Rising agricultural inputs have increased yields and reduced food shortages but caused major environmental damage, prompting policies such as the EU Green Deal to cut pesticide and fertiliser use, targets that have sparked farmer protests amid fears over food sovereignty, yield gaps and falling incomes, especially following sharp energy and input price rises in 2022–2023 and price-scissor effects. While some studies suggest reducing inputs can decrease profitability, they are criticised for modelling bias and experimental evidence remains scarce. To address this, an experimental SHOWCASE study, written by partner CNRS and conducted in 2022–2023 across 58 winter cereal fields in western France, tested input reductions under real farming conditions in conventional farming (CF) and organic farming (OF) systems. 

The study took place over two cropping seasons (2022–2023) in the LTSER “Zone Atelier Plaine & Val de Sèvre” in western France, an intensive cereal-growing region. Experiments were co-designed with 19 volunteer farmers across CF and OF systems, with input reductions: nitrogen and pesticides in CF; mechanical weeding and tillage in OF. These experiments were implemented under real field conditions in 58 winter cereal fields and compared to control plots. Yields were measured through field sampling and farmer reports, and gross margins were calculated from revenues and variable costs using actual prices. Paired comparisons and non-parametric tests assessed the effects of reductions, while simulations explored alternative price and yield-gap scenarios to evaluate the robustness of results under varying economic and pedoclimatic conditions.

This 2-year experimental study found that reducing agricultural inputs or workload in OF and CF systems led to yield gaps of less than 5%, with cost savings offsetting economic losses and often fully compensating them in CF. Conducted under real farming conditions, the results confirm earlier experiments from 2013–2014 and suggest substantial room for adjustment, especially in conventional systems where gross margins are closely tied to input use. Simulations showed that reducing management intensity is economically neutral under normal conditions and increasingly advantageous during price crises, particularly under strong price-scissor effects. Profitability varied with input type and growing conditions, with nitrogen reductions proving most beneficial in low yield-potential contexts, indicating widespread overuse. While uncertainty, risk perception and long-term effects remain important limitations, the study demonstrates that input reduction can be economically viable, highlights the need for larger-scale and longer-term experiments, and underscores the potential of de-intensification as part of broader agroecological transitions.

Read the full study here.