Organic Farming: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Nora Tang and Version 2 by Nora Tang.

Because agriculture is a key source of environmental pressures, the need to urgently reduce the impacts of agricultural activities on biodiversity, freshwater and marine pollution, greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions, and soils has been recognized by the European Union. Thus, three of the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) objectives concern the environment and climate change. More specifically, a substantial contribution is scheduled to mitigate climate change, foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural resources, protect biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services, and preserve wildlife habitats and landscapes. These challenges can be addressed by the adoption of more sustainable agricultural production systems such as organic farming. 

  • organic farming
  • conversion decisions
  • determinants of acceleration
  • market
  • policy

1. Specification of the Benefits of Organic Farming

Some researchers highlight the multiple benefits of organic farming. For example, Horrillo et al. [1] found that greenhouse emissions in four types of organic livestock farming are lower than those from conventional farms, while the levels of carbon sequestration are noticeably higher. Cattell Noll et al. [2] note that organic crop and animal production can reduce global nitrogen pollution, while Borsato et al. [3] report that organic viticulture can be applied without incurring economic losses and with better preservation of natural capital. The environmental benefits of organic viticulture are linked with the water and carbon footprints, pesticide and fertilizer management, organic matter content, soil compaction and erosion, and landscape quality. A more precise quantification of the total environmental consequences was conducted by Zaher et al. [4]. They found that the ecotoxicity effects per kilogram of potato production were reduced by approximately three orders of magnitude in a US organic case study farm as compared to average conventional production.

Apart from the above mentioned benefits, organic agriculture can promote more compassionate treatment of animals, while it can also provide important benefits to human health [5]. For example, Welsh et al. [6] note that contaminant levels in food, such as antibiotics and pesticides, were undetectable in organic samples but were identified in conventionally produced milk samples, with multiple samples exceeding the federal limits. In addition to this, synthetic growth hormones were also detectable in conventionally produced milk. Though the scientific evidence remains scarce [7], some recently published studies highlight [5][8] that organic food seems to be healthier compared to conventional food due to the fact of its higher content of bioactive compounds and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Moreover, organic food has lower cadmium content and other unhealthy substances, such as pesticide residues, which are linked with gut microbiota dysbiosis, immune-related disorders, toxicity in humans, and negative impacts on cognitive development in children.

Some indirect effects can be also attributed to organic products such as the health outcomes closely linked to the eating habits of organic consumers. For example, the diet of organic consumers is often richer in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains and lower in meat intake. Such a dietary pattern leads to a lower incidence of metabolic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus type 2. In addition, the greater content of dietetic fiber in organic food may have a positive effect on gut microbiota and health, because the risks for some diseases and allergies are reduced [7], and it also demonstrates a potential beneficial effect on obesity among adults. It is also important to note that the diet of organic consumers, which involves less animal-based food products, has an indirect environmental benefits. Such a diet enables the carbon footprint and land use to be further reduced [9][10].

2. The Organic Conversion

Given the benefits organic farming creates, it could be argued that organic food supply is a response to the European policy target for the environmental impact of agriculture to be reduced [11][12]. This enables certain environmental consequences to be minimized and, thus, agriculture to contribute to the 12th Sustainable Development Goal (UN) of responsible consumption and production [13] being achieved. Taking into account the above presented benefits, the more widespread organic food production and consumption is, the higher the contribution of the agro-food sector to achieving this goal.

2.1. The Diffusion of Organic Farming

Selected statistical data [14] indicate that organic farmland increased by 65% between 2008 and 2018 in the EU, with organic farmland shares ranging among countries. Organic livestock also increased during the same period. For example, the populations of organic sheep and poultry increased by 67.8% and 127.9%, respectively. In regard to total organic food sales, it was noticed that they increased by 121% in the EU, reaching EUR 37.4 billion (EUR 97 million globally). Although the rates of diffusion appear to be high, the spread of organic farming cannot be considered satisfactory, because only 7.7% of the EU’s farmland was organic on 2018. Thus, the question arises of “how will organic farming expand from this low level to 25% in 2030” as required by European policy [12]. The question becomes even more important for the whole Earth, where only 1.5% of the world’s farmland was organic in 2018 (71.5 million hectares), while more than double the environmental footprint is expected by 2050, because food consumption is expected to double. The urgency of a change becomes further apparent, because any increase in food expenditure by 1% is followed by an increase of 1.4% in the environmental footprint [11][14][15].

