Cost and beyond: A comparative systematic literature review of the economic viability of primary cropping systems

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4969589/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Cost and beyond: A comparative systematic literature review of the economic viability of primary cropping systems

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4969589/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

The study aims to assess the economic viability of organic and conventional primary cropping systems through a systematic literature review based on 56 studies from the leading scientific databases, i.e., Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), published up to December 31, 2023. The main results highlight that the yields are lower in organic than in conventional farming, irrespective of the crop and agroecological conditions associated with the region. Due to substantial financial subsidies the state provides in certain geographies, cultivating organics is profitable. Further, high consumer demand in developed economies and adequate export support make them economically viable. Decisively, organic practices address ecological challenges and create a balanced approach to agricultural development, empowering farmers and rural livelihoods. By supporting studies and advancements in organic agriculture, public authorities can use region-specific policies to promote the development of technologies and methodologies, leading to higher yields, reduced environmental impact, and overall progress in the organic farming sector. The study concludes by providing research directions underlining the flaws that currently limit studies on the economic viability of comparative farming systems.

Conventional farming

economic viability

organic farming

primary crops

socio-ecological impact

The worldwide production of primary crops has increased manifold due to the adoption of the industrial farming system. The production growth rate has been 56 per cent over the last two decades, touching nearly 10 billion tonnes in 2022 (FAO 2023a). Four primary crops, i.e., maize, wheat, rice and soybeans, account for half of the total production. Together, these crops provide a substantial 57 percent of the calories and 61 percent of the proteins in the human diet (D'odorico et al. 2014). Besides direct food consumption, some are used for industry, processing, and other non-food applications. Most developing countries, relative to the developed ones, grow more direct food crops to feed the teeming millions. Therefore, how the primary crops are grown and used varies by region.

The incentivized conventional or industrial agriculture with increased use of mechanization and fossil fuel, irrigation, pesticides, fertilizers, high-yield crop varieties, mono-cropping and cropland expansion has resulted in increased vulnerabilities to the environment and climate risks at regional and global levels (Davis et al. 2021). Evidence of decreasing rates of increase in agricultural yield suggests that on a sustained basis, this could regress it to pre-industrial levels (Moersdorf et al. 2023). Thus, boosting yields while minimizing unintended environmental impacts remains challenging. Suggestions for transitioning to traditional agriculture, like organic or other sustainable farming approaches, can ensure the resilience of our food system, but with concomitant tradeoffs (Bernard de Raymond et al. 2021).

Organic farming, with emphasis on the sustainability of soil, ecosystem and people, has become a widely adopted alternative agricultural practice. Increasingly, governments across the globe are promoting and undertaking policy initiatives to promote organic agriculture. Over the last two decades, there has been marked growth in the area of organic agricultural land, the number of organic producers, and organic retail sales (Willer et al. 2024). However, organic farming can contribute to sustainable agricultural development only when economically viable, i.e., monetary returns are over and above all expenses. A review of studies focusing on economic viability highlights inconclusive results regarding the performance of organic farming, especially for certified produce (e.g., Crowder and Reganold 2015; Zulfiqar and Thapa 2016). It has been observed that yields, prices, and production costs are highly context-specific (Barham and Weber 2012; Ibanez and Blackman 2016). This calls for adopting a nuanced approach to studying organic farming of primary crops, specifically to alternate conventional farming systems (i.e., non-organic farming). Indeed, while the literature on the economics of organic farming has developed over recent years, the same has not been collated for contrasting farming systems across assessment indicators or methodologies, crops and regions. The present review endeavors to address this research void through a systematic literature review up to December 2023. In specific, the review aims to answer the following two research questions:

What is the evidence of the economic viability of organic vis-à-vis conventional primary crop systems?
What is the socio-ecological impact of organic vis-à-vis conventional primary crop systems?

Although many years have elapsed since economists and scientists recognized defining economic viability as the primary challenge facing agriculture, no unanimity has been reached regarding the concept that coalesces the different dimensions of assessment – financial, economic, social and ecological (e.g., Bossel 2001; Cissé et al. 2015). Further, literature has paid less attention to its social ambit (Mani et al. 2016). In general, a broad definition is analyzed for society as a whole, resulting in economic benefits exceeding economic costs. The economic costs are not the same as the financial costs, as the former overlooks the social and environmental impacts. Thus, a wider connotation of economic viability, including comparative short-term (absolute and relative financial indicators) and long-term (predicted return on the investment) with the socio-ecological impact, has been adopted in the present study. A review is built based on the available literature on the economic viability of primary crop systems from the leading scientific databases. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2023b) defines primary crops as those derived from the land without processing except cleaning.

Search strategy and inclusion criteria

A search process was initiated by detailing the inclusion criteria for literature type, language, indexes, publication stage and theme as shown in Table 1. Thus, only original peer-reviewed research papers in the English language and final publication stage as cited in Scopus or social science, emerging sources, and art and humanities indices from the WoS database on comparative economic viability of organic vis-à-vis conventional primary crop systems formed a part of the review.

Table 1

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of research studies
Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
Literature Type	Journal (original peer-reviewed research articles) ^a	Journals (review papers and meta-data), books, chapters in books, conference proceedings or dissertations
Language	English	Non-English
Indexes	Web of Science (Social Science Citation Index, Emerging Sources Citation Index, Art and Humanities Citation Index), Scopus	Web of Science (Science Citation Indexed Expanded)
Publication Stage	Final	In Press
Theme	Studies that provide insight into the comparative economic viability of organic vs. conventional primary crop systems	Studies that provide insight into the economic viability of standalone organic primary crop systems, organic livestock systems, including aquaculture
^aFor relevant literature up to December 31, 2023

"Table 1 here"

Relevant strings were used for the search process in the first phase to shortlist in the fields of 'title', 'abstract', and 'keywords' by considering terms common and related to organic farming, conventional farming and economic viability, as listed in Table 2. The initial search identified 598 and 1,145 records for WoS and Scopus databases, respectively. Two reviewers independently carried out the subsequent selection procedure of search outcomes. Next, 459 duplicate studies were dropped after preliminary screening. In the second phase, 1,284 records were reviewed, and 1,048 were removed after reading through the titles and abstracts. The third phase involved assessing the full papers for inclusion. A total of 104 papers were excluded as these did not disclose economic comparative indicators (63), constructs (8), and analyses (11). Further, ones on livestock viability (12) and crop management (10) were omitted. The last review phase resulted in the selection of 56 papers for the qualitative analysis, as shown in Fig. 1.

