Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture

Published online:


Numerous reports have emphasized the need for major changes in the global food system: agriculture must meet the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts1,2. Organic farming—a system aimed at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals or humans—is often proposed as a solution3,4. However, critics argue that organic agriculture may have lower yields and would therefore need more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, resulting in more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus undermining the environmental benefits of organic practices5. Here we use a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally. Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010)

  2. 2.

    et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011)

  3. 3.

    , , & International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Report (Island, 2009)

  4. 4.

    Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food english/issues/food/docs/A-HRC-16–49.pdf (United Nations, 2010)

  5. 5.

    Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 410, 409–410 (2001)

  6. 6.

    et al. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 22, 86–108 (2007)

  7. 7.

    Editorial response by Kenneth Cassman: can organic agriculture feed the world-science to the rescue? Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 22, 83–84 (2007)

  8. 8.

    Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field Crops Res. 106, 187–190 (2008)

  9. 9.

    et al. Is the productivity of organic farms restricted by the supply of available nitrogen? Soil Use Manage. 18, 248–255 (2002)

  10. 10.

    & Organic farming: challenge of timing nitrogen availability to crop nitrogen requirements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 247–253 (2000)

  11. 11.

    & Can the synchrony of nitrogen supply and crop demand be improved in legume and fertilizer-based agroecosystems? A review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 72, 101–120 (2005)

  12. 12.

    et al. Phosphorus budget and phosphorus availability in soils under organic and conventional farming. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 62, 25–35 (2002)

  13. 13.

    , , , & Yield increases during the organic transition: improving soil quality or increasing experience? Field Crops Res. 86, 255–266 (2004)

  14. 14.

    , & The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18, 146–154 (2003)

  15. 15.

    et al. Soil physical properties and tomato yield and quality in alternative cropping systems. Agron. J. 92, 924–932 (2000)

  16. 16.

    & Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002)

  17. 17.

    Farming System Comparison in the Tropics (2011)

  18. 18.

    , , & Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature 466, 109–112 (2010)

  19. 19.

    , & The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 261–269 (2005)

  20. 20.

    & Do organic farming practices reduce nitrate leaching? Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. 32, 997–1028 (2001)

  21. 21.

    & Organic farming and soil carbon sequestration: what do we really know about the benefits? Ambio 39, 585–599 (2010)

  22. 22.

    Fair trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua—sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecol. Econ. 68, 3018–3025 (2009)

  23. 23.

    The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Dev. 32, 725–743 (2004)

  24. 24.

    Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century (National Academies, 2010)

  25. 25.

    , & The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999)

  26. 26.

    , & MetaWin: Statistical Software for Meta-analysis: Version 2 (Sinauer, 2000)

  27. 27.

    , , , & Resetting global expectations from agricultural biofuels. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 014004 (2009)

  28. 28.

    Meta-analyses and mega-mistakes: calling time on meta-analysis of the species richness–productivity relationship. Ecology 91, 2522–2533 (2010)

  29. 29.

    & A critique for meta-analyses and the productivity–diversity relationship. Ecology 91, 2545–2549 (2010)

  30. 30.

    , & The importance of data-selection criteria: meta-analyses of stream predation experiments. Ecology 80, 1132–1141 (1999)

  31. 31.

    , , & The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11, 377–392 (2002)

  32. 32.

    , , & Simulating the effects of climate and agricultural management practices on global crop yield. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 25, GB2006 (2011)

  33. 33.

    Soildata (V 0): A Program for Creating Global Soil-Property Databases (IGBP Global Soils Data Task, 1998)

  34. 34.

    , & Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008)

  35. 35.

    FAOSTAT (2011)

  36. 36.

    & Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80, 1142–1149 (1999)

  37. 37.

    & Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. (Academic, 1985)

  38. 38.

    , , & A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am. Nat. 140, 539–572 (1992)

  39. 39.

    et al. Crop production during conversion from conventional to low-input methods. Agron. J. 81, 150–159 (1989)

  40. 40.

    , & Effects of tillage intensity on nitrogen dynamics and productivity in legume-based grain systems. Plant Soil 227, 99–113 (2000)

Download references


We are grateful to the authors of the 66 studies whose extensive field work provided the data for this meta-analysis. Owing to space limitations our citations can be found in Supplementary Material. We would like to thank J. Reganold for useful comments on our manuscript. We are grateful to I. Perfecto, T. Moore, C. Halpenny, G. Seufert and S. Lehringer for valuable discussion and/or feedback on the manuscript and L. Gunst for sharing publications on the FiBL trials. D. Plouffe helped with the figures and M. Henry with compiling data. This research was supported by a Discovery Grant awarded to N.R. from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information


  1. Department of Geography and Global Environmental and Climate Change Center, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H2T 3A3, Canada

    • Verena Seufert
    •  & Navin Ramankutty
  2. Institute on the Environment (IonE), University of Minnesota, 1954 Buford Avenue, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA

    • Jonathan A. Foley


  1. Search for Verena Seufert in:

  2. Search for Navin Ramankutty in:

  3. Search for Jonathan A. Foley in:


V.S. and N.R. designed the study. V.S. compiled the data and carried out data analysis. All authors discussed the results and contributed to writing the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Verena Seufert.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Figures 1-10, Supplementary Tables 1-14, a Supplementary Discussion and Supplementary References.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data 1

    This file contains data used in the meta-analysis. The data table shows the raw yield data, yield effect sizes and study information with categorical variables.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Data 2

    This file contains data that could not be used in the meta-analysis. The data table shows, in the spreadsheet ‘exclusion6’, study information and yield data of studies that were excluded because they did not meet selection criteria 6 (i.e. no information on an error term and sample size was available). In the spreadsheet ‘exclusion1-5’ information on studies that were excluded because they did not meet the basic selection criteria 1-5 (see methods) and the reason for exclusion is shown.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.