The phase of production has the greatest negative environmental effect among the sub-sectors of the agro-food supply system. Its greenhouse gas emissions contribute to about 65% to 85% of the total system’s emissions [16]. Thus, a great reduction in the total environmental consequences of food supply can be achieved if the number of organic farmers as well as the diffusion of organic farming activities substantially increase worldwide. Following the EU policy target [12], such a conversion should lead to at least a tripling of the organic farmland by 2030. Given that the organic farmland increased by only 65% in the last decade, it is questionable whether this goal can be achieved.

2.2. Farmers’ Conversion Decisions

The economic, environmental, and social issues of organic farming, combined with the low level of its diffusion, the heterogeneity of conditions worldwide, and the social and policy interest have encouraged many researchers to explore the factors that can affect decisions made by farmers related to the conversion of conventional farming activities to organic [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]. Each of the studies identified a limited number of factors, while few of them extended the exploration in more than one country [51]. Such a fragmentation of the knowledge does not enable sufficient information to be provided to public authorities aiming at the diffusion of organic farming to be accelerated. A study that integrates as many factors as possible, which impact on farmers’ decisions to convert worldwide, into a framework is a challenge.

3. Methodology

The present review is conducted in an integrative way, following Torraco’s  

[69]

definitions and recommendations. Such an “integrative review” focuses on ideas and results extracted from the individual papers, only a few details of which are provided. To understand how the farmers’ organic conversion decisions are influenced by various factors, in a first step, we searched for a theoretical framework. As is above noted, after the initial review of each abstract, we proceeded with an in-depth review to identify decision determinants. Then, the theoretical framework was developed  that links farmers’ organic conversion decisions with the external farm business environment

[70][71][72]

. The determinants of farmers’ organic conversion decisions identified worldwide were next integrated into the framework, and organized in sets and sub-sets of factors.

4. Organic Conversion Decision Framework

We adopted the framework of Zagaria et al.

[72]

, because it enables the numerous sets of factors that have previously been examined to be integrated into a common theoretical foundation. Following this framework, farmers first update their characteristics based on their perception of changes to the external farm environment; they then select to convert conventional farming activity to organic activity based on its capacity to meet their goals. Lastly, they implement the selected organic conversion with repercussion to internal and external characteristics. Thus, internal and external variables directly determine the adoption and implementation. These variables can be distinguished into two groups. In the first group, the factors of the external farm business environment are included. Changes to these factors can be caused by public interventions

[15][29][53][66]

, but farmers cannot control them in the short term. The second group includes all of the other factors that constitute the internal farm business environment. Changes in these factors can be caused both by the farmers themselves and by the policy. The framework we built is shown in the Figure.

Sustainability 13 04715 g001 550

Figure 1. Farmers’ organic conversion decisions framework. Sets/sub-sets of factors effect farmers’ decisions to convert conventional farming activities into organic activities.

 Farmers’ organic conversion decisions framework. Sets/sub-sets of factors effect farmers’ decisions to convert conventional farming activities into organic activities.