Table 2

Search string used for the systematic review process
Databases	Keywords used
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY (“organic farm” OR “organic agriculture” OR “organic produc”) AND (“economic viability” OR “financial viability” OR “economic analysis" OR “economic performance” OR “economic assessment”) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE,“final”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“re” ) ) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE,“English” ) ) AND (LIMIT-TO ( SRCTYPE, “j” ) )
Web of Science	(TS= (((organic farming) OR (organic agriculture) OR (organic produce) OR (organic production) OR (organic crop) OR (organic farming)) AND ((economic viability) OR (financial viability) OR (economic analysis) OR (economic performance) OR (economic assessment)))) AND LANGUAGE: (English) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SSCI, A&HCI.

"Table 2 here"

"FIGURE 1 here"

A synoptic view of the studies reviewed for the economic viability of organic vis-à-vis conventional primary cropping systems is presented in Appendix Table S1. Primary crops are segregated as temporary and permanent. Temporary crops (e.g., wheat, rice, cereals and legumes, soybean, cotton, maize, ragi, strawberry, raspberry, cabbage, carrot, peas, sweet corn, tomato, beans, cucumber, onion, leek) are those which are both sown and harvested during the same agricultural year, sometimes more than once, while permanent crops (e.g., cherry, grapes, lemon, orange, hazelnut and olive) are sown or planted once and not replanted after each annual harvest (FAO, 2023).

Data abstraction and analysis

The data were extracted by an in-depth reading of the full research papers to delineate economic indicators by primary crop and continent classification. The economic indicators perused for review appear in five or more research papers. Further, qualitative analysis was performed using content analysis to synthesize the main economic outcomes of organic over conventional agriculture. Since the social structures and environmental change processes evolve with economic activity (Jacob 1996), the same came under the scope of the research.

Based on the review, the economic indicators were classified as absolute (i.e., standalone economic measures like yield, production cost, revenue or profit), relative (i.e., compares the magnitude of two selected numerical values, like return on costs, return on assets or return on equity) or value-added (i.e., the true economic cost of capital deployed like economic value added, net present value or profitability index) metrics. A compendium of 45 measures was invoked in the research papers to measure economic outcomes under the three classifications as defined in Appendix Table S2.

Bibliometric analysis

As presented in Fig. 2, the research papers by geographic locations were spread out over 19 countries over five continents. The bulk of the literature (59%) originated in Europe, with the maximum number of papers from the Czech Republic (10) and Italy (9). Asia is second in the pecking order (25%), followed by North America (7%), South America (5%) and Africa (4%).

"FIGURE 2 here"

The journal-wise publication trend is presented in Fig. 3, highlighting that the publications on economic and sustainable outcomes of alternate farming systems are dispersed, with no preference for specific journals. The relatively preferred journals for publication are Sustainability (4), Agris On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics (3), Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis (2), Agricultural Economics (2), Agronomy (2), Biological Agriculture and Horticulture (2) and Ecological Economics (2). The remaining 70 per cent of articles were published in different refereed journals.

"FIGURE 3 here"

Figure 4 exhibits a graphical representation of the number of research papers selected based on a timeline. The research articles were selected to cover a substantial 27-year period. This timeline offers a comprehensive view of the evolution of research and related publications in the field under investigation. Notably, approximately 82 percent of the chosen studies were published in the most recent decade, specifically from 2013 to 2023. This deliberate focus on recent research ensures that the analysis incorporates the latest developments, methodologies, and findings, providing a current and relevant perspective on the subject matter.

"FIGURE 4 here"

Economic indicator analysis

As shown by differences in absolute measures in Table 3, the yields are lower in organic vs. conventional farming, irrespective of the type of primary crop and agroecological conditions associated with the region. In European studies, yields are under by 0.50 percent in the farming of cherries to about 70 percent for vegetables and herbs. This variation might be because of particular crop types, growing conditions, years of organic management, and constraints imposed by organic standards or farming practices. Under certain conditions, like when combining perennial crops into organic farming systems, managing nutrient cycling and integrating agroecological practices within a greenhouse rotation programme, yields improve (Mohamad et al. 2017; Wachter et al. 2019).

