that no premium was paid for organic rotation crops except for
lentils and chick peas in Rabi 2016.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
9 of 16
Table 4. Organic basmati compared with conventional and organic coarse paddy cultivation.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
9 of 15
Org. vs.
Org. Basmati
Basmati vs. Paddy
Basmati
Paddy
Paddy
Conv.
vs. Conv.
Cultivation 1
Organic Conventional Organic
2
Paddypaddy
(F) cultivation.
Paddy (F) 2
Table 4. Organic basmati compared with conventional and organic coarse
−1
Yield (kg ha )
2039
3759
3843
0.03
512.45 ***
Org. Basmati
Basmati
Paddy
Paddy
Org.2.88
vs. Conv.
Basmati
vs. Paddy
Price (INR
kg−1)
27.89
9.86
9.88
4895.87
***
vs. Conv.
Organic
Conventional
Organic
Paddy (F) 2
Cultivation 1 −1
Revenue (INR ha )
56,858
37,152
37,879
0.01
215.02(F)
***2
Paddy
1)
Production
cost
(INR
ha−1)
6759
12,230
9434
20.11
60.95
2039
3759
3843
0.03***
512.45 ***
***
Yield (kg
ha−
−
1
−1
27.89
9.86
9.88
2.88***
4895.87
***
Pricecost
(INR(INR
kg ha
)
Input
)
2628
5297
3918
42.81
58.62 ***
56,858
37,152
37,879
0.01*
215.02 ***
***
Revenue
(INR(INR
ha−1 )ha−1)
Gross
margin
51,047
25,063
28,713
6.10
16.60
6759
12,230
9434
20.11 ***
60.95 ***
Production cost (INR ha−3 1 )
CV Gross margin
0.50
0.40
0.38
0.04
2.28
−1
2628
5297
3918
42.81 ***
58.62 ***
Input cost (INR ha )
1 Average performance
years; financial25,063
results in Indian
Rupees adjusted
Price
28,713
6.10 * by Consumer
16.60
***
Gross
margin (INR ha−1 ) over 551,047
0.40
0.04 the effects of2.28
CV Gross
Index
(2012margin
= 100, 13 EUR = 54.70.50
INR). 2 (F) refers
to analysis of0.38
variance including
years
3 CV refers to the coefficient of variation,
1 Average performance
(five‐year
averages only)
location
over 5and
years;
financial(village
results incluster).
Indian Rupees
adjusted by Consumer Price Index (2012 =
2 (F) refers to analysis of variance including the effects of years (five-year averages only)
100,
1
EUR
=
54.7
INR).
calculated as mean/standard
deviation
at
the
farm
level.
***
and
* denote significance at 1% and 10%,
and location (village cluster). 3 CV refers to the coefficient of variation, calculated as mean/standard deviation at
respectively.
the farm level. *** and * denote significance at 1% and 10%, respectively.
Figure 2. Gross margins (in Indian Rupees per ha, CPI adjusted) in organic basmati compared to
Figure
2. Gross
margins
Indian Rupees
perincrease
ha, CPIover
adjusted)
in organic
basmati
compared
to
conventional
coarse
paddy.(in
Percentages
indicate
conventional
(p < 0.01).
Error
bars depict
conventional
coarsefigures
paddy.inPercentages
indicate
increase
standard deviation,
brackets indicate
sample
size. over conventional (p < 0.01). Error bars
depict standard deviation, figures in brackets indicate sample size.
The price spike of 2013 resulted in a higher variability of gross-margins—as measured by
the farm-level
of resulted
variation—for
organic
basmati of
than
for conventionalmeasured
paddy (Table
4).
The price coefficients
spike of 2013
in a higher
variability
gross‐margins—as
by the
However, this
difference
not statistically
significant,
even
at the
percent level.
