The Idea of an Essay, Volume 3

Research Writing 167 used in producing conventionally grown food does not really have an effect on the individual (Smith-Spangler et al., 2012). Smith- Spangler et al. do admit to limitations in their study. For example, different experimental methods used for the studies they surveyed, the weather, and different soil types all played a part with limitation. Another factor of limitation was that no long-term studies have been done observing a population consuming primarily organic or conventional food. With that in mind, they state that even though the results they discussed were statistically significant, any conclusions drawn from their findings should be proceeded with caution. However, they imply that since neither method of farming rises to the surface as more superior in regards to health benefits, the small differences could be a rebuttal to those claiming the substantial health benefits of organic agriculture. Fortunately, long term studies have been done observing the environmental effects of organic and conventional agriculture. The results indicate a favor towards organic agriculture when it comes to the soil quality and energy use (Stokstad, 2002). The twenty-one year study measured the different aspects of an organic crop stating: “Organic farms can be nearly [emphasis added] as productive as regular farms for some crops, and they leave soils healthier.” This leads to one of the major arguments against organic agriculture: a smaller yield. In the study, “Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture” Seufert, Ramankutty, and Foley constructed a meta-analysis of crop yields both conventional and organic using a comprehensive literature search (2012). With the organic comparisons, they kept their criteria strict in order to provide an accurate analysis, reviewing every source with careful discretion. With organic crops, they were careful to only include studies that were certified as organic. According to the meta-analysis, the average conventional-to- agricultural yield ratiowas .75; that is, the yield of organic agriculture produces 25% less than conventional agriculture. However, even though the overall results of themeta-analysis indicate amuch higher yield with conventional agriculture, they state, “Our analysis shows that, yield differences between organic and conventional agriculture do exist, but that they are highly contextual” (Seufert, Ramankutty, & Foley, pp. 231, 2012). The results indicated that organic crops perform better than average (.75) on weaker-acidic soils between the