Nothing new there. Half the nitrogen in organic matter is lost, and the left over nutrients are unbalanced - in nitrogen only. There are many possible remedies, including larger use of pulses, larger use of tree crops (which need less N), and recovery of all the nitrogen that is sent down sewers.

Also, these scientists surely are paid by Monsanto. If you compare agriculture production, using techniques and crops as they have evolved under the stimulus of chemical fertilizers, of course chemical fertilizers win. I would like to see a comparison for sweet potatoes, for pulses (OK, soybeans is 3% lower), for tree crops, for restricted water, and for marginal soils.

Then there is the topic of where these crops go. They go to feed livestock. But really, just two generations ago pigs, rabbits and chickens were all fed table scraps, wheat bran, rotten apples and other agricultural refuse. Surely that part of organic practice beats conventional agriculture. And we are not talking a small fraction of food production, we are talking about the bulk of the food produced in the US.

But agriculture must change because the last major P and K fields were discovered in the 1980s. A far more worrying situation than peak oil.

Lotsa P in poo. Lotsa N in pee.

As some who works in the crop production industry, conventional production does produce more food in large cropping systems (especially grains). With organic systems, you just can't get the people out there every few days to scout 50-500-5000 acres of plants properly (until it's harvest time, anyway). With many organic systems you need more scouting, though...so it gets done with more labor...just nowhere near what it should be for optimal yield because it's economically unwise. At some $$ point some crop losses become acceptable. The higher prices for organic on the open market actually help yields because this price break is higher than conventional systems.

Some things are easier than others. You need a lot of land to properly rotate crops in most large scale (non-orchard) organic cropping systems. Even though organic strawberries yield similar to inorganic you need a lot more land because soil pathogens can wreak havoc on an organic field of strawberries if not immaculately cared for (more like good luck). Plastic helps a lot, but without good rotation you're playing with your crop.

BTW, Verena Seufert is far from a Monsanto/Syngenta/Dupont/Dow/etc stooge. She's just a bit realistic about global food production. There is a -lot- of wishful thinking, bad information, or misplaced activism "facts" out there concerning conventional vs organic production.

Also, OP is right on about how this doesn't really apply to the home gardener. Physical limitations and large-scale-home-gardens aside, most people out there can organically control almost everything in their garden. If used properly (proper amount, application style, and timing of application) inorganic additions should minimally effect your environment.

Aside from a small amount of chemical fertilizer twice a year I rarely use inorganic methods in my garden. It's been many years and many thrips ago.

"But really, just two generations ago pigs, rabbits and chickens were all fed table scraps, wheat bran, rotten apples and other agricultural refuse. Surely that part of organic practice beats conventional agriculture"

As we've learned from the recent "pink slime" incident...we (humans) use more parts of animals/plants than we used to. Dog food is now human food via chemical and mechanical separation. Yum.

It's nothing new to use waste products as food (spent beer brewing waste has long been parts of many foods for centuries)...but we have crazy science and technology to use or "upgrade" use of prior uses of waste products.

What we do have is a nation full of GMO soy/corn that yields extremely high feeding our animals...which keeps it cheap...but at what true health and quality cost? We are the experiment generation(s) as far as the long-term health effects until someone finds a legitimately awful GMO smoking gun. GMO isn't necessarily new, but it's prevalence/saturation in the food system is barely 20 years old.

You know, we already produce more than enough food to feed the world. The real problem isnt even production. The real problem is the fact that the large majority of crop land is ised to feed livestock and that about 40% of the food grown in the world gets lost, ruined, or thrown away during harvest, storage and at the consumer level. The most sustainable form of agricultural falls somewhere between conventional and organic. One thing to consider (and these numbers arent accurate, but show the problematic trend) is the fact that since the 1970s fertilizer use has increased by something like 70% but yield has actually only increased maybe like 20%.

I'm not sure that the focus of organic farming is to be "efficient"... When I think organic, I am not thinking how I can squeeze the most out of my land, but whether I can get enough without doing harm to myself or the land in the process.

$.02

I'm with Sunnibel - I'm not seeing anywhere that the metrics include soil health, biodiversity, signs of environmental stress, or taste...all of which are important to us.

I'm not looking to profit from that patch of dirt... I'm looking to nurture a relationship where nature and I get to share.

I'd be cautious about claiming inefficiency because land is used for grazing rather than production of vegetable or grain crops. There are very large areas where grazing is really the only good option, if one wants to produce something on the land. That argument might hold water if all agricultural land was the same. But there's a huge difference between agricultural land, say, in the Mid-Atlantic states and much of Oklahoma and Texas.

George
Tahlequah, OK

The paper is purely about yield. I don't think anyone would deny that organic yields are usually lower.

"Inefficiency" to me, though, would imply looking at the ratio of yield to input costs. Seufert et al. don't do that, so the title of this thread is inexact.