Moreover,
farm‐level
coefficients
of isvariation—for
organic
basmati
than
for 10
conventional
paddy
(Table the
4).
difference isthis
caused
by an upward
singularity,significant,
whereas farmers
mainly
concerned
about
downward
However,
difference
is not statistically
even are
at the
10 percent
level.
Moreover,
the
risk. This indicates
basmati
cultivation
is economically
not riskier
conventional
difference
is causedthat
by organic
an upward
singularity,
whereas
farmers are
mainlythan
concerned
about
coarse paddy
cultivation.
downward
risk.
This indicates that organic basmati cultivation is economically not riskier than
conventional coarse paddy cultivation.
4. Discussion
4.1. Productivity of Rice-Based Organic Systems
The result that yields do not differ between organic and conventional farms is surprising. Organic
farmers replaced synthetic fertilizers and pesticides with organic means, which usually results in lower
yields [22]. However, farmers in the study area operate under sub-optimal conditions concerning
available soil types, irrigation and inputs. Fertilizer input in conventional farms is therefore relatively
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
10 of 15
low in cereal and pulses. Since coarse paddy, wheat and pulses are important staple crops partly
produced for household consumption, this finding suggests that conversion to organic farming does
not jeopardize food security of smallholders in marginal production regions. Field experiments
conducted at GB Pant University for Agriculture and Technology from 2012–2014 in the same region
but under optimized conditions have also shown that organic cultivation methods can achieve the same
or even higher yields in basmati and rotation crops compared to the conventional system, provided
that sufficient quantities of organic manures are applied [14]. The partial shift to basmati for export
also did not affect food security of the farm families since they continued cultivating coarse paddy and
wheat at least to the extent required for their own consumption.
It is striking to see that fertilizer input in conventional paddy substantially decreased over time.
Several conventional farmers reported that they reduced fertilizer input when observing that organic
farmers in their village got similar yields with organic manures. However, current manure application
rates in organic farms seem insufficient to replace nutrient export through crop harvest, and therefore
may lead to soil degradation and reduced productivity in the long term [23]. Improvements in manure
collection, storing and application as well as increased use of in situ grown green manure can remedy
this situation. Since basmati produces more straw than coarse paddy varieties and therefore increases
the availability of fodder, its cultivation may enhance stocking rates and therefore production of
manure to some extent [24].
While yields of coarse paddy showed a positive correlation with external input costs both
in organic and conventional farms, no such correlation was observed in basmati or other crops.
This finding raises doubts regarding the effectiveness of the biocontrol and bio-fertilizer inputs used
on these crops.
4.2. Conversion to Organic Farming as a Livelihood Strategy
The results of the agronomic performance assessment confirm the finding of Crowder and
Reganold [3] that organic farming is more profitable than conventional systems, but contradicts
their conclusion that due to 10–18% lower yields, organic crops need a premium of at least 5–7%
to be competitive with conventional production. Even without a premium price, organic rotation
crops achieved the same profitability as conventional crops. This is in line with other studies in
India showing that organic farming reduces the cost of cultivation without affecting net margins,
particularly in less intensively cultivated hill regions [25,26]. Other studies comparing organic and
conventional paddy systems in Uttarakhand also found that organic farms achieve the same yields
but substantially higher net profits due to lower costs of cultivation and the availability of an organic
premium [27,28]. Another study comparing (conventional) basmati with coarse paddy in Uttarakhand
found that cultivating basmati is more profitable than non-basmati rice varieties [21]. The improved
profitability of organic basmati cultivation in our study is therefore a result of both the conversion to
organic agriculture and the shift from coarse paddy to basmati.
From a farmer’s perspective, the main questions are whether basmati production is sufficiently
lucrative as a cash crop compared to other options, and whether the conversion to organic management
altogether makes their farms more profitable. Of the three main crops grown in the Kharif season
(coarse paddy, basmati and soy bean), organic basmati had the highest gross margin in all years.
Additional data collected in 2013 and 2014 show that only vegetables like tomato and spices like ginger
and turmeric achieve higher gross margins, but also involve considerable investments and risks (crop
failure, market fluctuations). These findings suggest that organic basmati is an interesting cash crop
for farmers, combining good profit margins with relatively low risk. It is, therefore, not surprising that
shares of land allocated to basmati cultivation were positively correlated with basmati gross margins
in the previous year (p < 0.001).
However, organic farms allocated only an average of 15% of their arable land to basmati
cultivation, and no clear upwards trend was observed over the five years. 22–33% of the organic
farmers who registered with the project did not even grow any basmati. Interviews with farmers point
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
11 of 15
out various reasons why they do not increase the basmati share. Delayed rains often force them to
grow coarse paddy that has 25–30 day shorter crop cycles compared to traditional basmati varieties,
or switch to soybean or millet if rains are further delayed. Farmers also assess what crop-to-field
combination they expect will be best. Such decisions may be based on crop preferences, for example
prioritizing the production of food crops for home consumption over cash crops. Also, labor and risk
aversion play a role. Farmers typically grow cash crops on fields close to the compound, making it
easily accessible for crop management, including protecting the field from being invaded by wild boar,
monkeys and other wildlife [29]. Due to land fragmentation, available acreage close to the compound
is limited in size, limiting the expansion of basmati cultivation.
4.3. Available Strategies to Further Improve Household Income
Surveys conducted among organic and conventional farms in the project region in 2011, 2014 and
2016 indicate that total annual household income (including income from agriculture, employment,
labor and small-scale businesses) has been relatively stable over time (on average approximately
USD 1000 per household of 4–5 persons, ranging from USD 200 to 4500). However, the share of
agricultural income has declined from 60% in 2011 (baseline) to 43% in 2016. One reason for this is
that all main crops except lentils have shown declining profitability over the years when adjusted
by consumer price index. Another reason is that off-farm incomes strongly increased. In 2016, the
share of agricultural income was higher in organic farms (49%) compared to conventional farms (35%).
In that year, conventional farms had 3.5 times higher income from employment, leading to 2.5 times
higher total income compared to organic farms. Since this result is mainly due to 10 conventional
farm households who obtained more than USD 3000 annual income from employment, it may not be
representative, though. The higher share of income from agriculture in organic farms along with the
larger average farm size could be an indication that households that primarily rely on agriculture are
more likely to convert to organic farming.
Even if organic farmers achieve considerably higher gross margins in basmati, this alone does not
enable them to substantially increase their household income, since land holdings and the share of
organic cash crops are too small. Only if additional rotation crops can be marketed with an organic
premium, particularly vegetable and spice crops that generate higher margins, organic farmers will be
significantly better off compared to conventional farmers. A crop diversification strategy would also
enable farmers to maintain the cash flow throughout the season [24]. The project partners are therefore
taking efforts to establish organic value chains for these crops linking organic farmers in the project
region to the increasing demand for organic products in nearby cities, including the Delhi metropolitan
market. Another viable strategy to make a living from farming may be to manage larger areas of
land (e.g., by buying or renting land from households that give up farming) and increase the use of
agricultural machinery and tools. Increased mechanization of field preparation, sowing and weed
management would enable farmers to reduce labor input. It also enables them to optimize manure
application and increase the utilization of green manure [23]. If farmers shifted from transplanting to
direct sowing of paddy, this could reduce work load, but at the expense of somewhat lower yields [30].
While diversification and mechanization strategies have obvious advantages, they also have
disadvantages. They both require specific skills, infrastructure and market linkages, and therefore may
not be available to all households. More research is needed into these aspects before providing valid
recommendations in a specific local context.
4.4. Environmental Benefits
The environmental benefits of organic compared to conventional agriculture have been widely
discussed in the scientific literature [22,31–34]. Notable differences between organic and conventional
agriculture relate to the strategies for pest and nutrient management. Organic farmers rely on
organic pesticides that typically have lower toxicity and often lower persistence in the environment
compared to most pesticide formulations used in conventional agriculture [31]. Organic farmers in the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
12 of 15
project presented here only used botanical extracts (mainly neem, which is of low toxicity) for pest
management both in basmati and in the rotation crops, eliminating exposure to synthetic pesticides
and consequently the risk of adverse effects on human health and of contamination of water sources.
Nutrient management has an important effect on various sources of nitrogen (N) pollution:
Nitrate leaching can contaminate ground and surface water; volatilization of ammonia leads to air
pollution (PM2.5 ) and eutrophication of natural ecosystems; and emissions of the potent greenhouse
gas and ozone depleting nitrous oxide (N2 O) adversely affect climate change and human health [35].
Averaged across geographic locations and cropping systems, N pollution on a per unit area basis is
lower in organic compared to conventional systems [31,34,36,37].
Because organic certification standards prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers, organic agriculture
solely relies on alternative fertilizer sources such as animal manure, compost and green manures
(plants that fix N from the atmosphere). The variety of nutrient management strategies observed
across organic farms; however, is not always well reflected in field experiments, an issue that was
criticized as a design flaw in the evaluation of comparative organic and conventional systems [38].
Indeed, when inspecting individual studies, the type and management of animal manure or green
manures plays an important but incompletely understood role with respect to both the magnitude and
direction of the N pollution response [39,40]. In this project, various organic nutrient management
strategies were promoted through outreach and extension, including the use of farmyard manure,
vermi-compost, biogas slurry, and the green manure Sesbania. A parallel field trial indicated that the
organic management options reduced N leaching and NH3 volatilization in many of the treatment by
year combinations compared to the conventional control, whereas the effect of the organic management
on greenhouse gas emissions was mostly insignificant (unpublished data). Beyond effects observed
at the field scale, however, one needs to consider that widespread reduction in the use of synthetic
pesticides and fertilizers would reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of
these compounds at the regional or global scale [8,31].
One commonality between all organic nutrient management strategies is that they imply an input
of carbon into the soil. This explains the overall increase in soil organic matter content and soil fertility
in organic compared to conventional systems across geographic regions and cropping systems [31,32].
Focusing on Northern India or Uttarakhand in particular, studies have found that organic management
promoted soil aggregation and increased organic carbon content, biological activity and nutrient
availability compared to soils under conventional management [14,27,41]. Within the parallel field
trial associated with this project, it was observed that the organic treatments mitigated nutrient
mining and soil degradation compared to the conventional control treatment, as a consequence
of lower N loss and higher input rates of phosphorus, potassium and sulphur for an equivalent
amount of N (unpublished data). One criticism on the feasibility of organic agriculture, especially
with respect to smallholder farmers, is the availability of sufficient organic fertilizer sources to meet
crop demands [8,42]. To address this concern, a study was conducted in the project area to evaluate
the farm-level impacts of subsystem nutrient management actions and to identify locally viable
interventions for increased nutrient supply and recycling [23]. Viable interventions including the
reduction of nutrient losses through simple and relatively cheap manure management modifications
(i.e., using straw bedding to capture livestock urine, covering farmyard manure stockpiles with plastic
sheeting, enclosed biogas slurry storage, and using biogas slurry for improved compost production),
in situ green manuring, and purchasing farmyard manure identified through this study are now being
promoted by extension services.
Organic soil fertility management contributes to increased water infiltration and retention in
soils due to elevated soil organic matter content [14,43], thereby contributing to saving irrigation
water. In addition, a majority of organic basmati farmers adopted the alternate wetting and drying
(AWD) method in irrigating their basmati plots. Field trials conducted in the project in 2017 indicate
that this practice leads to 24% lower water input compared to the earlier practice of keeping water
stagnant in the field for longer periods, without affecting yields. This is in line with other studies that
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
13 of 15
report 10–78% lower water input due to adoption of AWD and SRI [19,32,44]. The results of research
station field trials conducted in the region in 2012–2014 even found 78–84% lower water inputs and
5.3–6.7 times higher water use efficiency in AWD plots [14].