Table 3

Difference in economic indicators for organic vis-à-vis conventional farming systems by primary crop and continent classification^a
	Crop	Study No.	Continent	Difference in absolute measures (%)					Difference in relative measures (%)				Difference in value-added measures (%)
	Crop	Study No.	Continent	Yield	PC	GR	GP	NP		AT	ROA	ROE	BCR	NPV	IRR
Temporary	Wheat	[12]	Asia	↓ 15.00	–	–	↑ 18.00	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[16]	Europe	↓ 31.71	↓ 31.23	–	↑ 78.57	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[34]	Asia	↓ 12.28	↓ 80.00	–	–	↓ 16.46		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[36]	Asia	↓ 7.76	↓ 46.72	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[40]	Europe	↓ 23.91	–	↑ 85.09	↑ 281.33	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[48]	Europe	↓ 28.13	↓ 17.75	↓ 21.46	↓ 35.69	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Rice	[13]	Asia	↓ 23.00	–	–	–	↓ 11.00		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[17]	Asia	–	↓ 88.37	↑ 20.47	↑ 32.93	↑ 54.90		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[45]	Asia	↓ 28.11	↓ 32.47	↑ 6.25	–	↑ 99.25		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[52]	Asia	↓ 18.49	↑ 41.38	–	↑ 82.63	–		–	–	–	↑ 14.10	–	–
	Cereals and legumes	[7]	Europe	↓ 14.00–38.00	↓ 59.61	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Cereals and legumes	[15]	Europe	↓ 23.68	↓ 40.74	–	–	↑ 61.46		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[27]	Africa	–	–	–	↑ 17.78	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[42]	Europe	–	↑ 3.92	–	–	↑ 19.54		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Soybean	[12]	Asia	↓ 11.00		–	↑ 10.00	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Cotton	[3]	Asia	■	↓ 10.00–20.00	–	↑ 30.00–40.00	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[12]	Asia	↓ 14.00	–	–	↑ 32.00	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Maize	[43]	Asia	↓ 10.53	↓ 6.33	–	–	↑ 6.98		–	–	–	↑ 6.52	–	–
	Ragi	[43]	Asia	↓ 12.50	↑ 17.52	–	–	↓ 17.59		–	–	–	↓ 19.44	–	–
	Arable crops^b	[8]	Europe	↓ 10.00–20.00		–	↑ 14.00–55.00	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[9]	Europe	–	↑ 0.59^c	–		–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[14]	Europe	↓ 7.00–41.00	–	–	↑ 14.00–55.00	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[24]	Asia	–	↑ 42.62	↑ 68.18	–	↑ 97.23		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[25]	Europe	–	↓ 65.87	–	–	↑ 63.01		↓ 47.06	↑ 100.00	↑ 120.00	–	–	–
		[28]	Europe	–		–	–	–		↑ 12.93	↑ 63.43	↑ 21.12	–	–	–
		[32]	South America	–	–	–	–	↓ 1.62		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[33]	Europe	–	–	–	–			↓ 48.18	↑ 17.24	–	–	–	–
		[46]	Europe	↓ 21.13	↓ 0.38	–	–	↑ 47.02		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[53]	Asia	↓ 13.03	↑ 22.68	–	↓ 12.18	↓ 27.48		–	–	–	↓ 28.67	–	–
	Strawberry	[19]	South America	–	–	↑ 27.29	–	↑ 29.47		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Strawberry	[30]	Europe	↑ 2.18	–	↑ 2.18	↓ 3.83	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Raspberry	[40]	Europe		–	↓ 9.09	↑ 34.18	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Raspberry	[44]	Africa	↓ 31.82	–	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Cabbage	[1]	North America	–	↑ 29.90	↓ 18.98	–	↓ 135.00		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Cabbage	[27]	Africa	–	–	–	↑ 33.88	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Carrot	[27]	Africa	–	–	–	↑ 20.18	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Peas	[27]	Africa	–	–	–	↓ 13.14	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Sweet corn	[1]	North America	–	↑ 17.05	↓ 41.04	–	↓ 262.00		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Tomato	[1]	North America	–	↓ 18.86	↓ 45.00	–	↓ 543.00		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[27]	Africa	–	–	–	↑ 31.56	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[30]	Europe	↓ 12.21	–	↓ 12.21	↑ 38.01	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[31]	South America	–	–	–	–	–		–	–	↓ 19.38%	–	–	–
		[40]	Europe	↓ 30.18	–	↑ 16.35	↑ 21.04	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Beans (Green)	[1]	North America	–	↑ 35.23	↓ 8.00	–	↓ 239.00		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Beans (Green)	[30]	Europe	↑ 37.82	–	↑ 37.82	↑ 104.42			–	–	–	–	–	–
	Cucumber	[47]	Asia	↓ 0.84	↑ 3.73	–	–	↓ 6.25		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Onion	[1]	North America		↑ 26.65	↓ 23.00	–	↓ 266.00		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Leek	[6]	Europe	↓ 41.00	↓ 8.54	↓ 23.00	–	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Vegetables and herbs	[10]	North America	–	–	–	↑ 23.96	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[11]	Europe	–	–	–	–	–		↑ 11.43	↑ 223.48	↑ 114.82	–	–	–
		[23]	Europe	–	↓ 65.89	↑ 62.37	–	↑ 62.67		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[29]	Europe	↓ 50.00–70.00	↑ 37.49	–	↑ 13.00	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[35]	North America	↑ 7.80	↑ 4.03	–	–	↑ 317.00		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[38]	Europe	–	–	–	–			–	↑ 179.43	–	–	–	–
		[41]	Asia	–	–	–	–	↑ 47.66		–	–	–	↓ 41.67	–	–
		[44]	Africa	↓ 22.74	↑ 23.50	–	↓ 29.47	↓ 31.34		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[50]	South America	–	↑ 795.88	↑ 1255.64	–	↑ 2160.38		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[56]	Europe	↓ 1.58	↑ 27.81	–	↓ 60.77			–	–	–	–	–	–
Permanent	Cherry	[2]	Europe	↓ 0.50	↑ 9.60	↑ 155.86	–	↑ 287.76		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Grapes	[22]	Europe	–	↑ 7.69	↑ 12.27	–	↑ 90.05		↑ 11.18	↑ 57.29	↑ 46.24	–	–	–
	Grapes	[51]	Europe	–	↓ 7.27	↓ 8.68	–	↓ 22.35		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Lemon	[20]	Europe	–	–	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	↑ 110.00	↑ 3.80
	Orange	[26]	Europe	–	↑ 83.75	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	↑ 254.74	↑ 500.00
	Hazelnut	[4]	Europe	↑ 12.40	↑ 7.04	↑ 0.42	↑ 12.00	↑ 117.70		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Hazelnut	[5]	Europe	↓ 5.00	↓ 8.70	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[37]	Europe	↓ 59.63	–	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	↓ 95.93	↓ 90.98
		[49]	Europe	↓ 67.11	–	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
		[55]	Europe	↓ 31.76	–	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	–	–
	Olive	[18]	Asia	↓ 3.26	↓ 36.73	↓ 38.41	–	–		–	–	–	↓ 2.72	–	–
		[21]	Europe	–	↓ 13.17	–	–	–		–	–	–	↑ 15.69	↑ 898.07	↑ 3.54
		[39]	Europe	↓ 8.00	–	–	–	–		–	–	–	–	↓ 129.20	↓ 1060.0
		[54]	Europe	↓ 24.05	–	↓ 25.21	↓ 21.50	↓ 26.17		–	↓ 0.07	↓ 0.07	–	–	–
^a Include measures perused in five or more research papers; ^aArable crops include sunflower, rapeseed, chickpea, groundnut, and sesame, amongst others; ^c weighted average cost of capital; Symbols ↑, ↓, and ■ denote increase, decrease, and no change in indicators, respectively. PC is for production costs; GR is for gross revenue; GP is for gross profit; NP is for net profit; BCR is for benefit-cost ratio; ROA is for return on assets; ROE is for return on equity; AT is for asset turnover; IRR is for Internal Rate of Return; NPV is for Net Present Value.