References

  1. Horrillo, A.; Gaspar, P.; Escribano, M. Organic Farming as a Strategy to Reduce Carbon Footprint in Dehesa Agroecosystems: A Case Study Comparing Different Livestock Products. Animals 2020, 10, 162.
  2. Cattell Noll, L.; Leach, A.M.; Seufert, V.; Galloway, J.N.; Atwell, B.; Erisman, J.W.; Shade, J. The nitrogen footprint of organic food in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 045004.
  3. Borsato, E.; Zucchinelli, M.; D’Ammaro, D.; Giubilato, E.; Zabeo, A.; Criscione, P.; Pizzol, L.; Cohen, Y.; Tarolli, P.; Lamastra, L.; et al. Use of multiple indicators to compare sustainability performance of organic vs conventional vineyard management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 711, 135081.
  4. Zaher, U.; Higgins, S.; Carpenter-Boggs, L. Interactive life cycle assessment framework to evaluate agricultural impacts and benchmark emission reduction credits from organic management. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 182–190.
  5. Gomiero, T. Food quality assessment in organic vs. conventional agricultural produce: Findings and issues. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 714–728.
  6. Welsh, J.A.; Braun, H.; Brown, N.; Um, C.; Ehret, K.; Figueroa, J.; Boyd Barr, D. Production-related contaminants (pesticides, antibiotics and hormones) in organic and conventionally produced milk samples sold in the USA. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 2972–2980.
  7. Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.; Grandjean, P. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review. Environ. Health 2017, 16, 111.
  8. Hurtado-Barroso, S.; Tresserra-Rimbau, A.; Vallverdú-Queralt, A.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. Organic food and the impact on human health. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 704–714.
  9. Treu, H.; Nordborg, M.; Cederberg, C.; Heuer, T.; Claupein, E.; Hoffmann, H.; Berndes, G. Carbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 127–142.
  10. Forero-Cantor, G.; Ribal, J.; Sanjuán, N. Levying carbon footprint taxes on animal-sourced foods. A case study in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118668.
  11. AEE. The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020: Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019; Available online: (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  12. DG Agriculture and Rural Development. The Post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy: Environmental Benefits and Simplification. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 13 January 2021).
  13. United Nations. Sustainable, Consumption and Production—Goal 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. Available online: (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  14. BIOFACH. The World of Organic Agriculture. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  15. Baabou, W.; Grunewald, N.; Ouellet-Plamondon, C.; Gressot, M.; Galli, A. The Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean cities: Awareness creation and policy implications. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 69, 94–104.
  16. Bruno, M.; Thomsen, M.; Pulselli, F.M.; Patrizi, N.; Marini, M.; Caro, D. The carbon footprint of Danish diets. Clim. Chang. 2019, 156, 489–507.
  17. McCullough, E.B.; Pingali, P.L.; Stamoulis, K.G. Small Farms and the Transformation of Food Systems: An Overview. In The Trasformation of Agri-Food Systems: Globalization, Supply Chains and Smallholder Farmers; McCullough, E., Stamoulis, K., Pingali, P., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2008; pp. 3–46.
  18. Tzouramani, I.; Alexopoulos, G.; Kostianis, G.; Kazakopoulos, L. Exploring Risk Management Strategies for Organic Farmers: A Greek Case Study. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2014, 29, 167–175.
  19. Canavari, M.; Centonze, R.; Nigro, G. Organic Food Marketing and Distribution in the European Union; Alma Mater Studiorum, Università di Bologna: Bologna, Italy, 2007.
  20. Sutherland, L.-A. Can organic farmers be ‘good farmers’? Adding the ‘taste of necessity’ to the conventionalization debate. Agric. Hum. Values 2013, 30, 429–441.
  21. Harris, F.; Robinson, G.M.; Griffiths, I. A study of the motivations and influences on farmers’ decisions to leave the organic farming sector in the United Kingdom. In Sustainable Rural Systems: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities; Robinson, G.M., Ed.; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2008; pp. 99–111.
  22. Nalubwama, S.; Kabi, F.; Vaarst, M.; Kiggundu, M.; Smolders, G. Opportunities and challenges for integrating dairy cattle into farms with certified organic pineapple production as perceived by smallholder farmers in Central Uganda. Org. Agric. 2019, 9, 29–39.
  23. Jouzi, Z.; Azadi, H.; Taheri, F.; Zarafshani, K.; Gebrehiwot, K.; Van Passel, S.; Lebailly, P. Organic Farming and Small-Scale Farmers: Main Opportunities and Challenges. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 144–154.