Using available water resources more efficiently in a water-scarce environment can help improve
crop productivity and livelihoods while reducing environmental stress. Equally important to applying
water saving techniques at the field level is to improve water management and stewardship at
the cluster or village level. Facilitated by the project, farmers formed Water User Groups (WUG)
that identified and implemented measures to improve irrigation and drinking water infrastructure.
Beneficiary contributions and combined funding from the fair trade premium, municipality budgets
and project contributions enabled the WUGs to finance these measures [24].
5. Conclusions
The study has shown that conversion to organic basmati farming can provide a viable alternative
for smallholders in India. Participation in certified basmati value chains that ensure organic and
fair-trade prices enables farmers to substantially improve the profitability of paddy cultivation. Due to
45% lower production costs and higher sales prices, organic basmati cultivation was 105% more
profitable than cultivating ordinary rice under conventional management. Contrary to the widespread
belief that yields in organic farming are inevitably lower, our study shows that organic smallholder
farmers can achieve the same yields in cereals and pulses as conventional farmers, with considerably
lower external inputs. Even in the absence of organic and fair-trade premiums, organic management
can therefore achieve the same or higher gross margins in cereals and pulses as prevailing conventional
farming systems. At the same time, good organic management practices contribute to safeguarding
environmental resources. If conversion to organic farming involves switching to a particular crop or
variety, its comparative profitability and suitability to the local agro-climatic conditions need to be
ensured. However, since land holdings are often too small to make a living from cereal and pulse
crops, conversion to organic farming will only result in substantially higher household incomes if
it goes along with producing higher-value cash crops like vegetables, fruits and spices for domestic
markets. We therefore propose that future efforts to enhance the long-term viability of rice-based
organic farming systems in this region focus on diversification involving higher value crops.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization and investigation: F.E., A.S. and H.M.; methodology, data curation
and formal analysis: F.E., C.D., M.v.d.B.; writing—original draft preparation: F.E.; validation, review, editing and
supervision: C.D., H.M. and M.v.d.B.; project administration: F.E.; funding acquisition: F.E. and H.M.
Funding: This research was funded by the Coop Sustainability Fund under the project ‘Sustainable production of
organic and fair trade rice in India and Thailand’. The APC was funded by Wageningen University.
Acknowledgments: We thank the farmers who participated in this study for keeping detailed records on
agronomic data over five years, and Surendra Singh Bhakuni and Jagdeesh Pant for collecting and verifying field
data under difficult conditions. We thank Mustak Khan and colleagues at Intercooperation Social Development
India for the guidance and supervision provided to the project. We further thank the participating companies
Nature Bio-Foods Ltd., Reismuehle Brunnen and Coop Switzerland and the Fair Farming Foundation Ramnagar
for collaborating in the study. The contributions by Anup Shinde and Harpreet Singh Sondh within the field
studies for their master theses at Wageningen University are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Joy de Korte
from Wageningen University for her support in analyzing the data. We are grateful to D.K. Singh from GB Pant
University of Agriculture and Technology for providing technical guidance.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1.
Willer, H.; Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2018; Research Institute
of Organic Agriculture FiBL and IFOAM Organics International: Frick, Switzerland; Bonn, Germany, 2018;
ISBN 978-3-03736-067-5.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
14 of 15
Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Crowder, D.W.; Reganold, J.P. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7611–7616. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Connor, D.J.; Mínguez, M.I. Evolution not revolution of farming systems will best feed and green the world.
Glob. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 106–113. [CrossRef]
Pickett, J.A. Food security: Intensification of agriculture is essential, for which current tools must be defended
and new sustainable technologies invented. Food Energy Secur. 2013, 2, 167–173. [CrossRef]
De Ponti, T.; Rijk, B.; Van Ittersum, M.K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture.
Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Azadi, H.; Schoonbeek, S.; Mahmoudi, H.; Derudder, B.; De Maeyer, P.; Witlox, F. Organic agriculture and
sustainable food production system: Main potentials. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 144, 92–94. [CrossRef]
Muller, A.; Schader, C.; El-Hage Scialabba, N.; Brüggemann, J.; Isensee, A.; Erb, K.-H.; Smith, P.; Klocke, K.;
Leiber, F.; Stolze, M.; et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture.
Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1290. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP). Rice Almanac, 4th ed.; International Rice Research Institute:
Los Baños, Philippines, 2013; 283p, ISBN 978-9712203008.
Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP). Bangkok Declaration on Sustainable Rice. In Proceedings of the First Global
Sustainable Rice Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 4–5 October 2017.
Linquist, B.; Groenigen, K.J.; Adviento-Borbe, M.A.; Pittelkow, C.; Kessel, C. An agronomic assessment of
greenhouse gas emissions from major cereal crops. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 194–209. [CrossRef]
Eyhorn, F. The private sector as a driver for sustainable rural development. Rural 2017, 21, 32–34.
Surekha, K.; Latha, P.C.; Rao, K.V.; Kumar, R.M. Grain yield, yield components, soil fertility, and biological
activity under organic and conventional rice production systems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. 2010, 41, 2279–2292.
[CrossRef]
Singh, D.K.; Akhtar, Z.; Gupta, S.; Srivastava, A.; Chakraborty, M. Production strategies of organic basmati
rice in Tarai region of Uttarakhand, India. Org. Agric. 2017, 7, 21–30. [CrossRef]
Mendoza, T.C. Evaluating the benefits of organic farming in rice agroecosystems in the Philippines.
J. Sustain. Agric. 2004, 24, 93–115. [CrossRef]
Kennvidy, S. Organic rice farming systems in Cambodia: Socio-economic impact of smallholder systems in
Takeo province. Int. J. Environ. Rural Dev. 2011, 2, 115–119.
Allen, I.E.; Seaman, C.A. Likert scales and data analyses. Qual. Prog. 2007, 40, 64–65.
Kelley, K.; Clark, B.; Brown, V.; Sitzia, J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int. J.
Qual. Health Care 2003, 15, 261–266. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dass, A.; Kaur, R.; Choudhary, A.K.; Pooniya, V.; Raj, R.; Rana, K.S. System of rice (Oryza sativa) intensification
for higher productivity and resource use efficiency—A review. Indian J. Agron. 2015, 60, 1–19.
Srivastava, A.; Khan, M.; Eyhorn, F.; Dischl, R.; Roner, T.; Singh, D.K. Organic Basmati Crop Guide: A Manual
for Extension Staff ; Intercooperation Social Development India: Hyderabad, India, 2014.
Jena, P.R.; Grote, U. Impact Evaluation of Traditional Basmati Rice Cultivation in Uttarakhand State
of Northern India: What Implications Does It Hold for Geographical Indications? World Dev. 2012,
40, 1895–1907. [CrossRef]
Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature
2012, 485, 229–232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ditzler, L.; Breland, T.A.; Francis, C.; Chakraborty, M.; Singh, D.K.; Srivastava, A.; Eyhorn, F.; Groot, J.C.J.;
Six, J.; Decock, C. Identifying viable nutrient management interventions at the farm level: The case of
smallholder organic Basmati rice production in Uttarakhand, India. Agric. Syst. 2018, 161, 61–71. [CrossRef]
Sondh, H.S. Is Fairtrade Leading to Sustainable Changes in the Value Chain? A Case of Organic Basmati
Rice in India. Master’s Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018.
Panneerselvam, P.; Hermansen, J.E.; Halberg, N. Food security of small holding farmers: Comparing organic
and conventional systems in India. J. Sustain. Agric. 2010, 35, 48–68. [CrossRef]
Eyhorn, F.; Ramakrishnan, M.; Maeder, P. The viability of cotton-based organic farming systems in India.
Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2007, 5, 25–38. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
15 of 15
Ramesh, P.; Panwar, N.R.; Singh, A.B.; Ramana, S.; Yadav, S.K.; Shrivastava, R.; Rao, A.S. Status of organic
farming in India. Curr. Sci. India 2010, 98, 1190–1194.
Panneerselvam, P.; Halberg, N.; Vaarst, M.; Hermansen, J.E. Indian farmers’ experience with and perceptions
of organic farming. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012, 27, 157–169. [CrossRef]
Shinde, A. Factors Influencing Choice of Organic Basmati Rice Farming on Mid-Hills of Uttarakhand, India.
Master’s Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018.
Farooq, M.; Siddique, K.H.; Rehman, H.; Aziz, T.; Lee, D.J.; Wahid, A. Rice direct seeding: Experiences,
challenges and opportunities. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 111, 87–98. [CrossRef]
Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N. Many shades of gray—The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.
Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, E1602638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Garbach, K.; Milder, J.C.; DeClerck, F.A.; Montenegro de Wit, M.; Driscoll, L.; Gemmill-Herren, B. Examining
multi-functionality for crop yield and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological intensification.
Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2016, 15, 11–28. [CrossRef]
Lee, K.S.; Choe, Y.C.; Park, S.H. Measuring the environmental effects of organic farming: A meta-analysis of
structural variables in empirical research. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 162, 263–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mondelaers, K.; Aertsens, J.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental
impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 1098–1119. [CrossRef]
Galloway, J.N.; Dentener, F.J.; Capone, D.G.; Boyer, E.W.; Horwath, R.W.; Seitzinger, R.P.; Asner, G.P.;
Cleveland, C.C.; Green, P.A.; Holland, E.A.; et al. Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present and Future. Biogeochemistry
2004, 70, 153–226. [CrossRef]
Birkhofer, K.; Smith, H.G.; Rundlöf, M. Environmental impacts of organic farming. In ELS; John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2016.
Tuomisto, H.L.; Hodge, I.D.; Riordan, P.; Macdonald, D.W. Does organic farming reduce environmental
impact?—A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 112, 309–320. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kirchmann, H.; Kätterer, T.; Bergström, L.; Börjesson, G.; Bolinder, M.A. Flaws and criteria for the design and
evaluation of comparative organic and conventional cropping systems. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 186, 99–106.
[CrossRef]
Zhou, M.; Zhu, B.; Wang, S.; Zhu, X.; Vereecken, H.; Brüggemann, N. Stimulation of N2O emissions
by manure application to agricultural soils may largely offset carbon benefits: A global meta-analysis.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 13648. [CrossRef]
Shelton, R.E.; Jacobsen, K.L.; McCulley, R.L. Cover crops and fertilization alter nitrogen loss in organic and
conventional conservation agriculture systems. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 8, 2260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sihi, D.; Dari, B.; Sharma, D.K.; Pathak, H.; Nain, L.; Sharma, O.P. Evaluation of soil health in organic vs.
conventional farming of basmati rice in North India. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2017, 180, 389–406. [CrossRef]
Adamtey, N.; Musyoka, M.W.; Zundel, C.; Cobo, J.G.; Karanja, E.; Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Muriuki, A.;
Mucheru-Muna, M.; Vanlauwe, B.; Berset, E.; et al. Productivity, profitability and partial nutrient balance in
maize-based conventional and organic farming systems in Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 235, 61–79.
[CrossRef]
Fließbach, A.; Oberholzer, H.R.; Gunst, L.; Mäder, P. Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators
after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 118, 273–284. [CrossRef]
Gathorne-Hardy, A.; Reddy, D.N.; Venkatanarayana, M.; Harriss-White, B. System of Rice Intensification
provides environmental and economic gains but at the expense of social sustainability—A multidisciplinary
analysis in India. Agric. Syst. 2016, 143, 159–168. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).