A Meta-Analysis of The Differences in Environmental Impacts Between Organic and Conventional Farming

British Food Journal
A meta‐analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and

conventional farming
Koen Mondelaers Joris Aertsens Guido Van Huylenbroeck
Article information:
To cite this document:
Koen Mondelaers Joris Aertsens Guido Van Huylenbroeck, (2009),"A meta#analysis of the differences in
environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming", British Food Journal, Vol. 111 Iss 10 pp.
1098 - 1119
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Brigham Young University At 01:59 18 November 2014 (PT)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992925
Downloaded on: 18 November 2014, At: 01:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 103 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2890 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Gemma C. Harper, Aikaterini Makatouni, (2002),"Consumer perception of organic food
production and farm animal welfare", British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Iss 3/4/5 pp. 287-299 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425723
Morven McEachern, Claire Seaman, Susanne Padel, Carolyn Foster, (2005),"Exploring the gap between
attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food", British Food
Journal, Vol. 107 Iss 8 pp. 606-625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700510611002
Raffaele Zanoli, Simona Naspetti, (2002),"Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic
food: A means#end approach", British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Iss 8 pp. 643-653 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425930
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 123842 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
BFJ
111,10 A meta-analysis of the differences
in environmental impacts
between organic and conventional
1098
farming
Koen Mondelaers, Joris Aertsens and Guido Van Huylenbroeck
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to perform a meta-analysis of the literature comparing the environmental
impacts of organic and conventional farming and linking these to differences in management
practises. The studied environmental impacts are related to land use efficiency, organic matter content
in the soil, nitrate and phosphate leaching to the water system, greenhouse gas emissions and
biodiversity.
Design/methodology/approach – The theoretic framework uses the driver-state-response
framework and literature data were analysed using meta-analysis methodology. Meta-analysis is
the statistical analysis of multiple study results. Data were obtained by screening peer reviewed
literature.
Findings – From the paper’s meta-analysis it can conclude that soils in organic farming systems
have on average a higher content of organic matter. It can also conclude that organic farming
contributes positively to agro-biodiversity (breeds used by the farmers) and natural biodiversity (wild
life). Concerning the impact of the organic farming system on nitrate and phosphorous leaching and
greenhouse gas emissions the result of the analysis is not that straightforward. When expressed per
production area organic farming scores better than conventional farming for these items. However,
given the lower land use efficiency of organic farming in developed countries, this positive effect
expressed per unit product is less pronounced or not present at all.
Original value – Given the recent growth of organic farming and the general perception that organic
farming is more environment friendly than its conventional counterpart, it is interesting to explore
whether it meets the alleged benefits. By combining several studies in one analysis, the technique of
meta-analysis is powerful and may allow the generation of more nuanced findings and the
generalisation of those findings.
Keywords Organic foods, Agriculture, Europe, Environmental management
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
The influence of conventional agricultural production on ecosystems has been widely
documented (see for example the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment). In
Europe, especially since the 1950s, increase in use of external input factors, e.g.
fertilizers and pesticides, has resulted into significant increases in productivity, but
simultaneously in a higher environmental pressure. Organic agriculture tries to
respond to this challenge by limiting the use of external inputs and integrating several
British Food Journal practices, which are considered more environment friendly. The organic production
Vol. 111 No. 10, 2009
pp. 1098-1119 system strives at a minimal disruption of the natural equilibrium, and at the same time,
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
high-quality food production by banning residues harmful for human and animal
DOI 10.1108/00070700910992925 health. Therefore, the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified
organisms are prohibited. The organic principles of regulation also stimulate processes A meta-analysis
of recycling, closed loop systems, and the use of production techniques, which allow of differences
domestic animals to exhibit species-specific behavior. For countries in the EU the
regulation is stipulated in EEC regulation 2092/91 and subsequent. In recent years, a
lot of research has investigated whether the application of the organic farming
principles indeed results in differences with respect to environmental pressure. In this
article this literature is reviewed and statistically meta-analyzed for possible 1099
differences in the impact of organic and conventional farming on nitrate and
phosphorous leaching, biodiversity, organic soil content and greenhouse gas
emissions. The article is constructed as follows: first, a theoretical framework is
given, next the applied methodology is introduced, followed by the results and a
discussion.
Theoretical framework
The relation between the agricultural system and the environment is complex. Different
analytical frameworks have been constructed to simplify the description and
measurement of this relation. The Principles . Criteria . Indicators (PCI) framework
(Peeters et al., 2005) for example departs from hierarchical levels to facilitate the
definition of indicators enabling the evaluation of the sustainability of agriculture.
Another possibility is the transition framework (Meul et al., 2007), in which sustainable
development is considered as a complex long-term process of change, defining different
actions to translate theoretical concepts into practical measures. These actions are in
succeeding order: vision development, strategy definition, action, and progress
monitoring. In this study, we opted for a third possibility, the Driver-State-Response
(DSR) framework developed by the OECD (1993) for policy analysis of the state of the
environment. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework, applied
by the European Environmental Agency (EEA, 1999), directly results from this
framework. As explained by Platteau et al. (2006), the DPSIR-frame shows the
cause-effect relation of agricultural activity on the environment. A certain societal
activity, in our case agriculture, is the “driving force” disturbing the environment.
Because agriculture makes use of the environment, it exercises a certain “pressure” on
the environment. Owing to this pressure, the environment is characterized by a certain
“state”, which, on its turn can influence (“impact”) the wellbeing of men, the ecosystem or
the economy. Finally, undesired levels of drivers, pressures, states or impacts might
trigger a “response” from the society. At each of these levels, indicators are defined. The
DSR and DPSIR framework have been applied a multifold times for the analysis of
agricultural systems, for example by COM (2000), Verhaegen et al. (2003), Wustenberghs
et al. (2005), Platteau et al. (2006) and Van Steertegem et al. (2006). Also for the specific
comparison of organic and conventional farming it has been a well-used guiding tool,
with most important studies by the Bichel Committee (1998), and Hansen et al. (2001).
Methodology
As indicated, this paper aims at synthesizing current scientific findings regarding the
differences in environmental impact of the organic and conventional farming system.
A technique particularly suited to do so is meta-analysis, which is according to Hedges
and Olkin (1985) the quantitative synthesis, analysis, and summary of a collection of
studies. As Arnqvist and Wooster (1995) explain, meta-analysis refers to a specific set
BFJ of statistical quantitative methods that are designed to compare and synthesize the
results of multiple studies. In many ways, the procedures involved are analogous to
111,10 those of standard statistical methods, but the units of analysis are the results of
independent studies rather than the independent responses of individual subjects.
Current meta-analysis offers formal methods for most types of statistical inference
from a set of studies. Meta-analysis allows the following questions to be addressed:
1100 (1) What is the combined magnitude of the effect under study?
(2) Is this overall effect significantly different from zero?
(3) Do any characteristics of the studies influence the magnitude of the observed
effect?
Arnqvist and Wooster (1995) outline the procedure to be followed:
(1) All studies addressing a common question or hypothesis are collected.

(2) Data or test statistics from these studies are transformed into a “common unit”,
called “effect size”. Common measures of effect size are the standardized
difference between means of experimental and control groups or the Pearson
product moment correlation coefficient.
(3) These effect sizes are combined into a common estimate of the magnitude of the
effect.
(4) Using the variation on the effect size results, the significance level of the overall
effect size found in (3) is computed.
(5) The statistical homogeneity of the effect sizes is calculated. This is conducted to
determine whether all studies appear to share a common effect size or not.
(6) The studies used in the meta-analysis are grouped according to various
characteristics of the single studies, and the effect sizes between these groups of
studies are statistically compared and analysed.
In case it is impossible to estimate the standard deviations of the mean for organic and
conventional agriculture, and thus impossible to conduct a meta-analysis, the sign-test
(Abdi, 2007), an alternative (less powerful) method can be applied. This binomial test
allows to test whether the frequency of studies with a higher (or lower) value for
organic farming significantly differs from the frequency that is found by chance.
Depending on the desired outcome, different output variables can be chosen in
meta-analysis. In our case, the response ratio (R), see equation (1), or the ratio between
some measured quantity in the experimental (organic) and control (conventional)
group, is an interesting measure for the size of the “experimental” effect (which is the
difference between the organic and conventional data point). This R-value estimates
the proportionate change that results from an experimental manipulation (Hedges et al.,
1999), here the organic farming practices. Hedges et al. (1999) argue to use of the
natural log (Li), see also equation (1), because this value linearises the metric, treating
deviations in the numerator the same as deviations in the denominator and resulting in
a much more normal sampling distribution of the log response ratio in small samples.
R ¼ XE =X C
and A meta-analysis

of differences
Li ¼ ln ð RÞ ¼ ln XE 2 ln XC ð1Þ
Under the assumption that XE and XC are normally distributed, Li is approximately
normally distributed with mean the real log response ratio and variance given in 1101
equation (2).
ðSDE Þ2 ðSDC Þ2
ni ¼ þ ð2Þ
n :X2
E n :X2
C
E C
where
SD ¼ standard deviation of the experimental resp. control group.
n ¼ number of observations in the experimental resp. control group.
According to Hedges et al. (1999), there are two components of variance in the sample
log response ratios. One component is due to sampling variation in the estimate for
each experiment, the other is due to between experiment variation. Between
experimental variation quantifies the degree of true (nonsampling) variation in results
across experiments. The statistic Q can be used to test the statistical significance of
this second variance component. When this between experiment variance component
is significant, the metric denotes a random effect (contrary to a fixed effect), meaning a
combination of studies that differ from each other. In that case, caution with the
interpretation of the study results is necessary, as well as a correction of the weighting
factors (see Hardy and Thompson, 1998).
For our study we based ourselves on literature references fulfilling the following
three criteria:
(1) Peer reviewed.
(2) Studies dating from after 1992 (year of EEC regulation 2092/91).
(3) (Semi) paired samples, this means that organic and conventional data are
compared within the same study.
Weighting of the references is based on the possibility of deriving the standard error
(SE) from the references. Hereby, three cases are distinguished:
(1) The SE is reported in the study, hence the data point can enter the
meta-analysis.
(2) The SE is not reported, but multiple data points are available in the study,
enabling the calculation of a standard deviation based on the available data
which can be entered in the meta-analysis data base.
(3) No SE is reported, only a single observation is available.
The latter data point has not been retained for the meta-analysis, but is only used in the
sign-test.
BFJ Results and discussion
111,10 To assess the difference in environmental pressure between organic and conventional
agriculture we investigated the following indicators of the environmental state: land
use efficiency, organic matter content, nitrate and phosphorous leaching, biodiversity
and greenhouse gas emissions. Where relevant and possible, the differences found are
linked to differences in driving forces (management practices) between organic and
1102 conventional farming.
In the Appendix the analysed references are organized per investigated indicator.
The Appendix furthermore contains studies that are of interest for the topic under
study but did not meet our criteria for meta-analysis indicated previously.
Land use efficiency

Land use is an important indicator for natural resource consumption. The land use
efficiency indicator is informative because land (especially in densely populated
regions) is a scarce good and agriculture has to compete for it with other users
(housing, industry, nature reserves). Therefore, policy makers can take differences in
land use efficiency into account when they assess environmental impacts expressed
per unit area. Some ecologists do contest this approach as they have a more ecocentric
rather than a anthropocentric view on ecological problems, partly ignoring that total
consumption and production in the end determine the pressure on the ecosystem. For
more local problems, such as, e.g. nitrate leaching, the leaching per unit area is most
informative, however for more global problems, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, the
pollution per kg food product is more informative.
Table I summarizes the results of the meta-analysis for land use efficiency.
Following references were retained: Korsaeth and Eltun (2000), Kirchmann and
Bergstrom (2001), Knudsen et al. (2006), Hansen et al. (2000), Sileika and Guzys (2003),
Haas et al. (2002), Torstensson et al. (2006), Taube et al. (2005), Mader et al. (2002),
Poudel et al. (2002) and Eltun (1995). Based on the general results of ten studies of
organic farming in developed countries, a random effect ratio of 0.83 is found, or in
other words a land use efficiency of 83 per cent for organic farming compared with
conventional farming. For cereal crops, the random effect indicates a land use
efficiency of 81 per cent for organic farming compared to conventional. When only
those studies are combined that report data for a full rotation, organic land use
efficiency is approximately 20 per cent lower than conventional. This latter case is a
fixed effect, thus the heterogeneity in the set of studies is no longer significant.
A recent extensive American meta-analysis by Badgley et al. (2007) collected return
ratios from 138 different sources. They report an average organic/conventional yield ratio
of 91 per cent for developed countries for all crops, which is thus higher than our estimate.
Table I.
Land use efficiency N n No weighting Fixed effect Q Random effect CI
Land use efficiency
differences between All sources 10 70 0.814 0.841 27.1 * (24.99) 0.827 0.76-0.90
organic and conventional Per rotation 4 47 0.802 0.806 8.6 (12.59) / 0.69-0.89
farming expressed as Cereal crops 5 64 0.777 0.828 11,SE.4 * (11.07) 0.809 0.70-0.93
response ratio (i.e. ratio of
organic and conventional Notes: () ¼ x 2df-1, a ¼ 0.05; N ¼ number of studies; n ¼ number of paired observations;
output per hectare) CI ¼ confidence interval. *Between study variability significant
They furthermore calculated an average organic/subsistence-farming ratio of 174 per cent A meta-analysis
for developing countries. Based on their calculations, organic farming would be able to of differences
feed the world without bringing extra farmland into use. Rosegrant et al. (2006) tested
different conversion scenarios on world scale level. In case of converting 50 per cent of the
European and North American agriculture to certified high input organic agriculture,
world production would decrease and prices increase (with approximately 10 per cent)
according to their calculations, which may eventually result in a slight increase in 1103
malnourished children in developing countries (0.3 to 0.7 per cent). When converting half
of the production in sub-Saharan Africa to non-certified low input organic farming world
production would slightly increase (due to the current large share of subsistence farming)
and world prices hardly decrease (1 to 2 per cent, given the limited share of Africa in
world market production). Because Africa’s world market dependency decreases in this
scenario, the number of malnourished children will decrease (with 0.8 to 1 per cent). Of
course, such scenarios are highly dependent on the assumptions behind it such as, e.g.
comparing a semi-optimised system with a non-optimised subsistence system.
Organic matter content in the soil

A second environmental state indicator related to resource use is organic matter
depletion in the soil. In the European Thematic Strategy for the protection of the soil,
soil organic matter content is defined as the key indicator for soil quality because an
optimal level of organic matter signifies a good agricultural and environmental soil
condition, characterized by reduced erosion, high buffering and filtering capacity and a
rich habitat for living organisms (COM, 2002). Stoate et al. (2001) warn for reduced
water retention in dry zones and reduced drainage in wet zones when there is a loss of
organic matter. Mulier et al. (2006) for example report for Belgium that in the last 20
years the number of parcels with organic matter content below the optimal zone has
increased significantly (from 23 to 50 per cent of the arable land, Mulier et al., 2006).
Organic matter content is also important for the CO2 sequestration (Platteau et al.,
2006), given that on average 50 to 58 per cent of organic matter is carbon.
A number of studies do not find convincing evidence for a difference in organic
matter content between organic and conventional parcels (Nguyen et al., 1995 for the
arable phase; Girvan et al., 2003; Gosling and Shepherd, 2005; Bakken et al., 2006). A
series of other studies (Condron et al., 2000; Fliessbach et al., 2007; Mader et al., 2002;
Foereid and Hogh-Jensen, 2004; Hansen et al., 2001; Clark et al., 1998; Loes and Ogaard,
2001, Liebig and Doran, 1999, Wander et al. 1994, Stalenga and Kawalec, 2008,
Herencia et al., 2008 and Pulleman et al., 2003) report a difference in favour of the
organic management practices. A number of these studies can usefully be combined
into a meta-analysis (see Table II). Main reasons for non-compliance of a number of
Table II.
No Fixed Random
Differences in organic
Organic matter content N n weighting effect Q effect CI
matter content between
Organic (%)/conventional (%) 7 77 1.058 1.064 15.77 (16.9) / 1.046-1.081 organic and conventional
Organic (%)/conventional (%) 9 103 1.128 1.091 152.71 (19.7) 1.118 1.052-1.189 farming expressed as
response ratio (i.e. ratio of
Notes: () ¼ x 2df-1, a ¼ 0,05; N ¼ number of studies; n ¼ number of paired observations; organic and conventional
CI ¼ confidence interval. * Between study variability not significant organic matter content)
BFJ studies were the absence of a standard deviation, no peer review, no paired
111,10 comparison, organic matter content monitored during conversion, study dating before
1992 or use of a different technique. Given that organic matter content is mainly
expressed as a percentage, the fixed effect value reported in Table III indicates that the
organic matter content on organically managed fields on average exceeds the
conventional value with 6.4 percent points. As the 95 per cent-confidence interval
1104 shows (the ratio is not encompassing 1), organic matter content on organic plots is
significantly higher than on conventional plots. When also accounting for the studies
of Pulleman et al. (2003) and Herencia et al. (2008), in which very high and significant
differences in organic matter are reported, a random effect of 1.12 is found, with CI
between 1.052 and 1.189. Herencia et al. (2008) report very low organic matter contents
prior to the experiment, which might explain the drastic changes in organic matter
afterwards.
As main reasons (drivers) for the decrease in organic matter content in conventional
agriculture Platteau et al. (2006) and Mulier et al. (2006) refer to: the increase of the
plough depth; the lower input of stable organic matter by means of organic manure and
soil improvers; the decrease of the practice incorporating crop residues during
ploughing; the increase of conversion of grassland into arable land; more stringent
manure application rules and even a higher mineralization rate due to climate change.
Hodges (1991) identifies following practices that may explain the better performance of
organic farms: mixed farming systems and crop rotation; recycling of manure; use of
green manure and the addition of organic manure. Hansen et al. (2001) attribute the
better score of organic farming to the more generalised use of capture crops, the
recycling of crop residues, the use of organic instead of synthetic fertilizers and
relatively more permanent pastures.
Nitrate leaching
Nitrate leaching is one of the main negative externalities of intensive agricultural
production. There seems a positive correlation between the increase in productivity
and the increase in nitrate leaching (Kirchmann and Bergstrom, 2001). The EU
introduced regulation, which aims to protect water bodies against pollution induced by
nitrates from agricultural sources. Even today, a considerable part of European regions
have difficulties to comply. Platteau et al. (2006) report that nitrate concentrations in
surface water in Flemish agricultural zones exceed in 40 per cent of the measurement
points the limit of 50 mg NO-3/l water imposed by Europe (Nitrate Directive, EC, 1991
Nitrate leaching N n No weighting Fixed effect Q Random effect CI
General (kg/ha) 14 116 0.703 0.745 76.7 * (36.6) 0.679 0.53-0.87

