Can Organic Cropping Systems Be As Profitable As Conventional

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406132600.htm
the abstract is at: http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/2/288
the full text (WAY over my head!) is here http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/101/2/288
Chas
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Jean-Paul Chavasa, Joshua L. Posnerb,* and Janet L. Hedtckeb a Agriculture & Applied Economics Dep b Agronomy Dep., University of Wisconsin, Madison * Corresponding author ( snipped-for-privacy@wisc.edu). This article, the second in a series looking at the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (WICST), reports on the profitability of six conventional and organic systems, with a focus on net returns and associated risk exposure. Several pricing scenarios were compared to evaluate the impact of government programs and organic price premiums. When net return estimates are made using only neighboring elevator prices (no government programs or organic price premiums), we found that the no-till corn-soybean system [Zea mays L. and Glycine max (L.) Merr.] was the most profitable grain system, and management intensive rotational grazing (MIRG) the most profitable forage system. When government programs and organic price premiums are included, returns increased by 85 to 110% for the organic grain system (corn-soybean-wheat + red clover (Triticum aestivum L. + Trifolium pratense L.) and 35 to 40% for the organic forage system [companion seeded alfalfa with oat + field pea (Medicago sativa L., Avena sativa L., and Pisum sativum L.), hay, and then corn]. This places both organic systems with higher returns than any of the Midwestern standards of no-till corn-soybean, continuous corn, or intensive alfalfa production. Also, the results indicate how risk exposure varied across systems. Interestingly, taking risk into consideration did not drastically affect the ranking among those systems. Our analysis shows that, under the market scenarios that prevailed between 1993 and 2006, intensive rotational grazing and organic grain and forage systems were the most profitable systems on highly productive land in southern Wisconsin.
...........
So it looks the wacko's Billy and Charlie may be on to something. Yea I know just a small sample but does it not feel right. Something that has no marketability good in the end.
idea repeated in a different manner below.
Guess it is of more of import if you threw the weird idea of sustainable into the equation. No oil no 5-10-10.....
Bill
Listening to with the windows open first time this spring.
Bhattiyali 4:56 Chinmaya Dunster And The Celtic Ragas Band Karma Circles New Age 100 3 12/25/08 1:28 PM
--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
Not all who wander are lost.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cutting to the chase:
Conclusion
. . . "Our analysis explores the role of risk exposure and of its associated cost (as measured by a risk premium) across systems. The more diverse rotations were found to generate moderate risk exposure, with risk premiums rarely more than 5% of returns or significantly different among those systems.
This indicates that the management practices associated with the lower input or organic systems are, overall, no less effective than those associated with high input systems."
Simply put, organic produces as much as typical chemical base farm. What it doesn't address is the environmental impact of chemical farming and the cost of it's remediation. Same ol' privatize the profit and socialize the cost.
Good article.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.