The production costs for organic wheat, rice, cereals and legumes, cotton, maize, and olives are lower (by 6 to 88 percent) than the conventional one. Organic practices and home-sourced inputs reduce costs. Moreover, livestock is essential for utilizing forage resources, generating revenue, and managing nutrient cycling (Wachter et al. 2019). Further, larger plot sizes increase economic performance by reducing labor requirements and costs associated with crop production (Heinrichs et al. 2021). On the other hand, the production costs are relatively higher for most fruits, vegetables, and herbs. The prime reasons cited are increased labor costs per unit, sustenance during the transition and high certification and marketing costs (Demiryurek and Ceyhan 2009; Phranakhone and Nanseki 2015; Bett and Ayieko 2017). The maintenance of the farms, including irrigation, fertilization and pest management, harvesting, storage and post-harvesting activities, also involves a huge expenditure (Uematsu and Mishra 2012; Nair et al. 2013). Further, considering the level of awareness and consumer demand, the market size for organic products at a premium pricing strategy is relatively modest. The primary constraint is difficulty in accessing financial resources, which elevates the level of financial risk involved in practising the organic way.

The gross revenues account for the actual market rates at which the crops are sold. For most farmers practising organic cultivation, the premium secured over and above market prices makes it financially attractive, leading to positive gross and net profits. However, this result is conditioned by sustenance provided through subsidies. Due to substantial financial support during the transition period in specific geographies, especially Europe, the cultivation of organics is profitable (Brozova and Vanek 2013; Vlasicova and Naglova 2015a,b; Naglova and Vlasicova 2016). Further, high consumer demand and suitable export opportunities for organic produce make them more economically viable (Vasko and Kovacevic, 2020). Further, for certain crops like hazelnuts, which are generally manually reaped, the harvest results in the same labor costs in both production systems, thus making organics profitable (Demiryurek and Ceyhan 2009). For others, transitioning to the organic system resulted in financial losses (gross and net) because of low yield and price premiums not covering the cost (Oplanic et al. 2009).

For relative measures, the return as a proportion of assets and equity has been primarily determined for organic arable crops, vegetables, herbs, and grapes based out of Europe. However, the same does not hold good for organic olives. According to Hampl (2020), organic farms profit significantly more from their premium sales, whereas conventional farms use their assets more productively. For Europe, agri-environmental subsidies promoting a transition to organic production have primarily offset the profitability gap (Martin-Garcia et al. 2023). Further, farm inefficiencies or sluggish sales resulted in lower asset turnover ratios for organic farmers in the Czech Republic (Naglova and Vlasicova 2016; Krause and Machek 2018). For other relative measures (Panel A, Appendix Table S3), sales volatility and profit margins decrease when practising organic compared to conventional farming. At the same time, the economic efficiency, inventory turnover, liquidity, and solvency positions increase.

The value-added measures allow farmers to predict the profit generated by adopting alternate agriculture systems. The difference in benefit-cost ratio for organics in Asia sees a drop (Paydar et al. 2015; Zhen et al. 2020; Manjunatha and Puttaswamaiah 2021; Zhanbota et al. 2021), while that for Europe is positive (Sgroi et al., 2015b), irrespective of the crop type. The net present value and internal rate of return measures underline that moving to organic production of permanent primary crops is expected to be financially more sustainable as the farmers can obtain a higher price in the market, guaranteed by certification. This is after factoring in yield decreases in the first three years of the transition period and increases in labor costs. These studies are in the European context, primarily for citrus and olive cultivation (Sgroi et al. 2015a,b; Torres et al. 2016). For other indicators (Panel B, Appendix Table S3), the gross production value, economic value added and profitability index are projected to increase for organic farming. These results can be attributed to significantly lower debt (Aulova and Frydlova 2012), higher consumer demand (Bux et al. 2022) and good opportunity for exports (Vasko and Kovacevic, 2020).

"Table 3 here"

Socio-ecological impact analysis

The key impact of adopting organic over conventional primary cropping systems on social and ecological dimensions was construed from the studies (Appendix Table S2). Transition to organic farming is a complex process that is highly context-specific. Investment is required to set up composting structures and integrate other on-farm facilities. Proper training as well as awareness of the certification requirements and regulations, especially in work safety and quality assurance, are required (Torres et al. 2016). It is thus not surprising that wealthier farmers with large farms opt for conversion to organics (Eyhorn et al. 2007). With the likelihood of short-term financial losses, only potential practitioners with a genuine commitment to organic principles initiate the transition to fully organic practices (Sellen et al. 1996). Being labor-intensive, organic farming provides an economic opportunity for employment creation for rural workers, particularly women, thus avoiding the rural exodus (Uematsu and Mishra 2012; Sgroi et al. 2015a; Akram et al. 2019). Further, human health indicators for organic systems are considerably better (Rysin et al. 2015; Neto et al. 2018). The higher farm-gate price of organic produce, improved information sharing, and export opportunities have motivated the farmers to become members of organic-producing groups, cooperatives or associations (Phranakhone and Nanseki 2015; Sgroi et al. 2015b). A strong group coherence among participating farmers and a stringent and well-functional internal control system for organic certification under the participatory guarantee systems can prevent freeriding and give impetus to collective action.

Organic agriculture is a sustainable alternative as it is based on conservation and promotes ecosystem multifunctionality, especially by enhancing, regulating and supporting ecosystem services, including biodiversity preservation, soil and water quality, waste decomposition and climate mitigation by a reduction in CO₂ emissions (Wittwer et al. 2021; Bux et al. 2022). It reduces environmental impact and resource depletion, reflecting improved efficiency in reducing the consumption of fossil fuels (Sgroi et al. 2015; Scuderi et al. 2023). The production cost decreases over time as organic inputs are renewable. The effective recycling of agricultural wastes and manure is eco-friendly (Tanrivermi 2008). Maintaining permanent soil cover in conservation agriculture and employing integrated plant protection, crop rotation, and organic inputs are instrumental in environmental protection. According to Eyhorn et al. (2007), the average soil organic matter contents and water retention capacity in organically managed fields were higher than in conventional fields. Organic cultivation is, therefore, thriving in areas with high biodiversity and ecological value. The eco-efficiency of organic farming systems is positively correlated with long-term yield (Saber et al. 2021).

However, some studies also indicate negative fallouts of practising organic farming. Since high yields can only be sustained with large applications of animal manure, organic farms exhibited the highest soil eco-toxicity and aquatic eutrophication potential, mainly due to the heavy application of off-farm manures (Zhen et al. 2020). Though several subsidy schemes are offered to farmers in developing countries, high dependence on subsidies adversely impacts the overall economic health (Martin-Garcia et al. 2023). Further, community-supported farms showed the highest profitability and eco-efficiency with the lowest environmental impacts irrespective of the choice of agriculture systems.

Theme-wise synthesis of the main outcomes has been described in Table 4. The synthesis within each theme is meticulously based on positive and negative aspects, comprehensively examining the leading outcomes derived from the data presented in Appendix Table S2.

Table 4

Theme-wise synthesis of main outcomes
Theme ^a	Synthesis
Theme ^a	Positive Aspects	Negative Aspects
Economic viability of organic over conventional farming	• Increase in demand for organic produce • Reduces the use of synthetic chemical and phytosanitary products • Organic produce command premium pricing • Higher revenues generated for the certified products • Organic produce has higher profitability and better scope for market expansion in the long run • Organic cropping boosts employment opportunities and rural income in the economy	• High initial investment in the conversion of conventional into organic farms • Additional costs of agroecological service crops, organic inputs as well as weed and pest control • High labor and irrigation expenses • High certification costs and complex procedures for obtaining certification • Higher production, maintenance and marketing costs involved in organic farming • Inept funding for production - equipment financing and working capital funding • Lack of access to upgraded technology leads to technical inefficiency • Insufficient price premium • Market volatility constricts the profit generation of organic produce • Providing subsidies to organic farmers results in imposing higher taxes by the government to raise funds • Lack of infrastructure, inadequate systems/channels for marketing of organic products
Socio-ecological outcomes of organic over conventional farming	• Eco-friendly farming systems • Promotes community farming as there is greater coherence among participating farmers • Higher yield and better-quality production in the long run • Reduction in CO2 emissions and soil and groundwater pollution • Toxin-free production prevents health deterioration of rural workers as well as consumers • Highly beneficial for reducing damage towards human health and ecosystems • Minimal use of damaging chemical components and pollutants • Avoids disturbance in the ecological balance • Prevents soil erosion and keeps water supplies clean • Favorable for socio-economic development and ecological sustainability	• Impact of organic farming on biodiversity conservation depends on practices adopted, geographic location and field scale • Expose to soil eco-toxicity and aquatic eutrophication due to the heavy application of off-farm organic manures • Low yields of organic farms lead to bringing larger areas of land into agricultural production at the cost of biodiversity • Lower food security due to lower productivity • Increase in crop and food waste • Higher knowledge requirements • Food less affordable for poor consumers
^a Based on Appendix Table S4

"Table 4 here"

This systematic literature review assessed the economic viability of organic and conventional primary cropping systems based on studies from the leading scientific databases. It specifically looked at the socio-ecological impact of comparative cropping systems. Based on the review, it can be inferred that organic produce, specifically certified ones, has higher long-term profitability and better scope for market expansion than conventional produce. There is a vast potential to generate higher revenues owing to premium pricing strategies and increasing demand trends for organic products, specifically certified ones. Moreover, organic cropping boosts employment opportunities in the economy. Considering the socio-ecological outcomes, it can be concluded that organic farming systems are eco-friendly, ensuring toxin-free production and preventing the health deterioration of rural workers and consumers. Organic farming practices prevent soil erosion, keep water supplies clean, and are favorable for socio-economic development and ecological sustainability. Due to substantial financial subsidies provided by the governments in certain geographies, cultivating organics is thus not only financially viable but also socio-ecologically resilient.

In developing economies, on the contrary, it has been observed that the organic conversion period entails huge costs and high production, maintenance, and marketing costs. The complex procedure for certification of organic produce and the high certification cost are the other reasons for the farmers' inhibition from converting their farmlands into organic ones. Further, technical inefficiency is due to a lack of upgraded technology and skill training facilities for the farmers. Market volatility is one of the major constraints primarily due to difficulty accessing financial resources.

The barriers to organic farming can be scaled by educating farmers about the ecological implications and economic benefits to stimulate conversion towards organic agricultural practices. Government reinforcement plays a vital role by providing specific incentives and subsidies during the conversion period to compensate for losses or lower profits. State intervention is needed to provide technical training and enhance capacity-building activities. Furthermore, tax incentives can play a significant role in encouraging farmers to shift towards organic production. The farmers should be encouraged to establish organic cooperatives to provide an enabling ecosystem. Implementing enhanced certification systems for groups of farmers can bolster consumer trust in organic products and create a more competitive market. The government must ensure clarity and integrity of organic farming standards and simplification in the certification process. Handholding support can be provided to farmers by engaging scientific institutions operating at regional or local levels as intermediaries that would supplement quality control and technical skill development.

Emphasizing technological upgradation and efficient input management is crucial to enhancing agricultural yield. By supporting studies and advancements in organic agriculture, public authorities can use region-specific policies to promote the development of technologies and methodologies, leading to higher yields, reduced environmental impact, and overall progress in the organic farming sector. A holistic approach is essential in designing future cropping systems. By integrating diverse farming techniques, farmers can enhance productivity while preserving soil health and biodiversity. Promoting integrated fertilization treatment is crucial for balanced nutrient management. Encouraging renewable energy by employing solar, wind, and bioenergy technologies cuts greenhouse gas emissions and offers cost-effective and sustainable production.

Increasing consumer demand for organic products necessitates export-oriented policies for expanding distribution networks to processing industries and global markets. The present scenario requires the use of information and communications technology to increase awareness amongst farmers and consumers. One essential approach involves establishing networks to facilitate the exchange of best practices among local farms. By sharing successful applications and experiences, farmers can enhance their organic practices collectively. Government and agricultural support institutions should continuously strive to disseminate contemporaneous information to farmers, providing mobile advisory services and electronic marketplaces.

Lately, there has been an increasing interest from both practitioners and researchers in sustainable agricultural practices, especially organic farming. A comprehensive and collaborative approach encompassing networking, certification, research, and tax incentives is essential for fostering the growth of organic farming. Public authorities should be central in supporting these initiatives to achieve a more sustainable and environmentally responsible agricultural system. While both organic and conventional farming systems have their merits, policies should prioritize optimizing the returns of organic-like systems. This requires a balanced approach considering agriculture's economic, environmental, and social aspects. Sustainable water management and climate-resilient practices should be at the forefront of agricultural decision-making to ensure a secure and sustainable food future. Funding to promote organics can be tapped from private sector companies and startups.

A review of studies comparing the economic viability of farming systems for primary crops across diverse temporal and spatial scales highlights the design and execution limitations of the research in this domain. The absence of harmonized international standards for classifying production as organic is amiss. As evident in the extant research, diverse environmentally friendly practices, varied companion and rotation crops, including integrated farming, and home-grown and off-farm inputs, have been considered under the organic farming system. The conclusions drawn have been construed based on field experiments to data sourced from government and other databases, with and without soil sample tests. Further, all value-added econometric metrics are calculated based on different agroecological estimations. The study duration, farming antecedents, number of plots, plot sizes, non-cropped plots, farm-plot distance and site specificities are critical economic factors that vary considerably over and within studies. Decisive conclusions cannot be drawn with varying definitions and proxies for economic metrics. Future studies should be wary of differences between alternate farming systems and mindful of the agricultural standard benchmarks.

Based on the systematic literature review, there is a potential for further research by exploring the impact of organic farming on global food security challenges and assessing the effectiveness of organic growers and the performance of local markets they access. Additionally, analyzing the costs and profits associated with certified organic farms would be beneficial. Investigating the relationship between subsidies and the financial management of farm enterprises could also yield valuable insights. Furthermore, more studies need to be conducted to estimate the effects of temporal and spatial differences as well as diverse farming systems on biodiversity, soil fertility, product quality, and ecological benefits after the conversion period. Understanding the social impact of organic farming on various stakeholder groups is crucial. Researchers could delve into fertilization modelling methods and their consequences for enhancing environmental sustainability. Moreover, exploring farmers' perceptions and behaviors across diverse local conditions, socio-economic characteristics, and regional factors affecting farming techniques could offer a broader understanding of the issues that give a fillip to sustainable food systems.

Author Contribution

S.G. worked on conceptualization, visualization, methodology, software use, and manuscript writing. R.K.J. worked on the conceptualization, supervised and administered the project. M.S. was engaged in the investigation, data curation and validation.All authors reviewed the manuscript

Acknowledgement

This research is an original piece of work and a part of Transforming India’s Green Revolution by Research and Empowerment for Sustainable food Supplies (TIGR2ESS) Flagship Project 6.