Table III. Arable (kg/ha) 7 76 0.618 0.839 24.1 * (16.9) 0.652 0.46-0.92
Differences in nitrate Mixed (kg/ha) 6 42 0.795 0.816 33.3 * (18.3) 0.695 0.45-1.08
leaching between organic Field measure (kg/ha) 8 82 0.740 0.717 53.1 * (27.6) 0.690 0.50-0.96
and conventional farming Simulation (kg/ha) 4 28 0.576 0.850 9.00 (12.6) / 0.50-1.45
expressed as response
ratio (i.e. ratio of organic Notes: () ¼ x 2df-1. a ¼ 0.05; N ¼ number of studies; n ¼ number of paired observations;
and conventional nitrate CI ¼ confidence interval. Field measure ¼ drainage pipes/porous cups/lysimeters. * Between study
leaching) variability significant
and Drinking Water Directive, EC, 1980). Several authors have studied potential nitrate A meta-analysis
leaching differences between organic and conventional farming. Table III summarizes of differences
the response ratios derived from these studies. When taking all studies referred to into
account (see the Appendix), an average random effects log response ratio of 2 0.387 (or
a response ratio of 0.677) is found. The leaching is significantly lower for organic
farming, which is indicated by the confidence interval (ratio not containing 1). The high
level of heterogeneity between studies (hence the random effect) probably originates 1105
from differences in soil types (from sand to clay), region (12 different countries),
farming type, research-method and the time of measurement. These results should
therefore be interpreted with caution. When the studies are grouped based on farming
type or research method, the heterogeneity remains, except for the four simulation
studies (see Table III also).
The calculations for mixed farming, with animal and plant production on the
same farm, show a wide confidence interval encompassing 1, thus for this farm type
we cannot conclude that organic farming performs significantly better. The same
conclusion holds for the simulation studies, which is interesting given that the
calculations show a fixed homogeneous effect. Two of the four simulation studies
are conducted by the same research group, which might explain the homogeneity.
Three studies expressing nitrate leaching in mg/l also find evidence in favor of
organic farming (Korsaeth and Eltun, 2000; Haas et al., 2001 and Torstensson et al.,
2006).
Besides studying the response ratio, which is a relative measure, it is interesting to
look at the absolute value of leaching in both systems and compare it with the EC’s
target value of 50 mg NO-3/l. Based on 12 studies the weighted average leaching of
nitrate is 8.93 kg/ha for organic farming and 20.85 kg/ha for conventional farming.
Whether this results in a nitrate concentration in surface waters above the EC
threshold is among others function of soil type, precipitation and temperature
(Wachendorf et al., 2004). For The Netherlands and Flanders for example, which are
two regions with high levels of nitrate leaching, the EC threshold limit is not exceeded
when leaching is lower than 34 kg NO3-N ha-1 year-1 (Hack-ten Broeke, 2000). Nitrate is
a typical local environmental problem, thus measurement in kg per hectare at farm
level or mg/l in the river system is appropriate.
In the introduction to this section, we mentioned the possible link between
productivity increase and nitrate leaching. Combining the six different studies that
also report yields, we again find a significantly smaller nitrate leaching per hectare
for organic farming (see Table IV). However, expressed per kg product, the
average fixed effect is nearly equal and from the confidence interval we cannot
conclude that there is a significant difference. It means that on the basis of this
limited set of studies we may conclude that both organic and conventional
Nitrate leaching N n No weighting Fixed effect Q Random effect CI
General (kg/ha) 6 59 0.612 0.670 9.62 (15.50) / 0.51-0.88 Table IV.

General (kg/kg product) 6 59 0.950 0.953 12.89 (15.50) / 0.56-1.62 Ratio of organic and
conventional nitrate
Notes: () ¼ x 2df-1. a ¼ 0.05; N ¼ number of studies; n ¼ number of paired observations; leaching per hectare and
CI ¼ confidence interval. Between study variability not significant per kg product
BFJ systems seem to be equally efficient in the creation of agricultural product per unit
111,10 of nitrate leaching.
The main drivers behind the higher nitrate leaching in conventional farming are the
larger amounts of fertilizer application, lower use of green cover crops, lower C to N
ratio and a higher stocking density per ha.
1106 Phosphorous leaching

Because of the low mobility of phosphorous (P) in the soil, in most circumstances, the
important sources of P loss are erosion and drainage (Edwards and Withers, 1998).
However, in some regions with high historical levels of P, sandy soils and a flat
topography, P leaching might also be an important source of loss (Van Den Bossche
et al., 2005). Excess levels of soil P are linked with eutrophication of ground and surface
waters.
We could only find a limited number of studies (Sileika and Guzys, 2003;
Torstensson et al., 2006 and Ekholm et al., 2005) that directly report differences in P
leaching (in kg/ha) between organic and conventional farming. The first two studies
are long term field trials with drainage pipes, the latter a simulation study. The three
studies are inconclusive whether organic or conventional farming performs better
(random effects and wide confidence interval containing the value 1). The reported
levels of leaching are also rather small, thus the relative measure is in this case
disinformative. Torstensson et al. (2006) and Sileika and Guzys (2003) find a difference
of 0.03 kg/ha and 0.04 kg/ha respectively, in favor of conventional farming.
Edwards and Withers (1998) concluded that the loss of P from agricultural land is
controlled by factors that are independent of the annual P surplus. Both Clark et al.
(1998) found a positive correlation between P balance and P leaching. Loes and Ogaard
(2001) and Hansen et al. (2001) used the P balance as an indicator for P availability. Van
Den Bossche et al. (2005) used available P as a proxy for P leaching, by calculating the
soil P saturation (Psat), i.e. the ratio between the amount of P in the soil and the P
absorption capacity of the soil. According to VLM (1997), regions with P leaching risk
have a P saturation between 30 to 40 per cent, while P saturated soils have a value
above 40 per cent. Van Den Bossche et al. (2005) found a Psat of 37 per cent for organic
parcels, which was slightly below the average for the East-Flemish region where the
study was conducted (Psat of 39 per cent). The study contained a high share of organic
horticulture sites, which receive an above average P input and also, some farms only
recently converted to organic farming. The study of Goulding et al. (2000) reports an
Olsen P index of 0 or 1, which is a P deficit for most crops, for 39 per cent of organically
managed soils versus 15 per cent for conventionally managed soils in the UK.
Haraldsen et al. (2000, Norway) also noticed a decline in available P after conversion to
organic farming. Similarly, Oberson et al. (1993) showed significantly lower levels of
available P in organic compared to conventional farming systems. Loes and Ogaard
(2001) came to the same conclusion during a long-term field trial on five organic farms.
They also showed that the P loss in the top layer could be approximated by use of P
balances.
Given the restricted number of studies directly measuring P leaching, we will also
use the P balance (i.e. P output – P input) as a proxy. Because this balance might be
negative, the log response ratio cannot be calculated. We will therefore use the Hedge’s
g, which is the weighted mean of the standardized difference between the control and
experimental group (see Hedges and Olkin, 1985). Both for the P input and the P A meta-analysis
balance, the measure seems to indicate a lower measure for organic farms, but the of differences
confidence intervals are too wide to conclude for a significant difference. The fixed
effect for P output indicates a significantly smaller P output for organic farms (see
Table V).
The different sources of evidence reported here, although inconclusive, seem to
indicate a tendency towards lower P leaching levels on organic farms. The most 1107
important driver is the lower fertilizer application in organic farming.
Greenhouse gas emission

The emission of greenhouse gases during production is another negative externality,
described into detail in recent documents of IPCC (2007). The Stern Review (2006) adds
a more economic focus to the discussion. The three most important greenhouse gases
are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Each of these gases
contributes differently to climate change (1 ton N2O ¼ 310 ton CO2-equivalents and 1
ton CH4 ¼ 21 ton CO2--equivalents). According to IPCC (2007), agriculture’s share in
greenhouse gas emissions is approximately 13.5 per cent. These emissions mainly
originate from methane fermentation during animal digestion and slurry depots; from
nitrous oxide production during biological processes in the soil; from the combustion of
fossil fuels (CO2 and N2O emission) and CO2 emission due to reduction of the soil
organic matter content (see previous paragraph).
Dalgaard et al. (2006), Denmark, concluded that conventional farming realizes the
highest energy production, while organic farming has the highest energy efficiency. In
another publication (Dalgaard et al., 2006) they found a higher emission per unit area
for conventional farming. Wood et al. (2006, Australia) concluded based on a Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) that direct energy use, energy related emissions and greenhouse gas
emissions are higher for the organic sample, but indirect contributions are much lower,
resulting in an overall substantially higher impact of conventional farming. Leifeld and
Führer (2005, Switzerland) link the decrease of agricultural emissions in Switzerland to
the increased conversion towards integrated and organic farming. The results of Flessa
et al. (2002) indicate that conversion to organic farming reduces the emission per
hectare, and a status quo for the emissions per unit product. Olesen et al. (2006) found a
lower emission per hectare for organic farms, using a simulation model. Casey and
Holden (2006, Ireland) concluded based on their LCA of conventional and organic
farms that the evolution towards more extensive systems results into lower emissions
per unit product and simultaneously decreases production. Lotter (2003) in his review
of organic agriculture in the USA poses that greenhouse gas emissions are lower in
No Fixed Random
Phosphorous leaching N n weighting effect Q effect CI
Table V.
P input (response ratio) 12 66 0.882 0.980 79.6 * (7.81) 0.704 0.46-1.07 Ratio of organic and
P output (response ratio) 9 62 0.773 0.805 13.7 (15.50) / 0.70-0.92 conventional
P balance (Hedge’s g) 8 78 / 22.311 1.0 (18.30) / 2 4.93-0.30 phosphorous input and
output per hectare and
Notes: () ¼ x 2df-1. a ¼ 0.05; N ¼ number of studies; n ¼ number of paired observations; Hedge’s g for the P
CI ¼ confidence interval. * Between study variability significant balance
BFJ organic farming. Syvasalo et al. (2006), who compared N2O and CH4 emissions per
111,10 hectare on organically and conventionally managed parcels, could not find a difference
between both systems. de Boer (2003) compared the emission per liter milk calculated
in different LCA studies with own data, and warned for the difficulty to compare LCA’s
given the lack of international standardization. He furthermore remarks that, due to the
higher methane production per liter in organic farming, a reduction of the emission
1108 compared to conventional farming can only be reached by drastically decreasing
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions. Haas et al. (2001, Germany) found in their
LCA per hectare a higher greenhouse gas emission potential for conventional farming,
while expressed per ton milk emissions were equal. In the LCA of Cederberg and
Mattson (2000, Sweden) emissions per liter were higher in the conventional system. In a
recent Dutch report greenhouse gas emissions were simulated with model farms. For
dairy farms, they found a lower emission for organic farming both per hectare and per
liter milk. For arable farming, with soil type being determinative, emissions are lower
per unit area but higher per unit product. Gomiero et al. (2008) also focus on the issue of
CO2-emissions in their comparison of organic and conventional farming. As they
mainly cite Stölze et al., 2000, they report higher CO2-emissions in conventional
farming when expressed per hectare, while per production unit there is a mixed effect.
Stalenga and Kawalec (2008) compared the greenhouse gases emission (N2O and CH4)
per hectare of 20 organic farms in a Polish region with the average conventional
emission for that region. They found lower CH4 emissions (14 per cent lower) and much
lower N2O emissions (only one third of conventional emissions). Finally, Meisterling
et al. (2009) calculated the Global Warming Potential (GWP) expressed as g
CO2-equivalents per kg of bread for a conventional and an organic product life cycle. In
their streamlined LCA, the GWP impact of producing 0.67 kg of conventional wheat
flour (for a 1 kg bread loaf), not including product transport, is 190 g CO2-eq, while the
GWP of producing the wheat organically is 160 g CO2-eq.
Summarizing, over the different studies, organic farming seems to score equal or
better when emissions are expressed per unit area. Per unit product no general
direction is noticeable. In Table VI, the results of a limited meta-analysis are reported,
as many studies only report single values and no standard deviation. These results
indicate a better score for organic farming when expressed per unit area, and no
difference when an output measure is used, which supports the qualitative conclusions.
What drives the different scores between both farming systems? Organic animal
farming has a lower animal-stocking rate per hectare, but a higher use of roughage feed
per cow, which will influence differences in methane emission. The higher concentrate
No Fixed Random
Response ratio N n weighting effect Q effect CI
Greenhouse gas (per ha) 5 112 0.608 0.572 42.5 * (21.03) 0.571 0.47-0.69
Greenhouse gas (per kg) 2 53 0.899 0.930 3.6 (16.9) / 0.76-1.13
Table VI. Methane (per ha) 3 21 0.600 0.662 0.3 (5.99) / 0.45-0.97
Ratio of organic and Nitrous oxide (per ha) 4 31 0.860 0.624 18.5 * (14.07) 0.610 0.48-0.78
conventional greenhouse
gas emission per hectare Notes: () ¼ x 2df-1. a ¼ 0.05; N ¼ number of studies; n ¼ number of paired observations;
and per unit product CI ¼ confidence interval. *Between study variability significant
use in conventional farming increases the carbon dioxide emission. Given the A meta-analysis
prohibition of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in organic farming, greenhouse gases of differences
generated during production of these inputs remain absent. More fuel combustion
during mechanical weeding counterweights this effect. In the study of Casey and
Holden (2006) regression analysis was used to show the relation between driving
factors and emission. They showed a positive correlation between total greenhouse gas
emissions per unit area and the feed concentrate dose, the stocking rate and the amount 1109
of synthetic fertilizers applied. The latter two also increase the emission per unit life
weight. They furthermore showed a very clear correlation between the emission per
hectare per year and the production (number of kg produced per hectare per year).
Biodiversity
For a definition of biodiversity we refer to UN (1992). More biodiversity positively

influences the natural buffering function of agrarian areas, which involves recycling of
nutrients, control of local micro climate, regulation of local hydrological processes,
regulation of undesired organisms, detoxification of noxious chemicals and genetic
material for crop improvement. When studying agriculture and biodiversity it is
important to distinguish between agro-biodiversity (breeds used by the farmers) and
natural biodiversity (wild life) still present up and around the fields. Both aspects are
interesting.
Concerning agro-biodiversity a report from FAO (1998) mentions that centuries of
human and natural selection have resulted in thousands of genetically diverse breeds
within the major livestock species. These breeds are carefully selected to fit a wide
range of environmental conditions, tasks and human needs and forms a rich genetic
legacy. Domestic animal diversity, represented by this wide range of breeds, is
essential to sustain and enhance the productivity of agriculture. No major livestock or
poultry species is in danger of extinction, but numerous breeds within those species are
declining in population and size, and many have already disappeared. In Europe, half
of all breeds of domestic animals that existed 100 years ago have become extinct, and
43 percent of the remaining breeds are endangered (FAO, 1992). The 1995 edition of
FAO’s “World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity” includes data on 3,882
breeds for 28 domestic species. It concludes that globally 30 per cent of breeds are
classified as endangered and critical. Owing to the specific characteristics of the
organic farming system, other breeds may yield better results and thus organic
farming may contribute to the preservation of a wider range of breeds. When we take
Belgium as an example, in conventional cattle breeding, the Belgian white blue has
become more popular (33 per cent in 1985 versus 51 per cent in 2000, NIS), while in
organic agriculture the main breeds are Limousin (70 per cent) and Blonde
d’Acquitaine (25 per cent), due to the ban on systematic Caesareans. The Belgian Red,
on the FAO list of threatened bovine species (FAO, 1998) has in the mean time declined
from 6 per cent in 1985 to 1 per cent in 2000. A similar reasoning can be made for plant
species used in the agricultural system.
Concerning the impact of agriculture on the natural biodiversity we give an example
from Flanders (Belgium) (Platteau et al., 2006). In the past 12 years, ten out of 20 bird
species specific for the agricultural biotope have disappeared or seriously declined,
while only 6 made progress. Since 1900, the number of butterfly species has decreased
with 25 per cent, while a further 50 per cent is threatened. Only a very small share of
BFJ wild plants bound to agricultural land, are found on intensively managed parcels, and
111,10 none of these species is threatened.
The last few years, four major reviews have focused on the question whether there
is a difference in biodiversity contribution between organic and conventional farming.
In the review of Soil Association (2000), nine studies were intensively revised and 14
were summarized. Based on these, the authors concluded a higher abundance of wild
1110 and rare plants, more arthropods, harmless butterflies and spiders and more birds up
and around the field. With respect to species richness, they found more wild and rare
plant species and more spider species. The most high profile review on this topic is
from Hole et al. (2005). They screened 76 studies and report a clear positive effect of the
organic management practices on biodiversity. Over the different taxons, they found
66 cases where organic agriculture had a positive effect, against eight with a negative
and 25 with a mixed or no effect. The review of Stockdale et al. (2006) focuses on which
management practices influence which species.
A full meta-analysis is conducted by Bengtsson et al. (2005). They calculated the
Hedge’s g and response ratio for 63 paired studies in total. Their main conclusions are
generally a positive effect of organic farming on species richness, with on average 30
per cent more species compared to conventional fields, and a positive effect on
abundance within species (on average 50 per cent higher). They clearly warn for
significant heterogeneity between studies, with for example 16 per cent of the studies
indicating a negative effect of organic farming on species richness.
Hole et al. (2005) extensively described the possible influence of management
practices (drivers) on biodiversity. They identify three broad practices that are
strongly associated with organic farming as being of particular benefit to farmland
biodiversity in general:
.
prohibition/reduced use of chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilizers;
. sympathetic management of non-crop habitats and field margins; and
.
preservation of mixed farming.
Some recent studies add to the understanding of potential differences in biodiversity
impact. Belfrage et al. (2005) also find higher numbers of both bird diversity and bird
abundance on the organic farms than on the conventional farms. They however remark
that the largest difference in bird abundance and diversity was found when comparing
small and large farms, with high values correlated to small farms. Clough et al. (2007)
and Gabriel and Tscharntke (2007) show that the type of management (organic or
conventional) might cause considerable shifts in species community structure.
Discussion and conclusion

From our meta-analysis we can conclude that soils in organic farming systems have on
average a higher content of organic matter which is important for a good agricultural
and environmental soil condition, characterized by reduced erosion, high buffering and
filtering capacity and a rich habitat for living organisms. We can also conclude that
organic farming contributes positively to agro-biodiversity (breeds used by the
farmers) and natural biodiversity (wild life).
Concerning the impact of the organic farming system on nitrate and phosphorous
leaching and greenhouse gas emissions the result of our analysis is not that
straightforward. When expressed per production area organic farming scores better
than conventional farming. However, given the lower land use efficiency of organic A meta-analysis
farming in developed countries, this positive effect expressed per unit product is less of differences
pronounced or not present at all.
For the selected environmental effects a significant difference per hectare mainly
originates from a difference in input intensity (less fertilizer use, lower animal density,
no chemical inputs). None of the differences in environmental effects can be attributed
to a standalone management practice, it is the combined effect of several modifications 1111
to the conventional practices that results into the lower environmental pressure per
area of production.
From the high level of heterogeneity among studies the importance of local aspects,
such as soil type, climate, altitude and legislation, becomes evident and advocates for
caution with generalizing. Quoting Rigby and Caceres (2001), “the notion of
sustainability is such a site-specific, individualistic, dynamic concept, that arguing that

