From the archive
11 Sep 2026
A strip of wildflowers along the edge of a winter wheat field is an easy thing to like, and the European Union pays for it as an environmentally friendly measure. Organic farming attracts the same support. Around Göttingen, an international research team including researchers from the university there set out to ask which of the two delivers more - for the wildlife in the field, and for the farmer's books at the end of the season.
The researchers compared winter wheat managed three ways: conventional fields with a strip of wildflowers, organically farmed fields, and conventional fields with no environmental intervention at all, kept as a control. They followed nine landscapes in the Göttingen area across two years. Both measures lifted biodiversity by 20 to 30 per cent against the control, so on wildlife the flower strip and the organic field were near equals. The results appeared in the Journal of Applied Ecology.
On money, the two measures parted company. The organic fields yielded only half as much wheat as the conventional ones, which on the usual reckoning would end the argument. Yet their profits ran one and a half times higher, and the published account does not say where that gain comes from. What remains is a comparison between a whole field changed and a field decorated at its edge: both are paid for as green farming, and only one changed what the farmer took home.
If you farm and are weighing a flower strip against organic conversion, run the comparison on profit per hectare, not yield per hectare - in this study the organic fields made more money on half the wheat. Try one block first, and count the EU payments both options already carry before deciding.
Regeneration International · Read the source