  24. Siepmann, L.; Nicholas, K. German Winegrowers’ Motives and Barriers to Convert to Organic Farming. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4215.
  25. Sutherland, L.-A.; Darnhofer, I. Of organic farmers and ‘good farmers’: Changing habitus in rural England. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 232–240.
  26. Serra, T.; Zilberman, D.; Gil, J.M. Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: The case of Spanish arable crop farmers. Agric. Econ. 2008, 39, 219–229.
  27. Loconto, A.; Dankers, C. Impact of international voluntary standards on smallholder market participation in developing countries: A review of the literature. In Agribusiness and Food Industries Series; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014; Available online: (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  28. Khaledi, M.; Weseen, S.; Sawyer, E.; Ferguson, S.; Gray, R. Factors Influencing Partial and Complete Adoption of Organic Farming Practices in Saskatchewan, Canada. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroecon. 2010, 58, 37–56.
  29. Veldstra, M.D.; Alexander, C.E.; Marshall, M.I. To certify or not to certify? Separating the organic production and certification decisions. Food Policy 2014, 49, 429–436.
  30. Home, R.; Indermuehle, A.; Tschanz, A.; Ries, E.; Stolze, M. Factors in the decision by Swiss farmers to convert to organic farming. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 34, 571–581.
  31. Moumouni, I.; Baco, M.N.; Tovignan, S.; Gbèdo, F.; Nouatin, G.S.; Vodouhê, S.D.; Liebe, U. What Happens between Technico-Institutional Support and Adoption of Organic Farming? A Case Study from Benin. Org. Agric. 2013, 3, 1–8.
  32. Salazar, R.C. Going Organic in the Philippines: Social and Institutional Features. Agroecol. Sustain. Food 2014, 38, 199–229.
  33. Risgaard, M.-L.; Frederiksen, P.; Kaltoft, P. Socio-Cultural Processes behind the Differential Distribution of Organic Farming in Denmark: A Case Study. Agric. Hum. Values 2007, 24, 445–459.
  34. Yanakittkul, P.; Aungvaravong, C. A Model of Farmers Intentions towards Organic Farming: A Case Study on Rice Farming in Thailand. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03039.
  35. Kleemann, L.; Abdulai, A.; Buss, M. Certification and Access to Export Markets: Adoption and Return on Investment of Organic-Certified Pineapple Farming in Ghana. World Dev. 2014, 64, 79–92.
  36. Chkanikova, O.; Lehner, M. Private eco-brands and green market development: Towards new forms of sustainability governance in the food retailing. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 74–84.
  37. Brindley, C.; Oxborrow, L. Aligning the sustainable supply chain to green marketing needs: A case study. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 45–55.
  38. VanWey, L.K.; Richards, P.D. Eco-certification and greening the Brazilian soy and corn supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 031002.
  39. Ruben, R.; Zuniga, G. How standards compete: Comparative impact of coffee certification schemes in Northern Nicaragua. Supp. Chain Mnagmnt. 2011, 16, 98–109.
  40. Hauser, M.; Aigelsperger, L.; Owamani, A.; Delve, J.R. Learning achievements of farmers during the transition to market-oriented organic agriculture in rural Uganda. J. Agric. Rural Dev. Trop. Subtrop. 2010, 111, 1–111. Available online: (accessed on 10 December 2020).
  41. Uematsu, H.; Mishra, A.K. Organic farmers or conventional farmers: Where’s the money? Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 55–62.
  42. Padilla Bravo, C.A.; Spiller, A.; Villalobos, P.; Padilla Bravo, C.A.; Spiller, A.; Villalobos, P. Are Organic Growers Satisfied with the Certification System? A Causal Analysis of Farmers’ Perceptions in Chile. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2012.
  43. Farmer, J.; Epstein, G.; Watkins, S.; Mincey, S. Organic Farming in West Virginia: A Behavioral Approach. JAFSCD 2014, 1–17.
  44. Karipidis, P.; Tselempis, D.; Tsironis, K.L. Eco–certification and transparency in global food supply chains. In Driving Agribusiness with Technology Innovations. In Driving Agribusiness with Technology Innovations; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 70–90. Available online: (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  45. Darnhofer, I.; Schneeberger, W.; Freyer, B. Converting or Not Converting to Organic Farming in Austria:Farmer Types and Their Rationale. Agric. Hum. Values 2005, 22, 39–52.
  46. Fouilleux, E.; Loconto, A. Voluntary standards, certification, and accreditation in the global organic agriculture field: A tripartite model of techno-politics. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 1–14.
  47. Asai, M.; Langer, V. Collaborative partnerships between organic farmers in livestock-intensive areas of Denmark. Org. Agric. 2014, 4, 63–77.