one particular set of codified production practices are its practical expression seems
incorrect and likely to attract unnecessary criticism. In this sense, the sustainability
concept may be viewed similarly to appropriate technology, in that the appropriateness
of particular technologies will also vary temporally and spatially”. So, from a
sustainability perspective, the management practices and rules of prescription should
have been devised as such that production is optimized while minimizing local
environmental impacts. For that it is necessary to monitor how the management
practices influence local conditions, by means of site and situation specific indicators,
as heterogeneity both in the physical, social and market environment ask for locally
adapted rules. This focus on the relation between rules of prescription and site-specific
impact is currently lacking both in the organic and conventional system, which may
explain the huge variation found between the studies. Organic standards are almost
alike in different regions, to ensure that products labeled “organic” are produced under
the same conditions. This standardization is necessary to allow trade across the globe.
As described in Mondelaers and Van Huylenbroeck (2008), the move towards
globalized meta certification systems makes certification rules less locally adapted.
Another discussion point relates to the land use efficiency issue. As argued by
Glendining et al. (2009), extensification of farming, which is thought to favour non-food
ecosystem services, requires more land to produce the same amount of food. The loss of
ecosystem services hitherto provided by natural land brought into production is
greater than that which can be provided by land now under extensive farming. This
loss of ecosystem service is large in comparison to the benefit of a reduction in
emission of nutrients and pesticides. Rigby and Caceres (2001) also take up the issue of
productivity in relation to sustainability. They warn for simply equating sustainable
agriculture with low-yield farming, as the issue of providing food and fibre for the
(growing) non-agricultural population also needs to be addressed. For the question
whether to focus on indicators expressed per unit area or per unit product, the systemic
level is of importance. The former inform us whether the sustainability of the local
ecosystem is under threat, which is important from an environmental perspective. The
latter, as they measure eco-efficiencies, explain which system creates most output per
environmental burden, which is also very relevant from a social perspective, given the
need for food security. The indicators expressed per hectare indicate that conventional
farming is potentially more harmful for local ecosystem sustainability. The case of
nitrate leaching is in this sense informing, as this is typically a local problem. To know
BFJ whether ecosystem sustainability is really endangered, the indicator scores should be
111,10 compared with absolute local sustainability thresholds. The indicators expressed per
unit product show no significant difference between conventional and organic
production. To know which system to choose, we have to consider whether it is better
to use more land for extensive production or less land in an intensive way. The choice
may be different in different regions, and also depends on increasing pressure from
1112 both non agricultural human activities, non food agricultural production and nature.
References
Abdi, H. (2007), “The binomial distribution – the binomial and sign tests”, in Salkind, N. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Arnqvist, G. and Wooster, D. (1995), “Meta-analysis – synthesizing research findings in ecology

and evolution”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 236-40.
Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M.J. and Aviles-Vazquez, K. (2007),
“Organic agriculture and the global food supply”, Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 86-108.
Bakken, A., Breland, T., Haraldsen, T., Aamlid, T. and Sveistrup, T. (2006), “Soil fertility in three
cropping systems after conversion from conventional to organic farming”, Acta
Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Belfrage, K., Bjorklund, J. and Salomonsson, L. (2005), “The effects of farm size and organic
farming on diversity of birds, pollinators, and plants in a Swedish landscape”, Ambio,
Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 582-8.
Bengtsson, H., Oborn, I., Jonsson, S., Nilsson, I. and Andersson, A. (2003), “Field balances of some
mineral nutrients and trace elements in organic and conventional dairy farming – a case
study at Ojebyn, Sweden”, European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 20 Nos 1-2, pp. 101-16.
Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrom, J. and Weibull, A.C. (2005), “The effects of organic agriculture on
biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 261-9.
Bichel Committee (1998), Report from the Bichel Committee – Organic Scenarios for Denmark,
Copenhagen, p. 118.
Biro, B., Varga, G., Hartl, W. and Nemeth, T. (2005), “Soil quality and nitrate percolation as
affected by the horticultural and arable field conditions of organic and conventional
agriculture”, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 111-19.
Casey, J.W. and Holden, N.M. (2006), “Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional,
agri-environmental scheme, and organic Irish suckler-beef units”, Journal of
Environmental Quality, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 231-9.
Cederberg, C. and Mattsson, B. (2000), “Mattsson Life cycle assessment of milk production –
a comparison of conventional and organic farming”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C. and Scow, K.M. (1998), “Changes in soil chemical
properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices”, Agronomy Journal,
Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 662-71.
Clough, Y., Kruess, A. and Tscharntke, T. (2007), “Organic versus conventional arable farming
systems: functional grouping helps understand staphylinid response”, Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 118 Nos 1-4, pp. 285-90.
COM (2000), “Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European A meta-analysis
Parliament”, Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common
Agricultural Policy. Brussels, 26 January 2000, 20 final, COM, Brussels. of differences
COM (2002), “Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the regions”, Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection. Brussels, 16 April, 179 final, COM, Brussels.
Condron, L.M., Cameron, K.C., Di, H.J., Clough, T.J., Forbes, E.A., McLaren, R.G. and Silva, R.G. 1113
(2000), “A comparison of soil and environmental quality under organic and conventional
farming systems in New Zealand”, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 43
No. 4, pp. 443-66.
Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., Kristensen, I.S. and Larsen, I. (2006), “Modelling representative and
coherent Danish farm types based on farm accountancy data for use in environmental
assessments”, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 117 No. 4, pp. 223-37.
de Boer, I.J.M. (2003), “Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk
production”, Livestock Production Science, Vol. 80 Nos 1-2, pp. 69-77.
De Neve, S., Dieltjens, I., Moreels, E. and Hofman, G. (2003), “Measured and simulated nitrate
leaching on an organic and a conventional mixed farm”, Biological Agriculture &
Horticulture, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 217-29.
Edwards, A.C. and Withers, P.J.A. (1998), “Soil, phosphorus management and water quality: a
UK perspective”, Soil Use & Management, Vol. 14, pp. 124-30.
EEA (1999), Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical Report No. 25,
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, available at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/
TEC25/en/tech_25_text.pdf
Ekholm, P., Turtola, E., Grönroos, J., Seuri, P. and Ylivainio, K. (2005), “Phosphorus loss from
different farming systems estimated from soil surface phosphorus balance”, Agriculture
Eltun, R. (1995), “Comparisons of nitrogen leaching in ecological and conventional cropping
systems”, Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, Vol. 11 Nos 1-4, pp. 103-14.
Fagerberg, B., Salomon, E. and Jonsson, S. (1996), “Comparisons between conventional and
ecological farming systems at Ojebyn – nutrient flows and balances”, Swedish Journal of
Agricultural Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 169-80.
FAO (1992), “Livestock breeds in developing world threatened”, press release, 28 January.
FAO (1998), “Farm Animal Genetic Resources” Special: Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture,
available at: www.fao.org/sd/EPdirect/EPre0042.htm (accessed February 1998).
Flessa, H., Ruser, R., Dorsch, P., Kamp, T., Jimenez, M.A., Munch, J.C. and Beese, F. (2002),
“Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 CH4, N2O) from two farming
systems in southern Germany”, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 91 Nos 1-3,
pp. 175-89.
Fliessbach, A., Oberholzer, H., Gunst, L. and Mader, P. (2007), “Soil organic matter and biological
soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming”, Agriculture,
Foereid, B. and Hogh-Jensen, H. (2004), “Carbon sequestration potential of organic agriculture in
northern Europe – a modelling approach”, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Vol. 68
No. 1, pp. 13-24.
Gabriel, D. and Tscharntke, T. (2007), “Insect pollinated plants benefit from organic farming”,
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 118 Nos 1-4, pp. 43-8.
BFJ Girvan, M.S., Bullimore, J., Pretty, J.N., Osborn, A.M. and Ball, A.S. (2003), “Soil type as the
primary determinant of the composition of the total and active bacterial communities in
111,10 arable soils”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 1800-9.
Glendining, M.J., Dailey, A.G., Williams, A.G., Evert, F.K., van Goulding, K.W.T and Whitmore,
A.P. (2009), “Is it possible to increase the sustainability of arable and ruminant agriculture
by reducing inputs?”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 99 Nos 2-3, pp. 117-25.
1114 Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M.G. and Pimentel, D. (2008), “Energy and environmental issues in organic
and conventional agriculture”, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 239-54.
Gosling, P. and Shepherd, M. (2005), “Long-term changes in soil fertility in organic arable
farming systems in England, with particular reference to phosphorus and potassium”,
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 105 Nos 1-2, pp. 425-32.
Goulding, K., Stockdale, E., Fortune, S. and Watson, C. (2000), “Nutrient cycling on organic
farms”, Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Vol. 161, pp. 66-75.
Gustafson, G.M., Salomon, E., Jonsson, S. and Steineck, S. (2003), “Fluxes of K, P, and Zn in a
conventional and an organic dairy farming system through feed, animals, manure, and
urine – a case study at Ojebyn, Sweden”, European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 20 Nos 1-2,
pp. 89-99.
Haas, G., Berg, M. and Köpke, U. (2002), “Nitrate leaching: comparing conventional, integrated
and organic agricultural production systems”, in Steenvoorden, J., Claessen, F. and
Willems, J. (Eds), Agricultural Effects on Ground and Surface Waters: Research at the Edge
of Science and Society, IAHS Publ. 273, International Association of Hydrological Sciences,
Oxford.
Haas, G., Wetterich, F. and Köpke, U. (2001), “Comparing intensive, extensified and organic
grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment”, Agriculture
Hack-ten Broeke, M.J. (2000), “Nitrate leaching from dairy farming on sandy soils”, PhD thesis,
Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Hansen, B., Alroe, H.F. and Kristensen, E.S. (2001), “Approaches to assess the environmental
impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark”, Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment, Vol. 83 Nos 1-2, pp. 11-26.
Hansen, B., Kristensen, E.S., Grant, R., Hogh-Jensen, H., Simmelsgaard, S.E. and Olesen, J.E.
(2000), “Nitrogen leaching from conventional versus organic farming systems – a systems
modelling approach”, European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 65-82.
Hardy, R.G. and Thompson, S. (1998), “Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis”,
Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 17, pp. 841-56.
Hedges, L.V. and Olkin, I. (1985), Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis, Academic Press, Orlando,
FL.
Hedges, L.V., Gurevitch, J. and Curtis, P.S. (1999), “The meta-analysis of response ratios in
experimental ecology”, Ecology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 1150-6.
Herencia, J.F., Ruiz, J.C., Melero, S., Galavis, P.A.G. and Maqueda, C. (2008), “A short-term
comparison of organic vs conventional agriculture in a silty loam soil using two organic
amendments”, Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 146, pp. 677-87.
Hodges, R.D. (1991), “Soil organic matter: its central position in organic farming”, in Wilson, W.S.
(Ed.), Advances in Soil Organic Matter Research: The Impact on Agriculture and the
Environment, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp. 355-64.
Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, F. and Evans, A.D. (2005), “Does
organic farming benefit biodiversity?”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 113-30.
Kaltsas, A.M., Mamolos, A.P., Tsatsarelis, C.A., Nanos, G.D. and Kalburtji, K.L. (2007), “Energy A meta-analysis
budget in organic and conventional olive groves”, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment,
Vol. 122 No. 2, pp. 243-51.
of differences
Kirchmann, H. and Bergstrom, L. (2001), “Do organic farming practices reduce nitrate leaching?”,
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, Vol. 32 Nos 7-8, pp. 997-1028.
Knudsen, M.T., Kristensen, I.B.S., Berntsen, J., Petersen, B.M. and Kristensen, E.S. (2006),
“Estimated N leaching losses for organic and conventional farming in Denmark”, Journal 1115
of Agricultural Science, Vol. 144, pp. 135-49.
Korsaeth, A. and Eltun, R. (2000), “Nitrogen mass balances in conventional, integrated and
ecological cropping systems and the relationship between balance calculations and
nitrogen runoff in an eight-year field experiment in Norway”, Agriculture Ecosystems &
Kristensen, S.P., Mathiasen, J., Lassen, J., Madsen, H.B. and Reenberg, A. (1994), “A comparison
of the leachable inorganic nitrogen-content in organic and conventional farming systems”,
Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B-Soil and Plant Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 19-27.
Langmeier, M. (2002), “Nitrogen fertilizer value of cattle manure applied on soils originating from
organic and conventional farming systems”, Agronomie, Vol. 22 No. 7/8, pp. 789-800.
Leifeld, J. and Führer, H. (2005), “Greenhouse gas emissions from Swiss agriculture since 1990:
implications for environmental policies to mitigate global warming”, Environmental
Science & Policy, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 410-17.
Liebig, M.A. and Doran, J.W. (1999), “Impact of organic production practices on soil quality
indicators”, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1601-9.
Loes, A.K. and Ogaard, A.F. (2001), “Long-term changes in extractable soil phosphorus (P) in
organic dairy farming systems”, Plant and Soil, Vol. 237 No. 2, pp. 321-32.
Lotter, D.W. (2003), “Organic agriculture”, Journal of Sustainble Agriculture, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 59-128.
Mader, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. and Niggli, U. (2002), “The ins and outs
of organic farming”, Science, Vol. 298 No. 5600, pp. 1889-90.
Marinari, S., Mancinelli, R., Campiglia, E. and Grego, S. (2006), “Chemical and biological
indicators of soil quality in organic and conventional farming systems in Central Italy”,
Ecological Indicators, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 701-11.
Meisterling, K., Samaras, C. and Schweizer, V. (2009), “Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases
from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional
wheat”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 222-30.
Meul, M., Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Dessein, J., Rogge, E., Mulier, A. and Van Hauwermeiren, A.
(2007), “An integrated farm sustainability monitoring tool: methodology and application
on Flemish dairy farms”, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 321-32.
Mondelaers, K. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2008), “Dynamics of the retail driven higher end spot
market in fresh food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Nos 4-5, pp. 474-92.
Mulier, A., Nevens, F. and en Hofman, G. (2006), “Daling van de organische stof in Vlaamse
landbouwgronden. Analyse van mogelijke oorzaken en aanbevelingen voor de toekomst”,
Steunpunt Duurzame Landbouw, Publicatie 24, p. 63.
Nguyen, M.L., Haynes, R.J. and Goh, K.M. (1995), “Nutrient budgets and status in three pairs of
conventional and alternative mixed cropping farms in Canterbury, New Zealand”,
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 52 Nos 2-3, pp. 149-62.
BFJ Oberson, A., Fardeau, J.C., Besson, J.M. and Sticher, H. (1993), “Soil phosphorus dynamics in
cropping systems managed according to conventional and biological agricultural
111,10 methods”, Biology and Fertility of Soils, Vol. 16, pp. 111-17.
OECD (1993), OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews,
Environment Monographs No. 83, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris, p. 39.
1116 Olesen, J.E., Schelde, K., Weiske, A., Weisbjerg, M.R., Asman, W.A.H. and Djurhuus, J. (2006),
“Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy
farms”, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 112 Nos 2-3, pp. 207-20.
Ostergaard, H.S., Stougaard, B. and Jensen, C. (1995), “Nitrate leaching depending on cropping
systems”, Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, Vol. 11 Nos 1-4, pp. 173-9.
Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C. and Huirne, R. (2003), “Evaluation of
sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and

