Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:47:46.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of organic and conventional dairy farms in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Yetunde O. Ogini ,
D. Peter Storehouse  and
E. Ann Clark
Yetunde O. Ogini
Affiliation:
Former Research Assistant in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, and is Statistical Analyst, Statistics Canada, Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
D. Peter Storehouse*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada;
E. Ann Clark
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
*
Corresponding author is D. Peter Stonehouse ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

The scale of operation and economic performance of organic and conventional dairy farms were compared in Ontario in 1992. Eight certified organic (ORG) farms, comprising 40% of all organic dairy farms, were contrasted with a sample of 120 conventional farms (1.5% of the provincial total) identified under the auspices of the Ontario Dairy Farm Accounting Project (ODFAP). The ODFAP sample was stratified by geographic region in Ontario, then randomly selected within each region. Neither ORG nor ODFAP farm samples contained any hobby or part-time farmers. Scale of operation was comparable on the two types of dairies, with the ratio of ORG to ODFAP being 122% for tillable landbase (ns) and 107% for herd size (ns). Similarly, milk production was comparable from ORG and ODFAP dairies (5,882 and 5,865 liters/cow, respectively; ns). Data on farmer personal characteristics such as age, education level, and management skills were not collected. It was presumed that managerial capabilities were equal between ORG and ODFAP farm samples.

It was hypothesized that total revenue and total cost of production would be greater on ODFAP farms, while net farm income would be higher on ORG than on ODFAP farms. Although the ratio for ORG to ODFAP performance was 93% for total revenue and 77% for total cost of production, neither of these differences was statistically significant. However, ORG dairies yielded 60% more net farm income than ODFAP dairies ($59,718 vs. $37,557; significant at the 5% level). Within the constraints of the supply management marketing system operating in a northern temperate region, ORG approaches to dairy production were shown to be as productive and at least as profitable as those on ODFAP farms, despite reliance on lesser yielding crops and more holistic (less resource-intensive) production methods.

Keywords

farm revenuecost of productionnet farm incomemilk production
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 122 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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.Batte, M.T., Forster, D.L., and Hitzhusen, F.J.. 1993. Organic agriculture in Ohio: An economic perspective. J. Production Agric. 6(4):536–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Berardi, G.M. 1978. Organic and conventional wheat production: Examination of energy and economics. Agro-Ecosystems 4:367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Braga, F. 1992. Organic foods and Ontario consumers. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food HighlightsGoogle Scholar
4.Burgoyne, D. 1992. Analyse économique comparee de l'impact du niveau d'intensification, de Futilisation d'intrants et de la production biologique sur la rentabilite des entreprises laitieres au Quebec. M.Sc. thesis, FSAA, Universite Laval, Quebec. Cited by J. Henning. 1994. Economics of organic farming in Canada. In N.H. Lampkin, and S. Padel (eds.). The Economics of Organic Farming: An International Perspective. Solidus, Bristol, U.K. p. 143–160.Google Scholar
5.Chase, C., and Duffy, M.. 1991. An economic comparison of conventional and reduced-chemical farming systems in Iowa. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6(4): 168–173.CrossRefGoogle 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.Klepper, R., Lockeretz, W., Commoner, B., Gertler, M., Fast, S., O'Leary, D., and Blobaum, R.. 1977. Economic performance and energy intensiveness on organic and conventional farms in the Corn Belt: A preliminary comparison. Amer. J. Agricultural Economics 59:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Langley, J.A., Heady, E.O., and Olson, K.D.. 1983. The macro implications of a complete transformation of U.S. agricultural production to organic farming practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 10(4): 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., Klepper, R., and Sweeney, S.. 1978. Field crop production on organic farms in the Midwest. J. Soil and Water Conservation 33(3):130–134.Google Scholar
10.Lockeretz, W. 1980. Maize yields and soil nutrients levels with and without pesticides and standard commercial fertilizers. Agronomy J. 72:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Lockeretz, W., and Wernick, S.. 1980. Commercial organic farming in the Corn Belt in comparison to conventional practices. Rural Sociology 45:708–722.Google Scholar
12.McRae, R.J., Henning, J., and Hill, S.B.. 1988. Financing organic/sustainable agriculture: Current problems and new strategies. Ecological Agriculture Projects Research Paper #5. Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec.Google Scholar
13.Molder, P.J., Negrave, P.D., and Schoney, R.A.. 1991. Descriptive analysis of Saskatchewan organic producers. Can. J. Agricultural Economics 39(4):891–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Moxley, J. 1989. Survey of pesticide use in Ontario, 1988. Estimates of pesticides used on field crops, fruits, and vegetables. Economics Information Report No. 89–08, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Toronto.Google Scholar
15.Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1993. Ontario Dairy Farm Accounting Project (ODFAP) Annual Summary 1992. Agriculture Canada, Ontario Milk Marketing Board, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and University of Guelph.Google Scholar
16.Shearer, G., Kohl, D.H., Wanner, D., Kuepper, G., Sweeney, S., and Lockeretz, W.. 1981. Crop production: Costs and returns on midwestern organic farms: 1977 and 1978. Amer. J. Agricultural Economics 63:264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Sholubi, O. 1993. Economic analysis of organic dairy farming in Ontario. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.Google Scholar
18.Sholubi, O., Stonehouse, D.P., and Clark, E. Ann. 1996. Environmental and economic benefits of organic dairy farming in Ontario. In Lockeretz, W. (ed.). Environmental Enhancement Through Agriculture. Tufts University, Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment, Medford, MA. p. 151–156.Google Scholar
19.Sholubi, O., Stonehouse, D.P., and Clark, E. Ann. 1997. Profile of organic dairy farming in Ontario. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 12(3):133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Stonehouse, D.P. 1996. Initial technical and economic comparisons of different farming systems in Ontario, Canada. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Stonehouse, D.P., Weise, S.F., Sheardown, T., Gill, R.S., and Swanton, C.J.. 1996. A case study approach to comparing weed management strategies under alternative farming systems in Ontario. Can. J. Agricultural Economics 44(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Surgeoner, G.Q., and Grieve, D.G.. 1994. Improving efficiencies in dairy cow production 1951–1991. Agri-food Research in Ontario 17(2):2–7.Google Scholar
23.Weersink, J., Funk, J.F., and Goddard, E.W.. 1991. Consumers' nutritional attitudes: A case study. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Highlights 14(1): 12–15.Google Scholar