  48. Läpple, D. Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming: An Empirical Investigation of the Irish Drystock Sector: Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming. J. Agric, Econ. 2010, 61, 697–714.
  49. Kuminoff, N.V.; Wossink, A. Why Isn’t More US Farmland Organic?: Why Isn’t More US Farmland Organic? J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 61, 240–258.
  50. Duvaleix, S.; Lassalas, M.; Latruffe, L.; Konstantidelli, V.; Tzouramani, I. Adopting Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices and the Role of Quality Labels and Producer Organisations: A Qualitative Analysis Based on Two European Case Studies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10457.
  51. Thongplew, N.; van Koppen, C.S.A.; Spaargaren, G. Transformation of the dairy industry toward sustainability: The case of the organic dairy industries in the Netherlands and Thailand. Environ. Dev. 2016, 17, 6–20.
  52. Unay Gailhard, İ.; Bavorová, M.; Pirscher, F. Adoption of Agri-Environmental Measures by Organic Farmers: The Role of Interpersonal Communication. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2015, 21, 127–148.
  53. Sutherland, L.-A. Environmental grants and regulations in strategic farm business decision-making: A case study of attitudinal behaviour in Scotland. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 415–423.
  54. Koesling, M.; Flaten, O.; Lien, G. Factors influencing the conversion to organic farming in Norway. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2008, 7, 78.
  55. Läpple, D.; Rensburg, T.V. Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1406–1414.
  56. Läpple, D. Comparing attitudes and characteristics of organic, former organic and conventional farmers: Evidence from Ireland. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 28, 329–337.
  57. Kallas, Z.; Serra, T.; Gil, J.M. Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming adoption: The case of Catalonian vineyard production. Agric. Econ. 2010, 41, 409–423.
  58. Bui, H.T.M.; Nguyen, H.T.T. Factors influencing farmers’ decision to convert to organic tea cultivation in the mountainous areas of northern Vietnam. Org. Agric. 2020.
  59. Luh, Y.-H.; Tsai, M.-H.; Fang, C.-L. Do first-movers in the organic market stand to gain? Implications for promoting cleaner production alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121156.
  60. Adebiyi, J.A.; Olabisi, L.S.; Richardson, R.; Liverpool-Tasie, L.S.O.; Delate, K. Drivers and Constraints to the Adoption of Organic Leafy Vegetable Production in Nigeria: A Livelihood Approach. Sustainability 2019, 12, 96.
  61. Xu, Q.; Huet, S.; Li, W. Farm Characteristics, Social Dynamics and Dairy Farmers’ Conversions to Organic Farming. In Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Applications; Li, K., Li, W., Wang, H., Liu, Y., Eds.; Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 1205, pp. 225–241. ISBN 9789811555763.
  62. Best, H. Environmental Concern and the Adoption of Organic Agriculture. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 451–468.
  63. Xu, Q.; Huet, S.; Poix, C.; Boisdon, I.; Deffuant, G. Why Do Farmers Not Convert to Organic Farming? Modeling Conversion to Organic Farming as a Major Change. Nat. Resour. Model. 2018, 31, e12171.
  64. Karki, L.; Schleenbecker, R.; Hamm, U. Factors Influencing a Conversion to Organic Farming in Nepalese Tea Farms. J. Agric. Rural Dev. Trop. 2011, 112, 113–123.
  65. Łuczka, W.; Kalinowski, S. Barriers to the Development of Organic Farming: A Polish Case Study. Agriculture 2020, 10, 536.
  66. Dessart, F.J.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; van Bavel, R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2019, 46, 417–471.
  67. Cranfield, J.; Henson, S.; Holliday, J. The motives, benefits, and problems of conversion to organic production. Agric. Hum. Values 2010, 27, 291–306.
  68. Kumar, B.S.; Manevska-Tasevska, G.; Surry, Y. Explaining the Process for Conversion to Organic Dairy Farming in Sweden: An Alternative Modeling Approach. Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 67, 14–30.
  69. Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2016, 15, 404–428.
  70. Feola, G.; Binder, C.R. Towards an Improved Understanding of Farmers’ Behaviour: The Integrative Agent-Centred (IAC) Framework. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2323–2333.
  71. Schlüter, M.; Baeza, A.; Dressler, G.; Frank, K.; Groeneveld, J.; Jager, W.; Janssen, M.A.; McAllister, R.R.J.; Müller, B.; Orach, K.; et al. A Framework for Mapping and Comparing Behavioural Theories in Models of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 131, 21–35.
  72. Zagaria, C.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Zavalloni, M.; Viaggi, D.; Verburg, P.H. Modelling Transformational Adaptation to Climate Change among Crop Farming Systems in Romagna, Italy. Agric. Syst. 2021, 188, 103024.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback