Modern research on ancient techniques
In farming today, there is an abundant amount of technologies to aid farmers in creating the largest yields. There are many kinds of pesticides, herbicides, and machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars all to ensure the best possible outcome every season. However, in the process, many of these technologies are actually harmful not only to the environment and the consumer but to the farmer as well. Economically speaking, there are many downsides to conventional (non-organic) farming. Tilling the ground releases a lot of carbon and nutrients that the farmers have to pay to reintegrate into the crop in the form of fertilizer. Once the crop starts growing the farmers have to spray it with herbicides and pesticides to manage the insects and weeds that are harmful to the crop. Additionally, a lot of water is wasted in conventional farming systems because there is nothing on the ground to prevent runoff (which carries the herbicides and pesticides to larger water sources).
So what is the solution?
Organic farming offers many solutions to these problems. For example, by taking away the use of pesticides and herbicides, there is more organic matter in the soil. This makes it so the farmer does not need to use synthetic fertilizers and overall less fertilizer in general. The organic matter also creates biodiversity within the ecosystem, which helps control the bug population. The extra cover on the soil from weeds and untilled crops allows the water to get trapped as well, instead of running off. This makes the use of water more efficient as well. In the end, the yield of organic crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans has been shown to be equal to conventional yields. In another article, I will discuss some of the potential downsides of organic farming.
Source
PIMENTEL, DAVID, et al. “Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems.” Bioscience, vol. 55, no. 7, American Institute of Biological Sciences, 2005, pp. 573–82, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2.