Is Organic Farming Better for the Planet?

“What people don’t want to understand is that you don’t feed the plants. You feed the soil.”

Those words came from a man named Cornelius. I met him years ago, briefly, on his land. He was tall and quiet, with a kind of presence you don’t see much anymore. Cornelius made compost—horse manure, to be exact—and he treated it like a living thing. He sourced it carefully, tested it constantly, and walked his piles like they were a field of crops. If there’s such a thing as a master composter, he was it.

His philosophy, that healthy soil creates healthy plants, has stuck with me. And in many ways, it’s at the heart of organic farming.

But in today’s climate conversations, where fossil fuels dominate the headlines, it’s easy to forget that agriculture is the second-largest contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. Between carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, farming plays a massive role in warming the planet. So how we grow food matters. A lot.

Which brings us to organic farming.

It’s easy to think of organic as a shortcut to sustainability. Fewer chemicals. Healthier soil. Better for the planet. That’s true. But like most things in the climate space, the real story is more complicated.

In this piece, we’ll take a closer look at what organic farming actually offers. We’ll dig into soil health, carbon storage, water use, pesticides, fertilizer runoff, and the elephant in the field—land use. We’re sticking to crops here. Livestock is another topic altogether.

By the end, you might still believe organic is the better option. Or you might see it differently. Either way, the goal isn’t to pick a side. It’s to understand what we’re really growing when we talk about feeding the planet.

The Basics of Organic Farming

So what exactly is organic farming?

In simple terms, it’s a method of growing food that avoids genetically modified organisms and uses natural processes to support soil health. This includes techniques like crop rotation, cover cropping, and composting. Instead of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic farming relies on natural materials like plant-based compost, manure, and pest treatments made from minerals, plants, or animal sources.

That all sounds fairly straightforward, but putting that “Certified Organic” label on a product involves a lot more than skipping GMOs and spraying neem oil.

In the United States, the organic certification process is managed by the USDA. To earn and maintain that label, farmers have to follow a long list of rules covering everything from seed sourcing to packaging. On-site inspections can be unannounced, and meticulous recordkeeping is mandatory. It’s a whole process that gets inspected, not just a label that looks nice in the produce aisle.

This is where terms like greenwashing come into play. Companies that want to appear environmentally friendly—but don’t meet organic standards—often rely on unregulated language. You’ve probably seen labels that say things like “Free Range,” “Sustainably Harvested,” or “100% Natural.” None of those are regulated by the USDA, which means there’s no guarantee that those practices are actually in place.

That doesn’t mean every product using those labels is misleading. Smaller farms might follow great practices but skip certification due to cost or red tape. Still, when something is labeled “Certified Organic,” it means the farm followed a specific set of rules, and someone actually checked.

Soil Health & Carbon Sequestration

One of the first things people point to when talking about the benefits of organic farming is carbon sequestration; the soil’s ability to absorb and store carbon dioxide. And yes, organic farming does a better job of this, at least for a while.

When soil is treated with compost, crop rotations, and cover crops—the staples of organic farming—it gets healthier. That health makes it better at soaking up carbon. The soil acts like a sponge, pulling in CO₂ and holding on to it instead of letting it escape into the atmosphere.

And that’s the heart of what Cornelius meant when he said, “You don’t feed the plant. You feed the soil.”

But even the best sponge has a limit.

Over time, the soil becomes saturated. After about a decade of consistent organic practices, its ability to sequester carbon levels off. As researchers at Cranfield University in the UK put it, “the soil will eventually reach a steady-state when carbon sequestration rates fall to zero.”

So yes, organic farming improves carbon storage in soil—but only up to a point. After that, it’s basically a draw between organic and conventional methods.

That doesn’t make it meaningless. A decade of pulling more carbon out of the atmosphere is still a win. But it’s important to see the full picture, not just the headline.

Pesticides

Organic pesticides are typically made from things like plant extracts, minerals, microorganisms, or even animal pheromones. There is also a short list of synthetic pesticides that are allowed when no organic option exists to deal with a specific pest. For example, if a certain fungus threatens an entire crop and there’s no effective organic treatment, a targeted synthetic might be approved. Still, the list of allowable synthetics is limited and tightly regulated.

One of the main upsides of organic pesticides is that they tend to break down more quickly than synthetic ones. That usually means fewer residues on crops and less risk to non-target species like bees, birds, and soil microbes—not to mention people.

But organic doesn’t mean harmless. These pesticides still require careful use. Their effectiveness can vary depending on the pest, the weather, and when they’re applied. And because they break down faster, they often need to be applied more frequently. If used improperly, some can still harm pollinators or throw local ecosystems out of balance.

That said, organic pesticides are less likely to persist in the soil or travel through water systems. That makes a difference. When synthetic pesticides wash into rivers and lakes, they can cause serious damage. A joint study from researchers in Saudi Arabia and India laid it out clearly:

“Pesticides are frequently applied without precision, which leads to a number of adverse effects on human health, from acute intoxication to chronic diseases that include various types of cancer (brain, breast, prostate, bladder, and colon), Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, neurotoxicity, infertility, leukemia and diabetes.”

And later in the same study:

“Pesticide contamination in water poses the greatest threat to aquatic bodies, mostly through diminishing dissolved oxygen levels. They have an impact on aquatic animals at all stages of the trophic chain, from algae to fish.”

In short, when pesticides enter water, oxygen levels drop—and everything that lives in that water suffers.

Nitrous Oxide Emissions

While pesticides do plenty of damage to the environment, a conversation about organic farming wouldn’t be complete without talking about nitrous oxide.

Nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, is no joke when it comes to climate change. It traps heat in the atmosphere far more effectively than carbon dioxide and sticks around for over 100 years. That means the emissions we release today will still be warming the planet in 2125.

So how does organic farming stack up?

Let’s take a step back. Plants need nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to grow. Conventional farming provides these quickly and efficiently using synthetic fertilizers. That’s one reason yields are so high. But the downside is that these fertilizers release nitrous oxide during production and use.

Organic farming uses composted manure and other natural materials instead. These still release nitrous oxide, but generally at lower levels. How much lower? It varies. Most studies show that emissions from organic fertilizers are anywhere from 20 to 40 percent lower. The exact number depends on things like temperature, soil type, crop variety, and how the fertilizer is applied.

One thing worth noting is how these studies measure emissions. Most of them look at impact per acre, not per pound of food produced. That matters because organic farming usually yields less food per acre. So while emissions might be lower per acre, they could end up being similar—or even higher—when you factor in how much food actually comes out of the ground.

A better comparison might be something like this: what’s the environmental cost of producing 10,000 pounds of potatoes organically versus conventionally? That kind of weight-based measurement could give a clearer picture of real-world impact, but it’s not how most of the current data is framed.

Still, even with that caveat, organic fertilizers are less likely to leach into nearby water systems. They break down more naturally and don’t carry the same chemical baggage. From a water health standpoint, that’s a meaningful difference.

Water

Water use in farming is one of those areas where it’s nearly impossible to pin down exact numbers, simply because there are too many variables—soil type, crop type, climate, irrigation method, and on and on. So any broad claims about water savings should be taken with a grain of salt.

That said, there’s one trend that shows up again and again. Soils managed with organic practices, especially cover cropping and composting, tend to hold water better. That makes a real difference, especially during droughts. Healthier soil acts more like a sponge. It absorbs more when it rains and holds on to moisture longer when it doesn’t.

This doesn’t just help the crops. It also reduces runoff. And when less water runs off the fields, fewer pesticides and fertilizers end up in nearby rivers, lakes, or groundwater. Even when runoff does happen, organic farming tends to produce cleaner water. That’s because things like compost, manure, and organic pesticides tend to break down more easily in the environment.

Cleaner runoff means less harm to aquatic ecosystems, and in some cases, water that’s actually reusable.

Land Use

Simply put, yields from organic farming aren’t anywhere near what they are in conventional farming. And that’s not surprising. Conventional methods rely on things like synthetic fertilizers that are engineered to grow as much food as quickly as possible. That’s the whole point.

That gap in yield starts to make more sense when you look at how much conventional farming has benefited from modern technology. Think about cell phones. Just a few decades ago, most of us had landlines in our homes. Now, that same device not only makes calls, but manages our schedules, tracks our workouts, and connects us to nearly everything.

That same level of innovation has been applied to conventional farming. From high-efficiency fertilizers to genetically modified seeds to precision irrigation, conventional agriculture is playing with a stacked deck. Organic methods, by comparison, are still operating with more basic tools. It’s not a fair fight.

As a result, organic yields are often 20 to 40 percent lower than their conventional counterparts. That might not sound like a huge deal, until you scale it up to the global food supply. Feeding the planet organically would require more land—land we don’t necessarily have.

So where does all of this leave us? 

Is organic farming better for the planet?

Like most things that matter, it’s complicated.

If we’re talking about what goes into the ground—pesticides, fertilizers, water—organic has some clear wins. It’s gentler on the soil, on surrounding ecosystems, and likely on our bodies too. But if we zoom out and ask what it would take to feed billions of people this way, the answer gets murkier. Yields are lower. Land use is higher. And we’re still living in a world where profit tends to outrun patience.

But maybe that’s exactly the point Cornelius was making all those years ago.

“What people don’t want to understand,” he said, “is that you don’t feed the plant. You feed the soil.”