Less yield, more value?

For decades. Similarly, the debate on the future of agriculture has opposed two visions: on the one hand, a conventional model focused on maximizing yields thanks to chemistry and technology; On the other, biological and agroecological approaches, often perceived as more virtuous but less productive. Therefore, A renowned Swiss study. Moreover, conducted over more than forty years, provides valuable data which makes it possible to go beyond this binary opposition. Nevertheless, The results of the Dok test. In addition, recently relayed by the media, suggest that the real measure of agricultural performance is not only in the tons harvested, but in the way in which the value – economic, ecological and social – is created and distributed. Moreover, By examining this data more closely, this study highlights the real issues that surround different agricultural models.

The main argument against organic farming has always been less yield, more value? its lower efficiency. Consequently, The Dok trial does not deny it, encrypting the average difference at 15% compared to the conventional. Therefore, For organic detractors. However, the sentence quickly fell: to feed the world, it is necessary to produce more, and only the conventional model is capable of it.

However, this figure alone is misleading and such hasty interpretation. Meanwhile, On the one hand. Similarly, the gap has gradually reduced, going from 20% to 15% in forty years, a sign of continuous optimization of practices and an still existing improvement potential. Moreover, On the other hand. For example, it varies strongly depending on the crops: if the potato, nutrient gourmet, accuses a delay of 32%, soy (legume naturally fixing nitrogen and adapted to diversified rotations), is equal. Furthermore, The choice of crops. In addition, their exploitation in organic and agroecological systems thus constitute determining levers to reduce, even eliminate, the less yield, more value? productivity gap.

Yield is only part of the economic equation of an exploitation

But the most crucial point is elsewhere. Furthermore, The yield is only part of the economic equation of an exploitation. Similarly, The conventional model is based on a high consumption of inputs purchased outside: the DoK study shows that biological systems use 92% of pesticides. Therefore, 76% less mineral nitrogen.

This almost independence is not just an asset for the environment; It is a lever of fundamental economic power. Furthermore, In the conventional system, peasants are often the weak link in a value chain that exceeds them. Moreover, They. they undergo the volatility of fertilizer and pesticides prices, markets controlled by a handful of multinationals, while being subject to pressure on the sale prices of large distribution. A large part of the value they. they create is thus captured upstream by their suppliers and downstream less yield, more value? by transformers and distributors. Even certified organic farming. when it borrows the circuits of large retailers, does not completely escape this logic of value capture through intermediaries.

Agroecology takes into account this aspect and goes beyond the agronomic practices that it shares with organic. It aims for a complete restructuring of food systems to guarantee resilience, equity and sustainability. By favoring short circuits. direct sale and farm transformation, it allows producers to reduce the number of intermediaries and inherent costs.

By freeing themselves from this dependence. the peasants practicing organic farming and even better, agroecology, drastically reduce their production costs and secure their margins. They and they thus regain control over the economic model.

The yield difference of 15% must therefore be put in perspective. The question is no longer just “how much do we produce?” But “Who takes advantage of what is produced?” From this point of view. models less yield, more value? of sustainable agriculture appear less as less productive systems than as more equitable value redistribution systems.

The soils managed in a sustainable manner are healthier. richer in biodiversity and store more carbon

To compare systems on the mere criterion of yield is to ignore a considerable part of their advantages, in particular their benefits on nature. The Dok study demonstrates that biological. agroecological systems are not content to produce food; They regenerate the resources on which they depend. This is where their real long -term competitive advantage nestles, an advantage that results in economic resilience.

The soils managed in a sustainable manner are healthier, richer in biodiversity and store more carbon. It is not a simple ecological consideration. Living soil. rich in organic matter, better retains water and therefore turns out to be a rampart against droughts increasingly frequent than Switzerland knows and, to a stronger extent, the less yield, more value? southern hemisphere. Cultures are better resistant to diseases, which reduces the risk of harvesting losses. In addition. the study reveals capital climate data: organic plots have a 56%lower climatic impact, mainly thanks to much lower powerful nitrogen oxide emissions).

This resilience is an economic criterion which unfortunately does not appear in traditional accounts. If we add to this that the long value chains. controlled by agro-industry are responsible on the one hand for global food waste (estimated at around a third of food production), the 15% yield differential becomes even more relative. Agroecological approaches reduce these losses. ensure that a larger share of what is produced arrives well on the plate of consumers. Efficiency is then measured at the entire food system scale, and no longer only when leaving the field.

Should we then see organic farming and agroecology as compromises, accepting less productivity for ecological benefits? The data of less yield, more value? the Dok test suggest another. broader reading: this is in particular an economically rational and optimal arbitration in the long term. In a world confronted with climate change. the erosion of biodiversity and the volatility of the markets, resilience and autonomy are no longer options, but imperatives. Particularly in southern countries in greatest vulnerability where each disruption of supply chains aggravates the food insecurity of populations.

Producing 85% of conventional yields while going on almost all of the synthetic inputs. improving soil health, storing carbon and restoring biodiversity is a performance of remarkable systemic efficiency. Bio and agroecology are thus positioned as strategic choices for durability not only environmental, but also economic. Far from being a simple theoretical calculation. this arbitration in favor of agroecology is verified concretely on the ground, as also demonstrated by experiences under other latitudes. A study by Swissaid. its partners in Tanzania confirming in a less yield, more value? striking way of the economic mechanisms identified by Dok. After five years of transition. the peasants participating in the CROPS4HD (Consumption of Resilient Orphan Crops & Products for Healthier Diets) project massively reduced their expenses to external inputs. Economic analysis reveals that the conventional operations of the control group present the highest production costs by hectare. precisely because of their dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides-thus confirming the economic trap of value capture by agro-industry.

Biological approaches redistribute value to the peasant world. rather than for the benefit of shareholders

Conversely, the advanced farms in the agroecological transition combines drop in costs and increase in net income, validating that the yield difference of 15% is largely offset by the value that remains in the hands of producers and producers. This economic reappropriation is accompanied by strategic diversification: the project values “neglected”. underused species such as amaranth, millet, fonio less yield, more value? or Bambara peas, creating new locally controlled value chains.

Biological approaches, and more agroecological, offer a model that redistributes value to the peasant world, rather than for shareholders. By maintaining a productive capacity more than sufficient to nourish populations. while building natural capital, they are more resilient to future shocks. The DOK test. by the force of its data accumulated over four decades, does not say something else: the most efficient agricultural model is not necessarily the one that produces the most, but the one who benefits farmers and peasants as well as consumers, rather than seeing its value captured by agro-industry.