Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:01:08.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The transition to organic agriculture: A multi-year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2009

Stephan Dabbert  and
Patrick Madden
Stephan Dabbert
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, 105 Weaver Building, University Park, PA 16802.
Patrick Madden
Affiliation:
Professor of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, 105 Weaver Building, University Park, PA 16802.
Get access

Abstract

Prior research has shown that an established organic farm can be as profitable as a conventional farm under certain circumstances. However, organic farming systems often require a transition period before they are fully established after a changeover from conventional farming. Yields may decrease and recover only slowly during this transition period and less profitable crop rotations may be required to establish an organic system. Previous studies have ignored the income trend during the transition phase, and comparisons of organic and conventional farms have been faulted for lack of similarity in management and other resources. The study reported here used a multi-year simulation model to investigate the trend in income of a 117-hectare crop-livestock farm in Pennsylvania (called the Kutztown farm) during this transition process. A baseline model of the Kutztown farm under conventional management (CONB) was found to earn an income (returns over cash operating cost) of $61,900. The transitional models developed were an upper-yield case assuming no yield decline during the transition (TRANS) and a lower-yield case assuming severe yield decline in the first year after the change-over from conventional management and a subsequent linear recovery of yields over a three-year period (TRANS-L). Income was found to be severely depressed by a yield decline during the transitional phase. The first year of TRANS-L resulted in a 43% reduction in income. The scenario without a yield decline (TRANS) resulted in a 13% lower income compared to the baseline (CONB) model. Both transitional models led to an established organic situation with stable organic yields and an income of $57,400 or 7% less than under conventional management. It was found to be more profitable to sell the crops and purchase manure than to feed the crops to beef in a fattening enterprise. At small herd sizes (100 head) the reduction in income caused by the feeding operation was moderate ($1,300), but with a larger operation (213 head) the income sacrifice increased tenfold.

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , Summer 1986 , pp. 99 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Aubert, C. 1981. Organischer Landbau (translated from French to German). Ulmer, Stuttgart, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
2.Culik, M. N., McAllister, J. C., Palada, M. C., and Rieger, S.. 1983. The Kutztown farm report: A study of a low-input crop/livestock farm. Regenerative Ag. Tech. Bulletin, Rodale Research Center, Kutztown, PA.Google Scholar
3.Dabbert, S. 1986. A dynamic simulation model of the transition from conventional to organic farming. Unpublished M.S. thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
4.Diercks, R. 1983. Alternativen in Landbau. Eine kritische Gesamtbilanz. Ulmer, Stuttgart, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
5.Domanico, J. L. 1985. Income effects of limiting soil erosion under alternative farm management systems: A simulation and optimization analysis of a Pennsylvania crop and livestock farm. Unpublished M.S. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
6.Domanico, J. L., Madden, P., and Partenheimer, E. J.. 1986. Income effects of limiting soil erosion under organic, conventional, and no-till systems in eastern Pennsylvania. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1(2):75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Grimm, G. 1984. Plan zur Umstellung eines Weingutes auf eine ökologische Wirtschaftsweise. Diplomarbeit, Gesamthochschule Kassel, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
8.Grosch, P. 1985. Betriebswirtschaft. In: Ratgeber für den biologischen Landbau. Siebeneicher, G. E. (ed.), Südwest Verlag, München, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
9.Hodges, R. D. 1978. The case for biological agriculture. Ecologist Quarterly (Summer):122–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Kilkenny, M. R. 1984. An economic analysis of biological nitrogen fixation in a fanning system of southeast Minnesota. Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
11.Koepf, H. H., Petersson, B. D., and Schaumann, W.. 1976. Biodynamic Agriculture—An Introduction. Spring Valley, NY.Google Scholar
12.Kulow, J. 1984. Über die Umstellung des elterlichen landwirtschaftlichen Betriebes auf die organisch-biologische Wirtschaftsweise, unter besonderer Berüchsichtigung des Austauschs der Schweinezucht gegen ein Milchschafhaltung. Diplomarbeit, Gesamthochschule Kassel, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
13.Lazarus, W. F., Hoffman, L. D., Partenheimer, E. J.. 1980. Economic comparison of selected cropping systems in Pennsylvania cash crop and dairy farms with highly productive land. The Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, University Park, PA. Bulletin 828.Google Scholar
14.Madden, J. P. 1984. Regenerative agriculture: Beyond organic and sustainable food production. The Farm and Food System in Transition, FS 33, Michigan State Univ. Press, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
15.Oelhaf, R. C. 1978. Organic Agriculture—Economic and Ecological Comparisons with Conventional Methods, Allenheld and Osmun, Montclair, NJ.Google Scholar
16.Penn State Agronomy Guide. 1985–1986. College of Agriculture Extension Service, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
17.Preuschen, G. 1985. Die Alternative für den vorausschauenden Landwirt: Umstellung auf ökologischen Landbau. Ackerwirtschaft 1: Der Aufbau der Bodengesundheit. Stiftung Ökologischer Landbau, Kaiserslautern, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
18.Scharf, A. 1981–1982. Über die Umstellung eines landwirtschaftlichen Gemischtbetriebes auf die biologische Wirtschaftsweise. Diplomarbeit, Gesamthochschule Kassel, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
19.Thimm, C. 1984. Ökologischer Betriebsentwicklungsplan: Die Umstellung auf ökologischen Landbau. In: Ökologie und Landwirtschaft, Landbau, Stiftung Ökologischer (ed.), Verlag Günther Hartmann, Kiel, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
20.U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report and recommendations on organic farming. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
21.Vogtmann, H. 1984. Organic farming practices and research in Europe. In: Organic Farming and Its Role in Sustainable Agriculture, Bezdicek, D. F. and Power, J. F. (eds.), pp. 27–38. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
22.Zerger, U. 1984. Über die Umstellung eines landwirtschaftlichen Betriebes auf die organisch-biologische Wirtschaftsweise unter besonderer Berücksichtigung unterschiedlicher Intensitätsstufen. Diplomarbeit, Gesamthochschule Kassel, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar