Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States
Land area devoted to organic agriculture has increased steadily over the last 20 years in the United States, and elsewhere around the world. A primary criticism of organic agriculture is lower yield compared to non-organic systems. Previous analyses documenting the yield deficiency in organic produc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.e0161673-e0161673 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0161673 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | e0161673 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Kniss, Andrew R Savage, Steven D Jabbour, Randa |
description | Land area devoted to organic agriculture has increased steadily over the last 20 years in the United States, and elsewhere around the world. A primary criticism of organic agriculture is lower yield compared to non-organic systems. Previous analyses documenting the yield deficiency in organic production have relied mostly on data generated under experimental conditions, but these studies do not necessarily reflect the full range of innovation or practical limitations that are part of commercial agriculture. The analysis we present here offers a new perspective, based on organic yield data collected from over 10,000 organic farmers representing nearly 800,000 hectares of organic farmland. We used publicly available data from the United States Department of Agriculture to estimate yield differences between organic and conventional production methods for the 2014 production year. Similar to previous work, organic crop yields in our analysis were lower than conventional crop yields for most crops. Averaged across all crops, organic yield averaged 67% of conventional yield [corrected]. However, several crops had no significant difference in yields between organic and conventional production, and organic yields surpassed conventional yields for some hay crops. The organic to conventional yield ratio varied widely among crops, and in some cases, among locations within a crop. For soybean (Glycine max) and potato (Solanum tuberosum), organic yield was more similar to conventional yield in states where conventional yield was greatest. The opposite trend was observed for barley (Hordeum vulgare), wheat (Triticum aestevum), and hay crops, however, suggesting the geographical yield potential has an inconsistent effect on the organic yield gap. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0161673 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1813621980</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A461410240</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_2d63ac6cd7254c25ab3feb0ce3b341b9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A461410240</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-638237305889ec75da24d92fa99a1f9b28dc01b46afe5e91ea6f25e28d1af2993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPlo0-ZGGAY_BhYGdl3Fq5Cmp52MbTIm6aL_3sxOd5nKXiy9SDl53jcnJ-ckyUuM5pgW-MPWDs7Ibr6zBuYIM8wK-ig5xZySGSOIPj76P0meeb9FKKclY0-TE1LkOSG4OE3U0vY9OKVlly6d3aU_NXS1Ty_gGmLoMjgwbdj4VJo6_QHylwHvwaeNdenatdJolS5ap9XQhcFBqk0aNpBeGR2gjnIZwD9PnjSy8_BiXM-Sq8-fvi2_zs7XX1bLxflMFSQPM0ZLQguK8rLkoIq8liSrOWkk5xI3vCJlrRCuMiYbyIFjkKwhOcQwlg3hnJ4lrw--u856MdbHC1xiygjmJYrE6kDUVm7Fzuleur_CSi1uAta1QrqgVQeC1IxKxVQdc8sUyWVFG6iQAlrRDFf70z6Opw1VD7UCE5zsJqbTHaM3orXXIuM8R6SMBu9GA2d_D-CD6LVX0HXSgB1u8uY4o4Sih6BZRDnNI_rmP_T-QoxUK-NdtWlsTFHtTcUiY9EMkWxPze-h4ldDr1Xsu0bH-ETwfiKITIA_oZWD92J1efFwdv19yr49YjexM2NL2m4I2ho_BbMDqJz13kFz9x4Yif3Y3FZD7MdGjGMTZa-O3_JOdDsn9B8yuxGF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1813621980</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Kniss, Andrew R ; Savage, Steven D ; Jabbour, Randa</creator><contributor>Shrestha, Anil</contributor><creatorcontrib>Kniss, Andrew R ; Savage, Steven D ; Jabbour, Randa ; Shrestha, Anil</creatorcontrib><description>Land area devoted to organic agriculture has increased steadily over the last 20 years in the United States, and elsewhere around the world. A primary criticism of organic agriculture is lower yield compared to non-organic systems. Previous analyses documenting the yield deficiency in organic production have relied mostly on data generated under experimental conditions, but these studies do not necessarily reflect the full range of innovation or practical limitations that are part of commercial agriculture. The analysis we present here offers a new perspective, based on organic yield data collected from over 10,000 organic farmers representing nearly 800,000 hectares of organic farmland. We used publicly available data from the United States Department of Agriculture to estimate yield differences between organic and conventional production methods for the 2014 production year. Similar to previous work, organic crop yields in our analysis were lower than conventional crop yields for most crops. Averaged across all crops, organic yield averaged 67% of conventional yield [corrected]. However, several crops had no significant difference in yields between organic and conventional production, and organic yields surpassed conventional yields for some hay crops. The organic to conventional yield ratio varied widely among crops, and in some cases, among locations within a crop. For soybean (Glycine max) and potato (Solanum tuberosum), organic yield was more similar to conventional yield in states where conventional yield was greatest. The opposite trend was observed for barley (Hordeum vulgare), wheat (Triticum aestevum), and hay crops, however, suggesting the geographical yield potential has an inconsistent effect on the organic yield gap.