Akram, MW, Akram N, Hongshu W, Mehmood A (2019) An assessment of economic viability of organic farming in Pakistan. Custos e Agronegocio 15(1): 141–169. http://www.custoseagronegocioonline.com.br/numero1v15/OK%207%20farming%20english.pdf.
Aslam W (2020) Comparative economic analysis of crop yield under organic and conventional farming systems in Punjab, Pakistan. Asian J Agric & Biol 8(2): 113–118. https://doi.org/10.35495/ajab.2020.02.093
Aulová R, Frydlova M (2012) EVA and its determinants for selected groups of farms: conventional and organic farming. AGRIS On-line Pap Econ Informs 4(3): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.146252
Barham BL, Weber JG (2012) The economic sustainability of certified coffee: recent evidence from Mexico and Peru. World Dev 40(6): 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.005
Bernard De Raymond A, Alpha A, Ben-Ari T, Daviron B, Nesme T, Tétart G (2021) Systemic risk and food security. emerging trends and future avenues for research. Glob Food Secur 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100547
Bett EK, Ayieko DM (2016) Economic potential for conversion to organic farming: a net present value analysis in the East Mau Catchment, Nakuru, Kenya. Environ, Dev Sustain 19(4): 1307–1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9800-0
Bossel H (2001) Assessing viability and sustainability: a systems-based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 1–12. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art12/
Brožová I, Beranová M (2017) A comparative analysis of organic and conventional farming profitability. AGRIS On-line Pap Econ Informs 9(1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2017.090101
Brožová I, Vaněk J (2013) Assessment of economic efficiency of conventional and organic agricultural enterprises in a chosen region. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun 61(2): 297–307. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201361020297
Bux C, Lombardi M, Varese E, Amicarelli V (2022) Economic and environmental assessment of conventional versus organic durum wheat production in Southern Italy. Sustain 14(15): 9143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159143
Coppola G, Costantini M, Fusi A, Ruiz-García L, Bacenetti J (2022) Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional and organic hazelnuts production systems in Central Italy. Sci Total Environ 826, 154107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154107
Coppola G, Costantini M, Orsi L, Facchinetti D, Santoro F, Pessina D, Bacenetti J (2020) A comparative cost-benefit analysis of conventional and organic hazelnuts production systems in Center Italy. Agric 10(9), 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10090409
Crowder DW, Reganold, JP (2015) Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. PNAS 112(24):7611–7616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423674112
D'odorico P, Carr JA, Laio F, Ridolfi L, Vandoni S (2014) Feeding humanity through global food trade. Earth's Futur 2(9): 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000250
Dat TT, Truong DD, Huan LH, Hang ND (2023) Cost-benefit analysis of organic and traditional rice production in Mekong River Delta: the case of Ca Mau Province, Vietnam. Appl Ecol Environ Res 21(1): 503–518. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2101_503518
Davis KF, Downs S, Gephart JA (2021) Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat Food 2: 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00196-3
Demiryürek K, Ceyhan V (2008) Economics of organic and conventional hazelnut production in the Terme district of Samsun, Turkey. Renew Agr Food Syst 23(3): 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742170508002251
Eyhorn F, Ramakrishnan M, Mäder P (2007) The viability of cotton-based organic farming systems in India. Int J Agr Sustain 5(1): 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2007.9684811
Ferreira APaL, De Oliveira L, Talamini É (2022) Land use returns in organic and conventional farming systems: Financial and beyond. Org Agrice 12(3): 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00392-4
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2023a) Agricultural production statistics 2000–2022. FAOSTAT Analytical Briefs, No. 79. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fba4ef43-422c-4d73-886e-3016ff47df52/content. Accessed 6 January 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2023b) Crops statistics: concepts, definitions and classifications. https://www.fao.org/economic/the-statistics-division-ess/methodology/methodology-systems/crops-stat istics-concepts-definitions-and-classifications/en. Accessed 6 January 2024
Forster DL, Andrés C, Verma R, Zundel C, Messmer M, Mäder P (2013) Yield and economic performance of organic and conventional cotton-based farming systems – results from a field trial in India. PLOS ONE 8(12), e81039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081039
Froehlich AG, Melo ASSA, Sampaio B (2018) Comparing the profitability of organic and conventional production in family farming: empirical evidence from Brazil. Ecol Econ 150: 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018. 04.022
García Castellanos B, García-García B, García‐García J (2022) Evaluation of the sustainability of vineyards in semi-arid climates: the case of Southeastern Spain. Agron 12(12): 3213. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123213
Hampl F (2020) A statistical analysis of the financial performance of organic and conventional farms in the Czech Republic with respect to their size. Zemědělská Ekonomika 66(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17221/78/2019-agricecon
Heinrichs J, Kuhn T, Pahmeyer C, Britz W (2021) Economic effects of plot sizes and farm-plot distances in organic and conventional farming systems: a farm-level analysis for Germany. Agric Syst 187, 102992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020. 102992
Ibanez M, Blackman A (2016) Is eco-certification a win-win for developing country agriculture? Organic coffee certification in Colombia. World Dev 82(C): 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.01.004
Iofrıda N, Stillitano T, Falcone G, Gulısano G, Nicolò BF, De Luca AI (2020) The socio-economic impacts of organic and conventional olive growing in Italy. New Medit, 19(1): 117–131. DOI: 10.30682/nm2001h.
Jacobs M (1996) What is socio-ecological economics? Ecol Eco Bull 1(2): 14–16. https://www.uvm.edu/~jfarley/EEseminar/readings/What%20is%20ecological %20economics.pdf
Jánský J, Pospíšil J (2010) Economic efficiency of legume-cereal intercrops in conditions of organic farming. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun 58(6 Part 1): 189–198. https://acta.mendelu.cz/pdfs/acu/2010/06/19.pdf
Korat H, Mathukia R, Talaviya H (2023) Comparative evaluation of low-cost natural farming, organic farming and conventional farming in major crops of South Saurashtra region at Junagadh, Gujarat, India, Environ Conserv J 24(3): 126–135. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.14912463
Krause J and Machek O (2018) A comparative analysis of organic and conventional farmers in the Czech Republic. Zemědělská Ekonomika 64(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17221/161/2016-agricecon
Krause J, Spicka J (2017) Analysis of economic performance and opportunities for the development of organic farming: case study of the Czech Republic. Pak J Agric Sci 54(3): 717–724. https://doi.org/10.21162/pakjas/17.2527
Lee S, Nguyen TT, Poppenborg P, Shin H, Koellner T (2016) Conventional, partially converted and environmentally friendly farming in South Korea: profitability and factors affecting farmers' choice. Sustain 8(8): 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080704
Mani V, Agarwal R, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Dubey R, Childe S (2016) Social sustainability in the supply chain: construct development and measurement validation. Ecol Indic 71: 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2016.07.007
Manjunatha T, Puttaswamaiah S (2021) Comparative economic analysis of organic and conventional farming in Karnataka. Indian J Econ Dev 17(4): 2322–04360. https://doi.org/10.35716/IJED/21106
Martín-García J, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M (2023) Conventional versus organic olive farming: which has a better economic performance? Agric Food Econ 11(51), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-023-00292-5
Meral H, Millan E (2023) Factors influencing conventional hazelnut farmers to transition to organic production: the case of Türkiye. Erwerbs-Obstbau 65(5): 1583–1594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-023-00922-8
Moersdorf J, Rivers M, Denkenberger D, Breuer L, Jehn FU (2023) The fragile state of industrial agriculture: estimating crop yield reductions in a global catastrophic infrastructure loss scenario. Global Chall 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2. 202300206
Mohamad RS, Cardone G, Mimiola G, Tittarelli F, Bitar LA, Ceglie F (2017) Analysis of Mediterranean organic greenhouse production economics and the impact of introducing agroecological practices. Biol Agric Hortic 34(3): 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2017.1402705
Náglová Z, Vlašicová E (2016) Economic performance of conventional, organic, and biodynamic farms. J Agric Sci Tech 18(4): 881–894. http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-23-8388-en.html
Nair CM, Salin KR, Joseph J, Bahuleyan A, Geethalakshmi V, New MB (2013) Organic rice–prawn farming yields 20% higher revenues. Agron Sustain Dev 34(3): 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0188-z
Neto JDS, Schwan-Estrada KRF, De Sena JOA, Telles TS (2017) Economic viability of tomato cultivation in organic farming system. Braz Arch Biol Technol 60. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4324-2017161229
Ogunmola OO, Afolabi O, Adesina AC, Ilechukwu AK (2021) A comparative analysis of the profitability and technical efficiency of vegetable production under two farming systems in Nigeria. J Agric Sci 66(1): 87–104. https://doi.org/10.2298/jas2101087o
Olgun A, Adanacıoğlu H, Saner G (2006) An economic evaluation on organic cherry production: a case of Turkey. J Sustain Agric 28(2): 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1300/j064v28n02_09
Oplanić M, Ban D, Peršurić ASI, Žnidarčić D (2009) Profitability of leek (Allium porrum L.) in three production systems. Int J Food Agri Environ 7(7): 376–381. http://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/search.do?request_ locale = arandrecordID = FI2011512916
Pardo G, Perea F, Martínez Y, Urbano JM (2014) Economic profitability analysis of rainfed organic farming in SW Spain. Outlook Agric 43(2): 115–122, https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2014.0161
Paydar L, Firouzi S, Aminpanah H (2015) The economic performance of organic and conventional olive orchards in Iran. Idesia 33(3): 109–113. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-34292015000300015
Phranakhone P, Nanseki T (2015) Study on profitability and factors influencing participation in organic farmer association: a case study of Sangthong District, Vientiane Capital, Laos. J Fac Agric 60: 259–264, https://doi.org/10.5109/1526318
Rysin O, McWhirt A, Fernandez GE, Louws FJ, Schroeder-Moreno M (2015) Economic viability and environmental impact assessment of three different strawberry production systems in the Southeastern United States. Horttechnology 25(4): 585–594. https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.25.4.585
Saber Z, Van Zelm R, Pirdashti H, Schipper AM, Esmaeili M, Motevali A, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Huijbregts MAJ (2021) Understanding farm-level differences in environmental impact and eco-efficiency: the case of rice production in Iran. Sustain Prod Consum 27: 1021–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.033
Scuderi A, Timpanaro G, Branca F, Cammarata M (2023) Economic and environmental sustainability assessment of an innovative organic broccoli production pattern. Agron 13(3): 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030624
Sellen D, Tolman J H, McLeod DG, Weersink A, Yiridoe, EK (1996) A comparison of financial returns during early transition from conventional to organic vegetable production. J Veg Crop Prod 1(2): 11–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/j068v01n02_03
Sgroi F, Candela M, Di Trapani AM, Foderà M, Squatrito R, Testa R, Tudisca S (2015a) Economic and financial comparison between organic and conventional farming in Sicilian lemon orchards. Sustain 7(1): 947–961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7010947
Sgroi F, Foderà M, Di Trapani AM, Tudisca S, Testa R (2015b) Cost-benefit analysis: a comparison between conventional and organic olive growing in the Mediterranean area. Ecol Eng 82: 542–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.05. 043
Tanrıvermiş H (2008) Comparative economic assessment of conventional and organic hazelnut farming in Turkey: results of questionnaires from three years. Biol Agric Hortic 26(3): 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2008. 9755086
Torres J, Valera D, Belmonte LJ, Saraite-Sariene L (2016) Economic and social sustainability through organic agriculture: study of the restructuring of the citrus sector in the "Bajo Andarax" district (Spain). Sustain 8(9): 918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090918
Tudisca S, Di Trapani AM, Sgroi F, Testa R (2014) Organic farming and economic sustainability: the case of Sicilian durum wheat. Calitatea-acces La Succes 15: 93–96. https://pure.unipa.it/en/publications/organic-farming-and-economic-sustainability-the-case-of-sicilian--3
Uematsu H, Mishra AK (2012) Organic farmers or conventional farmers: where's the money? Ecol Econ 78: 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012. 03.013
Urfi P, Hoffman A, Koch KK (2011) The comparative cost and profit analysis of organic and conventional farming. Stud Agric Econ 113(1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1004
Urfi P, Koch KK, Hoffmann A, Sárdi K (2013) Comparative cost analysis of organic and conventional farming in Hungary. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 44(1–4): 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2013.748064
Vaško Ž, Kovačević I (2020) Comparison of economic efficiency of organic versus conventional farming in the conditions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Agric For 66(2): 167–178. https://doi.org/10.17707/agricultforest.66.2.16
Vlašicová E, Náglová Z (2015a) Differences in the financial management of conventional, organic, and biodynamic farms. Sci Agric Bohem 46(3): 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/sab-2015-0024
Vlašicová E, Náglová Z (2015b) Differences in the economic situation of organic and conventional winemaking enterprises. AGRIS On-line Pap Econ Informs 7(3): 89–97. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2015.070309
Wachter JM, Painter KM, Carpenter-Boggs L, Huggins DR, Reganold JP (2019) Productivity, economic performance, and soil quality of conventional, mixed, and organic dryland farming systems in eastern Washington State. Agric Ecosyst Environ 286, 106665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106665
Willer H, Trávníček J, Schlatter B (2024) The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2024. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, and IFOAM – Organics International (eds.), Bonn. https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/52272. Accessed 28 December 2023
Wittwer RA, Bender S, Hartman K, et al (2021) Organic and conservation agriculture promote ecosystem multifunctionality. Sci Adv 7(34). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg6995
Zhanbota A, Noor RS, Wang GY (2021) Yield, energy, and economic analysis of greenhouse cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) production under different farming treatments. J Anim Plant Sci 31(2): 509–521. https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2021.2.0240
Zhen H, Gao W, Li J, Qiao Y, Ju X (2020) Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of alternative greenhouse vegetable production farms in peri-urban Beijing, China. J Clean Prod 269 122380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122380

No competing interests reported.

SupplementaryDataAppendices.docx

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Nov, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
07 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
04 Sep, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
04 Sep, 2024
First submitted to journal
24 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Cost and beyond: A comparative systematic literature review of the economic viability of primary cropping systems

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and method

Search strategy and inclusion criteria

Data abstraction and analysis

Results

Bibliometric analysis

Economic indicator analysis

Socio-ecological impact analysis

Discussion and Conclusion

Declarations

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1