field-scale analysis”, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 273-88.
Peeters, A., Bielders, C., Hermy, M., Mathijs, E., Muys, B. and Vanclooster, M. (2005), SPSD II
Framework for Assessing Sustainability Levels in Belgian Agricultural Systems (SAFE),
Belgian Science Policy, Brussels, p. 125.
Petersen, S.O., Regina, K., Pollinger, A., Rigler, E., Valli, L., Yamulki, S., Esala, M., Fabbri, C.,
Syvasalo, E. and Vinther, F.P. (2006), “Nitrous oxide emissions from organic and
conventional crop rotations in five European countries”, Agriculture Ecosystems &
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P. and Seidel, R. (2005), “Environmental, energetic, and economic
comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems”, Bioscience, Vol. 55 No. 7,
pp. 573-83.
Platteau, J., Bas, L., Bernaerts, E., Campens, V., Carels, K., Demuynck, E., Hens, M., Overloop, S.,
Samborski, V., Smets, D., Van Gijseghem, D., Vriesacker, M. and Wustenberghs, H. (2006),
Landbouwbeleidsrapport 2005 (LARA), Afdeling Monitoring en Studie, D/2006/3241/155,
Administratie, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Brussel, p. 240.
Poudel, D.D., Horwath, W.R., Lanini, W.T., Temple, S.R. and van Bruggen, A.H.C. (2002),
“Comparison of soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields and weeds in
organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in northern California”, Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 125-37.
Pulleman, M., Jongmans, A., Marinissen, J. and Bouma, J. (2003), “Effects of organic versus
conventional arable farming on soil structure and organic matter dynamics in a marine
loam in The Netherlands”, Soil Use and Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 157-65.
Reganold, J.P., Palmer, A.S., Lockhart, J.C. and Macgregor, A.N. (1993), “Soil quality and financial
performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand”, Science, Vol. 260
No. 5106, pp. 344-9.
Rigby, D. and Caceres, D. (2001), “Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural
systems”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Rosegrant, M., Sulser, T. and Halberg, N. (2006), “Organic agriculture and food security”, paper
presented at the Joint Organic Congress, Odense, Denmark, May 30-31.
Sileika, A.S. and Guzys, S. (2003), “Drainage runoff and migration of mineral elements in organic
and conventional cropping systems”, Agronomie, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 633-41.
Stalenga, J. and Kawalec, A. (2008), “Emission of greenhouse gases and soil organic matter
balance in different farming systems”, International Agrophysics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 287-90.
Steinshamn, H., Thuen, E., Bleken, M.A., Brenoe, U.T., Ekerholt, G. and Yri, C. (2004), “Utilization A meta-analysis
of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in an organic dairy farming system in Norway”,
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 509-22. of differences
Stoate, C., Boatman, N.D., Borralho, R.J., Carvalho, C.R., de Snoo, G.R. and Eden, P. (2001),
“Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 337-65.
Stockdale, E.A., Watson, C.A., Black, H.I.J. and Phillips, L. (2006), Do Farm Management 1117
Practices Alter Below-ground Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function? Implications for
Sustainable Lane Management, Report No. 364, Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
Peterborough.
Stopes, C., Lord, E.I., Philipps, L. and Woodward, L. (2002), “Nitrate leaching from organic farms
and conventional farms following best practice”, Soil Use and Management, Vol. 18, s1,
pp. 256-63.
Syvasalo, E., Regina, K., Turtola, E., Lemola, R. and Esala, M. (2006), “Fluxes of nitrous oxide
and methane, and nitrogen leaching from organically and conventionally cultivated sandy
soil in western Finland”, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 113 Nos 1-4,
pp. 342-8.
Taube, F., Loges, R., Kelm, M. and Latacz-Lohmann, U. (2005), “A comparative assessment of the
performance of organic and conventional arable farming systems on high-quality soils in
Northern Germany”, Berichte über Landwirtschaft, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 165-76.
Torstensson, G., Aronsson, H. and Bergstrom, L. (2006), “Nutrient use efficiencies and leaching of
organic and conventional cropping systems in Sweden”, Agronomy Journal, Vol. 98 No. 3,
pp. 603-15.
Ulen, B. (1999), “Simulation of nitrate leaching before and after conversion to ecological farming”,
Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 59-75.
Van Den Bossche, A., De Neve, S. and Hofman, G. (2005), “Soil phosphorus status of organic
farming in Flanders: an overview and comparison with the conventional management”,
Soil Use and Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 415-21.
van Diepeningen, A,D,, de Vos, O.J., Korthals, G.W. and van Bruggen, A.H.C. (2006), “Effects of
organic versus conventional management on chemical and biological parameters in
agricultural soils”, Applied Soil Ecology, Vol. 31 Nos 1-2, pp. 120-35.
Van Steertegem, M. (eindredactie) (2006), Milieurapport Vlaanderen, LannooCampus, Leuven,
p. 272.
Verhaegen, E., Wustenberghs, H. and Lauwers, L. (2003), “Elements for ‘green accounts’ for the
agricultural sector”, Environmental Aspects of Agricultural Accounts, Execution report,
Tapas 2002, Centrum voor Landbouweconomie, Brussels, p. 105.
Wachendorf, M., Büchter, M., Trott, H. and Taube, F. (2004), “Performance and environmental
effects of forage production on sandy soils. II. Impact of defoliation system and nitrogen
input on nitrate leaching losses”, Grass and Forage Science, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 56-68.
Wander, M.M., Traina, S.J., Stinner, B.R. and Peters, S.E. (1994), “Organic and conventional
management effects on biologically-active soil organic-matter pools”, Soil Science Society
of America Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 1130-9.
Watson, C.A., Atkinson, D., Gosling, P., Jackson, L.R. and Rayns, F.W. (2002), “Managing soil
fertility in organic farming systems”, Soil Use and Management, Vol. 18, s1, pp. 239-47.
Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Dey, C. and Lundie, S. (2006), “A comparative study of some environmental
impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 89
Nos 2-3, pp. 324-48.
BFJ Wustenberghs, H., Verhaegen, E., Lauwers, L., De Haes, E. and Vervaet, M. (2005), “Towards
integrated economic and environmental agricultural accounts”, Environmental Aspects of
111,10 Agricultural Accounts, Execution report, Tapas 2003, Centrum voor Landbouweconomie,
Brussel, p. 98.
Further reading
1118 Cooper, J., Niggli, U. and Leifert, C. (2007), Handbook of Organic Food Quality and Safety,
Woodhead Publishing, Abington, available at: sales@woodhead-publishing.com
FAO (1995), “New FAO World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity warns: up to 1,500
breeds are at risk of extinction”, press release, 5 December.
Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2004a), “Sustainable value added – measuring corporate contributions to
sustainability beyond eco-efficiency”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 173-87.
Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2004b), “Value-oriented impact assessment: the economics of a new
approach to impact assessment”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 921-41.
Kleijn, D. and Sutherland, W.J. (2003), “How effective are agri-environment schemes in
maintaining and conserving biodiversity?”, Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 40, pp. 947-69.
Osenberg, C.W., Sarnelle, O., Cooper, S.D. and Holt, R.D. (1999), “Resolving ecological questions
through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models”, Ecology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 1105-17.
Appendix. References used in the meta-analysis

Nitrate leaching
First screening. Biro et al. (2005), Condron et al. (2000), De Neve et al. (2003), Eltun (1995), Haas
et al. (2002)), Hansen et al. (2000), Kirchmann and Bergstrom (2001), Knudsen et al. (2006),
Korsaeth and Eltun (2000), Kristensen et al. (1994), Ostergaard et al. (1995), Pacini et al. (2003),
Pimentel et al. (2005), Sileika and Guzys (2003), Stopes et al. (2002)), Syvasalo et al. (2006),
Torstensson et al. (2006), Ulen (1999).
Kg/ha. Eltun (1995), Condron et al. (2000), De Neve et al. (2003),Biro et al. (2005), Syvasalo et al.
(2006), Sileika and Guzys (2003), Haas et al. (2002), Torstensson et al. (2006), Korsaeth and Eltun
(2000), Hansen et al. (2000), Stopes et al. (2002), Knudsen et al. (2006), Pimentel et al. (2005), Pacini
et al. (2003).
Comparison per ha and per kg. De Neve et al. (2003), Sileika and Guzys (2003), Haas et al.
(2002), Torstensson et al. (2006), Korsaeth and Eltun (2000), Hansen et al. (2000).
Simulation. Condron et al. (2000), De Neve et al. (2003) Knudsen et al. (2006), Hansen et al.
(2000).
Lysimeters/drainage pipes. Eltun (1995), Biro et al. (2005), Syvasalo et al. (2006), Sileika and
Guzys (2003), Haas et al. (2002), Torstensson et al. (2006), Korsaeth and Eltun (2000), Stopes et al.
(2002).
Arable farming. Eltun (1995), Biro et al. (2005), Sileika and Guzys (2003), Torstensson et al.
(2006), Hansen et al. (2000), Knudsen et al. (2006), Haas et al. (2002).
Mixed farming. Eltun (1995), De Neve et al. (2003), Syvasalo et al. (2006), Hansen et al. (2000),
Stopes et al. (2002), Condron et al. (2000).
Land use
First screening. Eltun (1995), Haas et al. (2002), Hansen et al. (2000), Kirchmann and Bergstrom
(2001), Knudsen et al. (2006), Korsaeth and Eltun (2000), Mader et al. (2002), Poudel et al. (2002),
Sileika and Guzys (2003), Taube et al. (2005), Torstensson et al. (2006).
Full rotation. Korsaeth and Eltun (2000), Kirchmann and Bergstrom (2001), Eltun (1995),
Sileika and Guzys (2003)
Cereals. Knudsen et al. (2006), Hansen et al. (2000), Torstensson et al. (2006), Mader et al. A meta-analysis
(2002), Poudel et al. (2002)
of differences
Organic matter
First screening. Bakken et al. (2006), Clark et al. (1998), Fließbach et al. (2007), Foereid and
Hogh-Jensen (2004), Girvan et al. (2003), Gosling and Shepherd (2005), Herencia et al. (2008),
Nguyen et al. (1995), Pulleman et al. (2003), Stalenga and Kawalec (2008).
Used in meta-analysis. Gosling and Shepherd (2005), Nguyen et al. (1995), Girvan et al. (2003), 1119
Fließbach et al. (2007), Clark et al. (1998), Pulleman et al. (2003)
Phosphorus leaching
First screening. Bengtsson et al. (2005), Clark et al. (1998), Condron et al. (2000), Ekholm et al.
(2005), Fagerberg et al. (1996), Gosling and Shepherd (2005), Gustafson et al. (2003), Haas et al.
(2001)), Langmeier (2002), Liebig and Doran (1999), Loes and Ogaard (2001), Marinari et al. (2006),
Nguyen et al. (1995), Oberson et al. (1993), Reganold et al. (1993), Sileika and Guzys (2003),
Steinshamn et al. (2004), Torstensson et al. (2006), van Diepeningen et al. (2006), Watson et al.
(2002).
P in. Torstensson et al. (2006), Ekholm et al. (2005), Nguyen et al. (1995), Marinari et al. (2006),
Clark et al. (1998), Bengtsson et al. (2003), Haas et al. (2001), Langmeier (2002).
P out. Torstensson et al. (2006), Ekholm et al. (2005), Nguyen et al. (1995), Marinari et al.
(2006), Clark et al. (1998), Bengtsson et al. (2003), Haas et al. (2001), Langmeier (2002).
P bal. Torstensson et al. (2006), Ekholm et al. (2005), Nguyen et al. (1995), Marinari et al. (2006),
Clark et al. (1998), Bengtsson et al. (2003), Haas et al. (2001), Langmeier (2002).
Greenhouse gases
First screening. Casey and Holden (2006), Dalgaard et al. (2006), de Boer (2003), Flessa et al.
(2002)), Haas et al. (2001), Kaltsas et al. (2007), Meisterling et al. (2009), Olesen et al. (2006),
Petersen et al. (2006), Syvasalo et al. (2006), Stalenga and Kawalec (2008), Wood et al. (2006).
Greenhouse Gases per ha. Haas et al. (2001), Dalgaard et al. (2006), Olesen et al. (2006), Casey
and Holden (2006), Kaltsas et al. (2007)
Greenhouse Gases per Life Weight. Dalgaard et al. (2006), Olesen et al. (2006), Petersen et al.
(2006), Syvasalo et al. (2006)
Corresponding author
Koen Mondelaers can be contacted at: koen.mondelaers@ugent.be
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Alexandre Marco da Silva, Luiz Augusto Manfre, Rodrigo Custódio Urban, Vanessa Honda Ogihara Silva,
Mariana Politti Manzatto, Lloyd Darrell Norton. 2015. Organic farm does not improve neither soil, or
water quality in rural watersheds from southeastern Brazil. Ecological Indicators 48, 132-146. [CrossRef]
2. Birte Bredemeier, Christina von Haaren, Stefan Rüter, Michael Reich, Thomas Meise. 2015. Evaluating
the nature conservation value of field habitats: A model approach for targeting agri-environmental
measures and projecting their effects. Ecological Modelling 295, 113-122. [CrossRef]
3. Yadunath Bajgai, Paul Kristiansen, Nilantha Hulugalle, Melinda McHenryFactors and Mechanisms
Regulating Soil Organic Carbon in Agricultural Systems 41-56. [CrossRef]
4. Vincent de Paul Obade, Rattan Lal. 2014. Using meta-analyses to assess pedo-variability under different
land uses and soil management in central Ohio, USA. Geoderma 232-234, 56-68. [CrossRef]
5. Marie Benoit, Josette Garnier, Juliette Anglade, Gilles Billen. 2014. Nitrate leaching from organic and
conventional arable crop farms in the Seine Basin (France). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems . [CrossRef]
6. Kristina Belfrage, Johanna Björklund, Lennart Salomonsson. 2014. Effects of Farm Size and On-
Farm Landscape Heterogeneity on Biodiversity—Case-Study of Twelve Farms in a Swedish Landscape.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 141010091134004. [CrossRef]
7. L. Delaby, J.-Y. Dourmad, F. Béline, P. Lescoat, P. Faverdin, J.-L. Fiorelli, F. Vertès, P. Veysset, T.
Morvan, V. Parnaudeau, P. Durand, P. Rochette, J.-L. Peyraud. 2014. Origin, quantities and fate of
nitrogen flows associated with animal production. Advances in Animal Biosciences 5, 28-48. [CrossRef]
8. Y. Bajgai, N. Hulugalle, P. Kristiansen, M. McHenry, A. Cowie. 2014. Residue incorporation mitigates
tillage-induced loss of soil carbon in laboratory microcosms. Soil Use and Management 30:10.1111/
sum.2014.30.issue-3, 328-336. [CrossRef]
9. Marianna Pastuszak, Tomasz Kowalkowski, Jerzy Kopiński, Jarosław Stalenga, Damian Panasiuk. 2014.
Impact of forecasted changes in Polish economy (2015 and 2020) on nutrient emission into the river
basins. Science of The Total Environment 493, 32-43. [CrossRef]
10. Karin Müller, Allister Holmes, Markus Deurer, Brent E. Clothier. 2014. Eco-efficiency as a sustainability
measure for kiwifruit production in New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
11. Chia-Lin Hsu, Mu-Chen Chen. 2014. Explaining consumer attitudes and purchase intentions toward
organic food: Contributions from regulatory fit and consumer characteristics. Food Quality and Preference
35, 6-13. [CrossRef]
12. Sean L. Tuck, Camilla Winqvist, Flávia Mota, Johan Ahnström, Lindsay A. Turnbull, Janne Bengtsson,
Ailsa McKenzie. 2014. Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:3, 746-755. [CrossRef]
13. Lukas Zagata. 2014. Towards conscientious food consumption: exploring the values of Czech organic
food consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:3, 243-250. [CrossRef]
14. Yadunath Bajgai, Paul Kristiansen, Nilantha Hulugalle, Melinda McHenry. 2014. Changes in soil carbon
fractions due to incorporating corn residues in organic and conventional vegetable farming systems. Soil
Research 52:3, 244. [CrossRef]
15. J.M. Wachter, J.P. ReganoldOrganic Agricultural Production: Plants 265-286. [CrossRef]
16. Colin Skinner, Andreas Gattinger, Adrian Muller, Paul Mäder, Andreas Flieβbach, Matthias Stolze,
Reiner Ruser, Urs Niggli. 2014. Greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils under organic and non-
organic management — A global meta-analysis. Science of The Total Environment 468-469, 553-563.
[CrossRef]
17. Johannes Kahl, Aneta Załęcka, Angelika Ploeger, Susanne Bügel, Machteld HuberFunctional Food and
Organic Food are Competing Rather than Supporting Concepts in Europe 201-211. [CrossRef]
18. Susanne Freidberg. 2013. Calculating sustainability in supply chain capitalism. Economy and Society 42:4,
571-596. [CrossRef]
19. Maria Elena Menconi, Giordano Stella, David Grohmann. 2013. Revisiting the food component of the
ecological footprint indicator for autonomous rural settlement models in Central Italy. Ecological Indicators
34, 580-589. [CrossRef]
20. Wen-Yan Han, Jian-Ming Xu, Kang Wei, Ruan-Zhi Shi, Li-Feng Ma. 2013. Soil carbon sequestration,
plant nutrients and biological activities affected by organic farming system in tea ( Camellia sinensis (L.)
O. Kuntze) fields. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 59:5, 727-739. [CrossRef]
21. Sabine Zikeli, Sabine Gruber, Claus-Felix Teufel, Karin Hartung, Wilhelm Claupein. 2013. Effects of
Reduced Tillage on Crop Yield, Plant Available Nutrients and Soil Organic Matter in a 12-Year Long-
Term Trial under Organic Management. Sustainability 5:9, 3876-3894. [CrossRef]
22. Yadunath Bajgai, Paul Kristiansen, Nilantha Hulugalle, Melinda McHenry. 2013. Comparison of organic
and conventional managements on yields, nutrients and weeds in a corn–cabbage rotation. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems 1-11. [CrossRef]
23. Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S. Gimeno. 2013. Managing soil carbon
for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 168, 25-36. [CrossRef]
24. Joris Aertsens, Leo De Nocker, Anne Gobin. 2013. Valuing the carbon sequestration potential for
European agriculture. Land Use Policy 31, 584-594. [CrossRef]
25. Robert M. Rees, John A. Baddeley, Anne Bhogal, Bruce C. Ball, David R. Chadwick, Michael Macleod,
Allan Lilly, Valentini A. Pappa, Rachel E. Thorman, Christine A. Watson, John R. Williams. 2013.
Nitrous oxide mitigation in UK agriculture. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 59:1, 3-15. [CrossRef]
26. R.S. Dhillon, George von Wuehlisch. 2013. Mitigation of global warming through renewable biomass.
Biomass and Bioenergy 48, 75-89. [CrossRef]
27. Juan Infante Amate, Manuel González de Molina. 2013. ‘Sustainable de-growth’ in agriculture and food:
an agro-ecological perspective on Spain’s agri-food system (year 2000). Journal of Cleaner Production 38,
27-35. [CrossRef]
28. H.L. Tuomisto, I.D. Hodge, P. Riordan, D.W. Macdonald. 2012. Does organic farming reduce
environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of Environmental Management
112, 309-320. [CrossRef]
29. K. Refsgaard, H. Bergsdal, H. Berglann, J. Pettersen. 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions from life cycle
assessment of Norwegian food production systems. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal
Science 62:4, 336-346. [CrossRef]
30. Johannes Kahl, Aneta Załęcka, Angelika Ploeger, Susanne Bügel, Machteld Huber. 2012. Functional Food
and Organic Food are Competing Rather than Supporting Concepts in Europe. Agriculture 2:4, 316-324.
[CrossRef]
31. Niels Halberg. 2012. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of organic farming: Definitions,
indicators and the major challenges. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 92:6, 981-996. [CrossRef]
32. Ann Verspecht, Valerie Vandermeulen, Erik Ter Avest, Guido Van Huylenbroeck. 2012. Review of trade-
offs and co-benefits from greenhouse gas mitigation measures in agricultural production. Journal of
Integrative Environmental Sciences 9:sup1, 147-157. [CrossRef]
33. A. Gattinger, A. Muller, M. Haeni, C. Skinner, A. Fliessbach, N. Buchmann, P. Mader, M. Stolze, P.
Smith, N. E.-H. Scialabba, U. Niggli. 2012. Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:44, 18226-18231. [CrossRef]
34. H.L. Tuomisto, I.D. Hodge, P. Riordan, D.W. Macdonald. 2012. Comparing global warming potential,
energy use and land use of organic, conventional and integrated winter wheat production. Annals of Applied
Biology 161:2, 116-126. [CrossRef]
35. Kumar Venkat. 2012. Comparison of Twelve Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: A Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Perspective. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 36:6, 620-649. [CrossRef]
36. H.L. Tuomisto, I.D. Hodge, P. Riordan, D.W. Macdonald. 2012. Comparing energy balances, greenhouse
gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses. Agricultural
Systems 108, 42-49. [CrossRef]

37. Jennifer M. Zumsteg, Joyce S. Cooper, Michael S. Noon. 2012. Systematic Review Checklist. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 16, S12-S21. [CrossRef]
38. Fabrice Larceneux, Florence Benoit-Moreau, Valérie Renaudin. 2012. Why Might Organic Labels Fail to
Influence Consumer Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects. Journal of Consumer Policy
35:1, 85-104. [CrossRef]
39. Derek Lynch, Rod MacRae, Ralph Martin. 2011. The Carbon and Global Warming Potential Impacts
of Organic Farming: Does It Have a Significant Role in an Energy Constrained World?. Sustainability
3:12, 322-362. [CrossRef]
40. Anne Holst Andersen. 2011. Organic food and the plural moralities of food provisioning. Journal of Rural
Studies 27:4, 440-450. [CrossRef]
41. Christine Hoefkens, Isabelle Sioen, Katleen Baert, Bruno De Meulenaer, Stefaan De Henauw, Isabelle
Vandekinderen, Frank Devlieghere, Anne Opsomer, Wim Verbeke, John Van Camp. 2010. Consuming
organic versus conventional vegetables: The effect on nutrient and contaminant intakes. Food and Chemical
Toxicology 48:11, 3058-3066. [CrossRef]
42. Marie Trydeman Knudsen, Qiao Yu-Hui, Luo Yan, Niels Halberg. 2010. Environmental assessment of
organic soybean (Glycine max.) imported from China to Denmark: a case study. Journal of Cleaner
Production 18:14, 1431-1439. [CrossRef]
43. Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Ottmar Holdenrieder, Mike J. Jeger, Marco Pautasso. 2010. Structural
change in the international horticultural industry: Some implications for plant health. Scientia
Horticulturae 125:1, 1-15. [CrossRef]
44. Guido van Huylenbroek, Eline de Backer, Joris Aertsens, Sofie Vergucht, Walter Steurbaut. 2009.
Assessing the ecological soundness of organic and conventional agriculture by means of life cycle
assessment (LCA). British Food Journal 111, 1028-1061. [CrossRef]

A Meta-Analysis of The Differences in Environmental Impacts Between Organic and Conventional Farming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Meta-Analysis of The Differences in Environmental Impacts Between Organic and Conventional Farming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Meta-Analysis of The Differences in Environmental Impacts Between Organic and Conventional Farming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Food Journal

A meta‐analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

(1) All studies addressing a common question or hypothesis are collected.

Land use efficiency

Organic matter content in the soil

Nitrate leaching N n No weighting Fixed effect Q Random effect CI

General (kg/ha) 14 116 0.703 0.745 76.7 * (36.6) 0.679 0.53-0.87

Nitrate leaching N n No weighting Fixed effect Q Random effect CI

General (kg/ha) 6 59 0.612 0.670 9.62 (15.50) / 0.51-0.88 Table IV.

1106 Phosphorous leaching

Greenhouse gas emission

For a definition of biodiversity we refer to UN (1992). More biodiversity positively

Discussion and conclusion

sustainability is such a site-specific, individualistic, dynamic concept, that arguing that

Arnqvist, G. and Wooster, D. (1995), “Meta-analysis – synthesizing research findings in ecology

sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and

Appendix. References used in the meta-analysis

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Systems 108, 42-49. [CrossRef]

You might also like