New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Doing the right thing can be profitable after all¿at least when it comes to growing apples. That's the conclusion of a new study in today's issue of Nature, which compared the economics of organic apple farms and conventional ones. "The organic system was more energy efficient, it was better for the environment, it had better soil quality, its yields were as good as the other systems, it was more profitable, and its apples were slightly sweeter and firmer," says co-author John Reganold of Washington State University.

His team began their study by doing a little planting themselves. The essential difference between organic and conventional farming lies in the fertilizers and pesticides used. Whereas conventional farms tend to use chemical pesticides and artificial fertilizer, organic farms employ cover crops, mulching and mechanical methods for pest control, and composts and manure as fertilizers. So the researchers planted Golden Delicious apples on a four-acre site in central Washington, and farmed four plots conventionally, four organically and four in a way that combined both approaches. They then measured the resulting soil quality, horticultural performance and environmental quality of the plots and also their energy efficiency and profitability.

As it turned out, the soil quality in the organic fields was far better than in the conventional fields, and the apples tasted sweeter. High yields came as a surprise: "There's been criticism that organic yields are lower than conventional yields," Reganold says. "In general that is true, but not always. This study showed that with apples, organic yields can compare favorably with integrated and conventional systems." The organic fields were also more energy efficient¿and, by far, the most profitable. Whereas the conventional and integrated systems are expected to break even after 16 and 15 years, respectively, the organic field will do so in nin

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe