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 classificationa
| Crop | Study No. | Continent | Difference in absolute measures (%) | Difference in relative measures (%) | Difference in value-added measures (%) |
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 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[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 cropsb | [8] | Europe | ↓ 10.00–20.00 | | – | ↑ 14.00–55.00 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[9] | Europe | – | ↑ 0.59c | – | | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[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 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[30] | Europe | ↑ 2.18 | – | ↑ 2.18 | ↓ 3.83 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Raspberry | [40] | Europe | | – | ↓ 9.09 | ↑ 34.18 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[44] | Africa | ↓ 31.82 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Cabbage | [1] | North America | – | ↑ 29.90 | ↓ 18.98 | – | ↓ 135.00 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[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 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[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 | – | – | – |
[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 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
[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 |
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"