There Is No Need to Poison Our Food – Higher Yields in Regenerative and Organic Agriculture Based on the Science of Agroecology

Introduction

Toxic synthetic pesticides and soluble chemical fertilizers are damaging our health and harming the environment. They significantly contribute to the rise of chronic diseases, the decline of insects, birds, and other species, as well as widespread pollution, algae blooms in our streams and rivers, and dead zones in the oceans. This is justified on the notion that without poisoning our food and environment, we would starve.

This is a mythology created through ongoing misinformation campaigns by the poison cartels, their captive media, researchers, academics, and regulators. This article clearly shows that we can produce more food that is healthier without these toxic, degenerative inputs.

Regeneration International is an international network of more than 680 partner organizations in 80 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania, North America, and Europe. Our Mission:

To promote, facilitate, and accelerate the global transition to regenerative food, farming, and land management for the purpose of restoring climate stability, ending world hunger, and rebuilding deteriorated social, ecological, and economic systems.

We use the term “Regenerative and Organic agriculture based on the science of Agroecology” to describe nature-based farming systems, distinguishing them from degenerative industrial agriculture.

These systems adopt practices like longer rotations, cover crops, green manures, legumes, compost, and organic fertilizers to increase Soil Organic Matter (SOM). These methods include organic farming, biodynamics, natural farming, agroforestry, agroecology, permaculture, holistic managed grazing, silvopasture, syntropic farming, SRI (the system of rice intensification), and many other agricultural approaches that can enhance SOM levels. SOM is a key indicator of soil health because soils with low SOM are considered unhealthy and tend to produce poor crops.

Yields

The Rodale Institute’s 40-Year-Report on their Farming Systems Trial should end the myth that we need to poison our food, bodies, and environment with toxic pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and GMOs to feed the world. Rodale’s scientific trials clearly show that these degenerative systems are inferior to Regenerative Organic Agriculture on every key criterion. (Rodale 2022)

The Farming Systems Trial demonstrated that organic manure systems using either standard or limited tillage had higher levels of SOM and greater crop yields compared to GMO herbicide no-till and standard industrial farming systems. The trials achieved the highest maize yields in the tilled organic manure system, with the greatest increases in SOM occurring where the organic manure system used limited tillage. The limited tillage field was tilled every second year. Importantly, 40 years of research show that organic maize yields have been 31 percent higher than those of industrial farming systems during drought years.

Rice Production

The following section demonstrates that rice production and profitability can increase through regenerative and organic agriculture, rooted in the science of agroecology.

A research project conducted in the Philippines by MASIPAG found that the yields of organic rice were similar to those of industrial systems. Very significantly, the research project compared the income of similarly sized industrial and organic farms and found that the average income for organic farms was 23,599 Pesos, compared to 15,643 Pesos for the industrial farms (Bachman et al. 2009).

Improved Organic Productivity: Mean yield of rice, 2007 (kg/ha), n=840

	Masipag Organic	Masipag Conversion	Chemical Farming
Luzon	3,743	3,436	3,851
Visayas	2,683	2,470	2,626
Mindanao	3,767	3,864	4,131
Maximum	8,710	10,400	8,070

Improved income from organic farm: Net agricultural income per hectare, 2007 (Pesos)

	Masipag Organic	Masipag Conversion	Chemical Farming
Luzon	24,412	18,991	13,403
Visayas	22,868	16,039	13,738
Mindanao	23,715	17,362	19,588
Average	23,599	17,457	15,643

Improved income from organic farm: Annual Balance of Income and Expenditure per Household, 2007 (in Pesos), n=840

	Masipag Organic	Masipag Conversion	Chemical Farming
Luzon	11,331	9,702	-1,266
Visayas	-1,090	287	-4,974
Mindanao	5,481	-232	-7,546
Mean Average	5,967	3,407	-4,546

While the rice yields are similar, the most significant information that came from this study was when the normal family living expenses were deducted from the net income. It showed that at the end of the year, on average, the organic rice farmers have a surplus income of 5,967 pesos, whereas the industrial rice farmers had a loss of 4,546 pesos.