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161673</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27552217</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Agricultural land ; Agricultural practices ; Agricultural production ; Agriculture ; Analysis ; Barley ; Bias ; Biodiversity ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Commercial farms ; Comparative analysis ; Conservation ; Crop yield ; Crop yields ; Crops ; Economic aspects ; Estimates ; Farmers ; Farmlands ; Farms ; Forecasts and trends ; Glycine max ; Government agencies ; Hay ; Hordeum vulgare ; Innovations ; Legumes ; Meta-analysis ; Organic farming ; Plant sciences ; Potatoes ; Production methods ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Solanum tuberosum ; Soybeans ; Sustainable agriculture ; Traditional agriculture ; Triticum ; Triticum aestivum ; Wheat</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.e0161673-e0161673</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2016 Kniss et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2016 Kniss et al 2016 Kniss et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-638237305889ec75da24d92fa99a1f9b28dc01b46afe5e91ea6f25e28d1af2993</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-638237305889ec75da24d92fa99a1f9b28dc01b46afe5e91ea6f25e28d1af2993</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2551-4959</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995028/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995028/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552217$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Shrestha, Anil</contributor><creatorcontrib>Kniss, Andrew R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, Steven D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jabbour, Randa</creatorcontrib><title>Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Land area devoted to organic agriculture has increased steadily over the last 20 years in the United States, and elsewhere around the world. A primary criticism of organic agriculture is lower yield compared to non-organic systems. Previous analyses documenting the yield deficiency in organic production have relied mostly on data generated under experimental conditions, but these studies do not necessarily reflect the full range of innovation or practical limitations that are part of commercial agriculture. The analysis we present here offers a new perspective, based on organic yield data collected from over 10,000 organic farmers representing nearly 800,000 hectares of organic farmland. We used publicly available data from the United States Department of Agriculture to estimate yield differences between organic and conventional production methods for the 2014 production year. Similar to previous work, organic crop yields in our analysis were lower than conventional crop yields for most crops. Averaged across all crops, organic yield averaged 67% of conventional yield [corrected]. However, several crops had no significant difference in yields between organic and conventional production, and organic yields surpassed conventional yields for some hay crops. The organic to conventional yield ratio varied widely among crops, and in some cases, among locations within a crop. For soybean (Glycine max) and potato (Solanum tuberosum), organic yield was more similar to conventional yield in states where conventional yield was greatest. The opposite trend was observed for barley (Hordeum vulgare), wheat (Triticum aestevum), and hay crops, however, suggesting the geographical yield potential has an inconsistent effect on the organic yield gap.</description><subject>Agricultural land</subject><subject>Agricultural practices</subject><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Barley</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Commercial farms</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Crop yield</subject><subject>Crop yields</subject><subject>Crops</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farmlands</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Forecasts and trends</subject><subject>Glycine max</subject><subject>Government agencies</subject><subject>Hay</subject><subject>Hordeum vulgare</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Legumes</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Organic farming</subject><subject>Plant sciences</subject><subject>Potatoes</subject><subject>Production methods</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Solanum tuberosum</subject><subject>Soybeans</subject><subject>Sustainable agriculture</subject><subject>Traditional agriculture</subject><subject>Triticum</subject><subject>Triticum aestivum</subject><subject>Wheat</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPlo0-ZGGAY_BhYGdl3Fq5Cmp52MbTIm6aL_3sxOd5nKXiy9SDl53jcnJ-ckyUuM5pgW-MPWDs7Ibr6zBuYIM8wK-ig5xZySGSOIPj76P0meeb9FKKclY0-TE1LkOSG4OE3U0vY9OKVlly6d3aU_NXS1Ty_gGmLoMjgwbdj4VJo6_QHylwHvwaeNdenatdJolS5ap9XQhcFBqk0aNpBeGR2gjnIZwD9PnjSy8_BiXM-Sq8-fvi2_zs7XX1bLxflMFSQPM0ZLQguK8rLkoIq8liSrOWkk5xI3vCJlrRCuMiYbyIFjkKwhOcQwlg3hnJ4lrw--u856MdbHC1xiygjmJYrE6kDUVm7Fzuleur_CSi1uAta1QrqgVQeC1IxKxVQdc8sUyWVFG6iQAlrRDFf70z6Opw1VD7UCE5zsJqbTHaM3orXXIuM8R6SMBu9GA2d_D-CD6LVX0HXSgB1u8uY4o4Sih6BZRDnNI_rmP_T-QoxUK-NdtWlsTFHtTcUiY9EMkWxPze-h4ldDr1Xsu0bH-ETwfiKITIA_oZWD92J1efFwdv19yr49YjexM2NL2m4I2ho_BbMDqJz13kFz9x4Yif3Y3FZD7MdGjGMTZa-O3_JOdDsn9B8yuxGF</recordid><startdate>20160823</startdate><enddate>20160823</enddate><creator>Kniss, Andrew R</creator><creator>Savage, Steven D</creator><creator>Jabbour, Randa</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2551-4959</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160823</creationdate><title>Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States</title><author>Kniss, Andrew R ; Savage, Steven D ; Jabbour, Randa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c725t-638237305889ec75da24d92fa99a1f9b28dc01b46afe5e91ea6f25e28d1af2993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Agricultural land</topic><topic>Agricultural practices</topic><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Barley</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Commercial farms</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Crop yield</topic><topic>Crop yields</topic><topic>Crops</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farmlands</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Forecasts and trends</topic><topic>Glycine max</topic><topic>Government agencies</topic><topic>Hay</topic><topic>Hordeum vulgare</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Legumes</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Organic farming</topic><topic>Plant sciences</topic><topic>Potatoes</topic><topic>Production methods</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Solanum tuberosum</topic><topic>Soybeans</topic><topic>Sustainable agriculture</topic><topic>Traditional agriculture</topic><topic>Triticum</topic><topic>Triticum aestivum</topic><topic>Wheat</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kniss, Andrew R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, Steven D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jabbour, Randa</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kniss, Andrew R</au><au>Savage, Steven D</au><au>Jabbour, Randa</au><au>Shrestha, Anil</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-08-23</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0161673</spage><epage>e0161673</epage><pages>e0161673-e0161673</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Land area devoted to organic agriculture has increased steadily over the last 20 years in the United States, and elsewhere around the world. A primary criticism of organic agriculture is lower yield compared to non-organic systems. Previous analyses documenting the yield deficiency in organic production have relied mostly on data generated under experimental conditions, but these studies do not necessarily reflect the full range of innovation or practical limitations that are part of commercial agriculture. The analysis we present here offers a new perspective, based on organic yield data collected from over 10,000 organic farmers representing nearly 800,000 hectares of organic farmland. We used publicly available data from the United States Department of Agriculture to estimate yield differences between organic and conventional production methods for the 2014 production year. Similar to previous work, organic crop yields in our analysis were lower than conventional crop yields for most crops. Averaged across all crops, organic yield averaged 67% of conventional yield [corrected]. However, several crops had no significant difference in yields between organic and conventional production, and organic yields surpassed conventional yields for some hay crops. The organic to conventional yield ratio varied widely among crops, and in some cases, among locations within a crop. For soybean (Glycine max) and potato (Solanum tuberosum), organic yield was more similar to conventional yield in states where conventional yield was greatest. The opposite trend was observed for barley (Hordeum vulgare), wheat (Triticum aestevum), and hay crops, however, suggesting the geographical yield potential has an inconsistent effect on the organic yield gap.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>27552217</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0161673</doi><tpages>e0161673</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2551-4959</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.e0161673-e0161673 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1813621980 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Agricultural land Agricultural practices Agricultural production Agriculture Analysis Barley Bias Biodiversity Biology and Life Sciences Commercial farms Comparative analysis Conservation Crop yield Crop yields Crops Economic aspects Estimates Farmers Farmlands Farms Forecasts and trends Glycine max Government agencies Hay Hordeum vulgare Innovations Legumes Meta-analysis Organic farming Plant sciences Potatoes Production methods Research and Analysis Methods Solanum tuberosum Soybeans Sustainable agriculture Traditional agriculture Triticum Triticum aestivum Wheat |
title | Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T11%3A52%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Commercial%20Crop%20Yields%20Reveal%20Strengths%20and%20Weaknesses%20for%20Organic%20Agriculture%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Kniss,%20Andrew%20R&rft.date=2016-08-23&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0161673&rft.epage=e0161673&rft.pages=e0161673-e0161673&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0161673&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA461410240%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1813621980&rft_id=info:pmid/27552217&rft_galeid=A461410240&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_2d63ac6cd7254c25ab3feb0ce3b341b9&rfr_iscdi=true |