System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

The advancements in the science and practices of the System of Rice Intensification are yielding impressive results that surpass the average yields for chemical paddy rice. Professor Norman Uphoff of Cornell University, one of the world’s leading experts in SRI methods, provides multiple examples of high yields:

Crop Productivity Increases

The combined changes in crop management result in plant phenotypes that produce greater crop yields and exhibit more resilience to stresses. Rice yields are improved by 20-50%, and often by more (Uphoff 2012). Better grain quality often commands a higher market price, and when the rice is organically grown, its price can be even higher.

Professor Uphoff states, “However, in the 2011 kharif season in the Indian state of Bihar, five first-time SRI farmers in one village (using hybrid varieties) matched or exceeded the previous world-record yield for paddy of 19 tons/ha. According to Bihar Department of Agriculture data, one achieved a yield of 22.4 tons/ha, almost ten times the average paddy yield for the state. The dry weight was an unprecedented 20.16 tons/ha [48]. These measurements, made with standard methods and with hundreds of observers looking on, have been officially accepted.”

Professor Uphoff further states:“SRI methods have often enabled poor farmers to double, triple or even quadruple their yields, not just individually but on a village level, without having to purchase new varieties or agrochemical inputs [49–52]. Such resource-limited farmers started at very low levels of production, it is true. But for them, to go from 1 ton per hectare to 4 tons, or from 2 tons to 8 tons, without added costs of production, makes a huge difference in their food security and well-being. For the 2011 kharif season, the Bihar Department of Agriculture in India has calculated an average SRI yield of 8.08 tons/ha on 335,000 hectares across all 38 districts of the state. This was more than three times the state-wide average of 2.5 tons/ha.”

SRI produces roughly twice the yields with organic fertilizers compared to chemical fertilizers, averaging 7 tons per hectare versus 3.5 tons per hectare.

Professor Uphoff provides the following examples of the multiple benefits that come from SRI

Increased Income

Whether the production costs and labor requirements for SRI methods are higher, equal to, or lower than those in industrial rice production will depend on current practices, the degree of intensification, and the types of changes needed to implement SRI practices (Thakur et al. 2013). Significantly higher yields increase both labor and input factor productivity with SRI,

boosting farmers’ income from rice in most cases by 50% or more with SRI adoption across all three of the scenarios noted above (Thakur et al. 2013; Kathikeyan et al. 2010; Uphoff 2016).

Reduced water requirements and greater drought resistance:

SRI plants thrive with 30-50% less irrigation water compared to continuously flooded rice. Reduced competition among plants, combined with aerated and organic matter-enriched soils, promotes healthier plants both above and below ground. These plants develop larger, deeper, and less-senescing root systems that are better equipped to withstand drought and extreme temperatures. Additionally, organic matter-enriched soils can retain more water and nutrients (Jagannath et al. 2013; Zheng et al. 2013; Barison and Uphoff 2011; Sridevi and Chellamuthu 2012; Chapagain et al. 2011; FAO 2005).

Higher pest and disease resistance:

Stronger and healthier rice plants are less susceptible to pests and diseases. Due to the much lower plant density in SRI, less humidity accumulates within the plant canopy, allowing air to circulate more freely among the plants. This creates a less favorable environment for pests and diseases compared to densely-planted and continuously-flooded industrial rice paddies (Karthikeyan et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2007; Visalakshmi et al. 2014).

Caption to picture above: Resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses based on alternative crop management: two adjacent rice paddy fields in Crawuk village, Ngawi district, East Java, Indonesia, after both were impacted by a brown planthopper (BPH) attack followed by a tropical storm in June 2011. The paddy field on the left, planted with an improved rice variety (Ciherang) and utilizing inorganic fertilizer and agrochemical protection, produced almost no yield due to BPH burn and lodging. In contrast, the field on the right, 1,000 m2 in area, planted with an aromatic unimproved variety (Sinantur) and employing organic SRI management, yielded 800 kg, or 8 tons/ha. This picture was provided to the author by Ms. Miyatty Jannah, the farmer who managed the field on the right. Source: (Uphoff 2012)

 

Greater resistance to rain and wind damage from storms.

As SRI plants exhibit thicker tillers and deeper roots, and are spaced more widely, they have been shown to withstand strong rains and winds better than industrial paddy rice. A study in Japan reported that during a storm event, 10% of SRI fields lodged compared to 55% of an adjacent industrially managed field (Chapagain et al. 2011).

SRI Mitigates Greenhouse Gas Emissions

SRI management contributes to mitigation objectives by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when continuous flooding of paddy soils is halted and other rice-growing practices are modified. Methane (CH₄) emissions decrease by 22% to 64% as intermittent irrigation (or alternate wetting and drying, AWD) provides soils with more time under aerobic conditions (Gathorne-Hardy et al. 2013, 2016; Choi et al. 2015; Jain et al. 2014; Suryavanshi et al. 2013; Wang 2006; Dill et al. 2013).

Regenerative Grazing

68% of the world’s agricultural lands are rangelands that are mostly unsuitable for cropping, as tillage severely erodes soils. These ecosystems have been traditionally managed by pastoralists. They currently support over 2 billion people and are among the most degraded agroecosystems on the planet.

Many systems, known by different names, fall under the heading of regenerative grazing, such as AMP grazing, cell grazing, mob grazing, rotational grazing, and Holistic Planned Grazing.

Allan Savory is the leading pioneer of regenerative grazing. He developed the Holistic Planned Grazing method, which is still used today, and inspired many other regenerative grazing systems. This method, which employs livestock grazing to restore biodiversity, has consistently proven successful on every continent with arable land for over fifty years.

Allan understood that this was the solution for restoring rangelands. While overgrazing occurs when animals graze too long and are moved before the ecosystem can recover, grazing animals briefly, if given enough time for vegetation to recover, mimics natural herding systems and boosts biodiversity. Even a low stocking density of animals that constantly browse their preferred species can damage plants because they never get a chance to recover. (Butterfield, J., Bingham, S., and Savory, A. 2006)

Researchers found that the adoption of regenerative agriculture systems produced considerable ecological and biodiversity benefits. “Incorporating forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed agroecosystems can elevate soil organic C [SOM], improve soil ecological function by minimizing the damage of tillage and inorganic fertilizers and biocides, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat. We conclude that to ensure long-term sustainability and ecological resilience of agroecosystems, agricultural production should be guided by policies and regenerative management protocols that include ruminant grazing.” (Teague et al. 2016)

Researchers using regenerative grazing practices in the southeastern United States stated that it increased “…cation exchange and water holding capacity by 95% and 34%, respectively. Thus, within a decade of management-intensive grazing practices soil C [SOM] levels returned to those of native forest soils, and likely decreased fertilizer and irrigation demands. Emerging land uses, such as management-intensive grazing, may offer a rare win–win strategy combining profitable food production with rapid improvement of soil quality and short-term climate mitigation through soil C-accumulation.” (Machmuller et al. 2015)

These regenerated grazing lands showed notable improvements in SOM, soil fertility, water retention, and biodiversity, enabling support for more livestock and improving the well-being of local communities. (Teague et al. 2011)

Allan Savory has made a significant contribution to this effort. He founded the Savory Institute, now based in Denver, Colorado; the Africa Centre for Holistic Management near Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe; and Holistic Management International, headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. These organizations work with ranchers and farmers worldwide to expand Holistic Planned Grazing across every continent. As of now, there are 54 “Savory Hubs” in 30 countries, with 203 accredited professionals who have trained 15,755 land managers on 55 million acres (22 million hectares) of land.

Traditional Small Holder Farmer Yields

Most of the 3 billion people who earn a living from agriculture farm on 5 acres (2 hectares) or less and live in extreme poverty. 80 years of industrial agriculture haven’t improved their situation. Research shows that traditional smallholder farming systems see higher yields when they use well-practiced organic methods. Significant yield gains can be achieved by teaching these farmers to adopt science-based regenerative organic practices into their traditional techniques, including:

• Improved soil nutrition through the recycling of soil organic matter (SOM) and proper mineral balance.
• Improved pest and disease control
• Water use efficiency, especially increasing soil organic matter
• Better weed control methods
• Eco-function intensification: increasing the diversity of systems

This is very important information because the overwhelming majority of the world’s farmers fall into this category. A report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which reviewed 114 projects in Africa covering 2 million hectares and 1.9 million farmers, found that organic agriculture increases yields in Africa. ‘…the average crop yield was … 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa.’ (UNEP-UNCTAD, 2008).

The report notes that despite the introduction of industrial agriculture in Africa, food production per person is now 10% lower than it was in the 1960s. ‘The evidence presented in this study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most industrial production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.’ Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary General of UNCTAD and Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP stated. (UNEP-UNCTAD, 2008). 

Eco-functional Intensification (EFI)

Eco-functional intensification (EFI) enhances ecosystem services by leveraging functional biodiversity. These regenerative organic systems rely on ecological processes rather than chemical intensification. EFI involves applying the science of agroecology to actively boost biodiversity in agricultural systems to provide ecosystem services, instead of using the industrial approach that depends on reductionist monocultures and externally sourced toxic synthetic inputs.

The Push–Pull method in maize exemplifies an innovative EFI approach that combines various ecological factors to significantly boost yields. This is important because maize is a primary food source for smallholder farmers across many parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Corn stem borers are among the most damaging pests for maize. Industrial agriculture often depends on toxic synthetic pesticides to manage these pests. Recently, it has also begun to use genetically engineered varieties that produce their own pesticides. The Push-Pull system was developed by scientists in Kenya at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Rothamsted Research in the UK, along with other partners.

Silver Leaf Desmodium is planted in the crop to repel stem borers and to attract the natural enemies of the pest. The Desmodium releases phenolic compounds that repel the stem borer moth. Its root exudates also inhibit the growth of many weed species, including Striga, a serious parasitic weed of maize. The ability of functional biodiversity to suppress weeds while benefiting the cash crop is part of an emerging ecological science called selective allelopathy.

Napier grass is planted outside of the field as a trap crop for the stem borer. The Desmodium repels (pushes) the pests from the maize, and the Napier grass attracts (pulls) the stem borers out of the field to lay their eggs in it instead of the maize. The sharp silica hairs on the Napier grass also kill the stem borer larvae when they hatch, breaking the life cycle and reducing pest numbers.

High yields are not the only advantages. The system does not need synthetic nitrogen because Desmodium is a legume that fixes nitrogen. Soil erosion is prevented by a permanent ground cover. Importantly, the system offers quality fodder for livestock. One farmer innovation to enhance this system has been to systematically harvest the edges of Napier grass and Desmodium to use as fresh fodder for animals. Livestock can also graze the field after the maize is harvested. Many Push-Pull farmers include a dairy cow in the system and sell excess milk to create a steady income.

Push-Pull has been adapted to work with numerous other crops such as millet, sorghum, wheat, vegetables, and fruit trees. 

Tigray, Ethiopia – Biogas and Higher Crop Yields

A notable example of eco-functional intensification is a project led by the Institute of Sustainable Development in Tigray, Ethiopia. They partnered with farmers to revegetate the land and restore the local ecology and water systems. The biomass produced from this revegetation was then sustainably harvested to make compost and supply biogas digesters.

Revegetating marginal areas like watercourses, gullies, steep slopes, roadsides, laneways, and field borders, along with sustainably harvesting biomass, provides a consistent source of nutrients beyond those produced by good regenerative organic practices in the fields. This is especially crucial for building soil fertility and replacing nutrients lost when crops are exported from the farm. When combined with functional biodiversity—such as deep-rooted legumes for nitrogen fixation, host plants for natural enemies of pest species, and taller plants as windbreaks—these revegetated marginal areas deliver a variety of valuable ecosystem services.

The use of biogas provided significant energy independence for the villages by supplying all the gas needed for cooking and lighting, while also reducing the need to cut down vegetation for fires. The compost residues from the biogas digesters were applied to the crop fields. As a result, over several years, yields increased by more than 100%, and water use efficiency improved, transforming communities that faced periodic famines—causing suffering and loss, especially among children—into areas of prosperity and well-being.

Better Pest and Disease Resistance

The farmers also discovered that the systems using compost exhibited greater resistance to pests and diseases in the crops.

The field on the left side was treated with compost and did not suffer from rust. The field on the right side, which was treated with chemical fertilizers, suffers from rust.

The chemical fertilizer field needed to be sprayed with fungicides and produced 1.6 tons of wheat per hectare.

Wheat treated with compost resisted rust and produced 6.5 tons per hectare.

The farmers used seeds from their own landraces, which had been developed over thousands of years to adapt locally to the climate, soil, and major pests and diseases. The best of these farmer-bred varieties demonstrated a strong ability to produce high yields under regenerative organic conditions. A key benefit of this system was that the seeds and compost were sourced locally at little or no cost to the farmers, whereas seeds and synthetic chemical inputs in industrial systems had to be purchased. Not only did the organic system yield higher returns, but it also provided better overall net gains for the farmers. (Edwards et al. 2011)

 Multiple studies show high yields and positive environmental effects.

The above examples show that the assumption that greater inputs of synthetic chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides are needed to increase food yields is not accurate. In a study published in The Living Land, Professor Pretty looked at projects in seven industrialized countries of Europe and North America. ‘Farmers are finding that they can cut their inputs of costly pesticides and fertilisers substantially, varying from 20-80%, and be financially better off. Yields do fall to begin with (by 10-15% typically), but there is compelling evidence that they soon rise and go on increasing. In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher yields than industrial farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment.’ (Pretty, 1999).

Regenerative, organic, and agroecological farming systems have often been overlooked by the scientific research community; however, this is changing as studies show these systems can produce yields equal to or higher than those of industrial agriculture. Below are numerous examples of research into these systems that demonstrate high yields and positive environmental effects.

 US Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Pecan Trial

The ARS organically managed pecans outperformed the industrially managed, chemically fertilized, and pesticide-contaminated orchard over the past five years. Yields at ARS’s organic test site exceeded those of the industrial orchard by 18 pounds of pecans per tree in 2005 and by 12 pounds per tree in 2007. (Bradford J.M., 2008)

The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials

The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials found that organic yields were higher during drought years and comparable to industrial yields in normal weather years.

In years with wet spring weather, organic yields can decline when mechanical weeding is delayed, leading to a 10% drop. This problem can be fixed by using steam or vinegar instead of tillage for weed control.

The researchers attributed the higher yields during dry years to the soil of organic farms being able to absorb rainfall more quickly. This is because of the increased levels of SOM, which make soils more friable and better at storing and capturing rain. (Posner et al., 2008)

The Rodale Institute’s 40-Year Report on their Farming Systems Trial

The Rodale Institute’s 40-Year-Report on their Farming Systems Trial should dispel the myth of toxic GMO herbicide no-till systems. Rodale’s scientific trials clearly demonstrate that these degenerative no-till methods are worse than Regenerative Organic Agriculture on every major point. Very significantly, 40 years of research show that organic maize yields have been 31 percent higher than industrial/industrial farming systems in drought years. (Rodale 2022)

Scientific Review by Cornell University of the Rodale Field Study

The scientific review found:

• The improved soil allowed the organic land to generate yields equal to or greater than those of the industrial crops after 5 years
• The yield of the industrial crops collapsed during drought years.
• The organic crops fluctuated only slightly during drought years, due to greater water-holding capacity in the enriched soil.
• The organic crops used 30% less fossil energy inputs than the industrial crops, resulting in significant cost savings. (Pimentel et al., 2005).

Rodale Organic Low/No Till

The Rodale Institute has been trialing a range of organic low tillage and no tillage systems. The 2006 trials resulted in organic yields of 160 bushels an acre (bu/ac) compared to the County average of 130 bu/ac. ‘..the average corn yield of the two organic no-till production fields was 160 bu/ac, while the no-till research field plots averaged 146 bu/ac over 24 plots. The standard-till organic production field yielded 143 bu/ac, while the Farming Systems Trial’s (FST’s) standard-till organic plots yielded 139 bu/ac in the manure system (which received compost but no vetch N inputs) and 132 bu/ac in the legume system (which received vetch but no compost). At the same time, the FST’s non-organic standard-till field yielded 113 bu/ac…To compare, the Berks County average non-organic corn yield for 2006 was 130 bu/ac, and the average yield for Southeastern Pennsylvania was 147 bu/ac’ (Rodale, 2006).

Maize is planted into vetch that has been crushed with a roller. This organic no-till maize produced 160 bushels per acre (bu/ac), surpassing the county average of 130 bu/ac.

Iowa Trials

The results from the Long-Term Agroecological Research (LTAR), a 12-year collaborative effort between producers and researchers led by Dr. Kathleen Delate of Iowa State University, show that organic systems can produce yields equal to or higher than industrial systems. Consistent with several other studies, the data indicated that although organic systems had lower yields at first, by year four, they began to outperform the industrial crops. Across all rotations, organic corn harvests averaged 130 bushels per acre, while industrial corn yielded 112 bushels per acre. Similarly, organic soybean yield was 45 bu/ac compared to the industrial yield of 40 bu/ac in the fourth year. (Delate, 2010)

Overview by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

FAO conducted an extensive study of global trends in scientific literature. They found significant evidence of substantial increases in yields in regenerative, organic, and agroecological systems.

The section below is based on quotes from their document:

The Main benefits

The main benefit of implementing improved cropland management practices is expected to be higher and more stable yields, increased system resilience and, therefore, enhanced livelihoods and food security, and reduced production risk (Conant 2010; Vallis et al. 1996; Pan et al. 2006; Woodfine 2009; Thomas 2008).

Cover Crops

Use of cover crops is reported to lead to higher yields due to decreased on-farm erosion and nutrient leaching, and reduced grain losses due to pest attacks. For example: Kaumbutho et al. (2007) showed that maize yield increased from 1.2 to 1.8-2.0 t/ha in Kenya with the use of mucuna (Velvet Bean) cover crop; Olaye et al. (2007) showed that there was a significant yield loss of about 31.4-42.4% in the long run and 36.7-48.5% in the short run for continuous maize planting compared to maize cropped using different cover crop types—Cajanus spp. (e.g. Pigeon pea) and mucuna; Pretty (2000) showed that farmers who adopted mucuna cover cropping benefited from higher yields of maize with less labour input for weeding (maize following mucuna yields 3-4 t/ha without application of nitrogen fertiliser, similar to yields normally obtained with recommended levels of fertilisation at 130 kgN/ha); Altieri (2001) reported that maize yields in Brazil increased by 198-246% with the use of cover crops. 

Crop rotations

Crop rotations and intercropping designed to ensure differential nutrient uptake and use – e.g. between crops, such as millet and sorghum and Nitrogen-fixing crops, such as groundnuts, beans and cowpeas – will enhance soil fertility, reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers, and enrich nutrient supply to subsequent crops (Conant 2010), leading to increased crop yields (Woodfine 2009). For example, Hine and Pretty (2008) showed that in the North Rift and western regions of Kenya maize yields increased to 3,414 kg/ha (71% increase in yields) and bean yields to 258 kg/ha (158% increase in yields); Hodtke et al. (undated), as cited by Parrot and Marsden (2002), report that, in Brazil, intercropping maize with legumes led to increases in both grain yield and total nitrogen content by 100%.

Increased crop yields after a fallow period have been widely reported (Agboola 1980; Hamid et al. 1984; Saleen and Otsyina 1986; Prinz 1987; Palm et al. 1988; Conant 2010), although the magnitude of yield increment after each successive fallow is variable, and bare fallow may increase soil erosion risk.

Improved Crop Varieties

The use of improved crop varieties is expected to increase average yields because of the greater seed diversity of the same crop. For example, Pretty (2000) showed that introduction of new varieties of crops (vegetables) and trees (fruits) increases yields in Ethiopia by 60%; the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT 2008) showed that the average yield increase due to the introduction of new bean varieties in seven African countries was 44% in 2004-2005, although the gains varied widely across countries, ranging from 2% in Malawi to 137% in western Kenya.

Adopting Organic Fertilization

Adopting organic fertilization (compost and animal manure) is widely found to have positive effects on the yields. For example, Hine and Pretty (2008) showed that maize yields increased by 100% (from 2 to 4 t/ha) in Kenya; Parrot and Marsden (2002) showed that millet yields increased by 75-195% (from 0.3 to 0.6-1 t/ha) and groundnut by 100-200% (from 0.3 to 0.6-0.9 t/ha) in Senegal; and Scialabba and Hattam (2002) showed that potato yields increased by 250-375% (from 4 to 10-15 t/ha) in Bolivia. Altieri (2001) quotes several examples from Latin America where adoption of organic fertilization and composting led to increases in maize/wheat yields between 198-250% (Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras) and in coffee yield by 140% (in Mexico); Edwards (2000) showed that in the Tigray province of Ethiopia, composting led to yield increases compared to chemically fertilized plots: barley (+9%), wheat (+20%), maize (+7%), teff (+107%), and finger millet (+3%); Rist (2000), as cited in Parrott and Marsden (2002), reports that farmers in Bolivia increased potato yields by 20% using organic fertilizers. Also, enhancing inputs of nitrogen through nitrogen-fixing plants that are not harvested (green manure) is key to maximizing production and ensuring long- term sustainability of agricultural systems (Fageria 2007; Hansen et al. 2007). For example, Kwesiga et al. (2003) showed that in Zambia, including Sesbania sesban (an indigenous nitrogen-fixing tree) fallow in rotation led to increases in yields for maize with respect to continuous cropping. Maize yields increased from 6.75 to 7.16 and 7.57 t/ha following 1, 2 and 3 years fallow, showing that short leguminous fallow rotations of 1-3 years have the potential to increase maize yields even without fertilizers, thanks to the nitrogen-fixation capacity and mineralization of the belowground root system.

Increasing the proportion of nutrients retained in the soil – e.g. through mulching and limiting nutrient leaching – is also expected to have positive effects on crop yields (Smolikowski et al. 1997; Conant 2010; Silvertown et al. 2006). For example, Lal (1987) reported yield increases by incorporating residue mulch of rice husks (about 6 t/ha) on different crops—from 3.0 to 3.7 t/ha on maize, 0.6 to 1.1 t/ha on cowpea, 0.6 to 0.8 t/ha on soybean, 16.4 to 28.3 t/ha on cassava and 10.7 to 17.9 t/ha on yam. Also, soil water contents are generally higher under mulch cover (Unger et al. 1991; Arshad et al. 1997; Barros and Hanks 1993; Scopel et al. 2004).

Conclusion

Regenerative and organic agriculture based on agroecology science can help countries become self-sufficient in food, boost exports, create trade surpluses, and improve everyone’s economic well-being. These systems produce higher yields, especially during climate extremes like drought and heavy rainfall.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that pesticides are insufficiently tested for safety and are associated with many diseases impacting our society, especially in children. (Leu 2018)

Regenerative and organic agriculture, grounded in agroecology science, enhances yields in farming systems when combined with innovation and scientific expertise. Research indicates that organic and SRI systems yield greater rice outputs. A United Nations study has found that organic agriculture increases yields in traditional African systems by more than 100%. Additionally, other published scientific studies show that effective regenerative organic practices can achieve yields equal to or greater than those of industrial systems with proper management.

Regenerative and organic agriculture founded on agroecology science serves as a sustainable economic model because of its lower input costs. Most inputs for soil health and managing pests, diseases, and weeds can be produced on the farm or sourced locally at minimal or no expense. This removes the need for expensive imported synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Additionally, using organic matter to produce biogas not only promotes energy independence but also results in residues that can boost crop yields by over 100%.

References

Bachman L, Cruzada E, Wright S, (2009), Food Security and Farmer Empowerment, MASIPAG, 2611 Carbern Village, Anos Los Banos, Laguna 4000, Philippines, 2009, ISBN 078-971-94381-0-6

Branca G, McCarthy N, Lipper L and Jolejole M C, (2011) Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Synthesis of Empirical Evidence of Food Security and Mitigation Benefits from Improved Cropland Management, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)  December 2011

Bradford J.M. (2008), Organic Pecans: Another Option for Growers. November/December 2008, Agricultural Research magazine. US Agricultural Research Service (ARS). http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov08/pecans1108.htm?pf=1

Butterfield, J., Bingham, S., and Savory, A. (2006). Holistic Management Handbook:

Healthy Land, Healthy Profits. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Cacek T. and Langner L.L. (1986), The economic implications of organic farming, 1986, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 25-29. http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/AJAA/AJAA_2.htm

Delate K. and Cambardella C.A. (2004), Organic production: Agroecosystem performance during transition to certified organic grain production. Agronomy Journal, 2004, 96, pp. 1288-1298.

http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/8283/PDF

Delate K. (2010), Sources: http://www.twnside.org.sg, http://www.biosafety-info.net,

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/feb10/organic_corn_soybean_yields_exceed industrial.php

Drinkwater L. E., Wagoner P. & Sarrantonio M. (1998), Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature, 396, pp. 262-265. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6708/abs/396262a0.html

Edwards S., Egziabher T. & Araya H. (2011), Successes and Challenges in Ecological Agriculture: in Experiences from Tigray, Ethiopia, Eds. Lim L.C., Edwards S. and El-Hage Scialabba N., in Climate Change and Food Systems Resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, ISBN 978-92-5-106876-2. www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2230e/i2230e09.pdf

LaSalle T and Hepperly P (2008). Regenerative organic farming: A solution to global warming. The Rodale Institute, Kutztown, PA, USA, p 5.

Leu, Andre, (2018) Poisoning our Children, the parents’ guide to the myths of safe pesticides, Acres U.S.A. Greely, Colorado, USA 2018, ISBN 978-1-601-73140-1.

Lotter DW, Seidel R and Liebhart W (2003). The performance of organic and industrial cropping systems in an extreme climate year. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 18(3):146–154.

Machmuller MB, Kramer MG, Cyle TK, Hill N, Hancock D & Thompson A, 2015. Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter, Nature Communications 6, Article number: 6995 doi:10.1038/ncomms7995, Received 21 June 2014 Accepted 20 March 2015 Published 30 April 2015

Pimentel D. et al. (2005), Environmental, Energetic and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Industrial Farming Systems. Bioscience (Vol. 55:7). http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/02/20/Pimental_EnvironmentalEnergeticAndEconomicComparisonsOfOrganicAndIndustrialFarmingSystems.pdf

Posner et al. (2008), Organic and Industrial Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: II. Economic and Risk Analysis 1993–2006. Agronomy Journal, 100, pp. 253-260. http://wicst.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/pages-from-wicst-econ-aj2009.pdf

Pretty J, (1999), The Living Land – Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe, Earthscan, London. August 1999.

Rodale(2003), Farm Systems Trial, The Rodale Institute. http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years

Rodale (2006), No-Till Revolution, The Rodale Institute 611. http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/no-till_revolution

Rodale (2011) http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/about_us

Rodale 2022, Farming Systems Trial 40-YEAR REPORT, Rodale Institute, https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial, Accessed December 8, 2022

Teague, W.R., S.L. Dowhower, S.A. Baker, N. Haile, P.B. DeLaune, and D.M. Conover. (2011). Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 141:310-22.

10. R. Teague et al.,(2016) “The Role of Ruminants in Reducing Agriculture’s Carbon Footprint in North America,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 71, no. 2 (March/April 2016): 156–64, https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.2.156.

UNEP-UNCTAD (2008), Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, Sept 2008. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf

Uphoff N (20120, Supporting food security in the 21st century through resource-conserving increases in agricultural production. Agriculture & Food Security 1(18).