Jason Webster has spent the past three years trying to answer a question that’s becoming increasingly relevant as corn growers look for ways to capture more ROI: Can organic or non-GMO corn produce more profit per acre than conventional GMO corn, even when yields aren’t as strong?
The trials at the Precision Technology Institute (PTI) Farm suggest the answer can be yes.
Webster, lead commercial agronomist for Precision Planting and host of the InsidePTI series, oversaw the research that compared GMO, non-GMO and organic corn production, all based in the same location. The comparisons showed GMO corn still held the yield advantage, but the economics changed when production costs and market premiums were included.
Yield Gaps vs. Premium Gains
Non-GMO corn yielded about 7.8 bushels per acre less than the GMO system. Organic corn gave up about 30.4 bushels per acre.
But with a 25¢-per-bushel premium, the non-GMO system generated more than $90 per acre in additional net returns, Webster says. Organic corn generated more than $130 per acre more than the GMO system when using an $8-per-bushel organic price compared with $4 conventional corn.
“As we always say at the PTI Farm, this … doesn’t tell the [whole] story,” Webster notes. “We’ve got to put costs in, and we’ve got to put premiums in.”
The potential to increase ROI comes from changing the revenue and cost sides of the equation.
Non-GMO: A Simple Switch for the Right Markets
The PTI Farm conventional GMO system tested uses a familiar high-yield program: tillage, DAP and potash, a full nitrogen program, a traited hybrid, conventional herbicides and fungicide, Webster notes.
The non-GMO system tested required few changes from the conventional program.
“I’ll be very honest with you folks. This has been super easy,” Webster says. “Really all I’m doing with non-GMO is buying a corn hybrid that is non-GMO, and then on the herbicide side, I just take out the Roundup or the Liberty. That’s it. The rest of the program qualifies for non-GMO.”
That change was “particularly easy” on the PTI Farm’s fields because waterhemp is the primary weed problem there, and Webster says glyphosate was already not providing adequate control.
For corn growers with a dependable local market that pays a premium for non-GMO corn, Webster sees the system as a relatively straightforward alternative.
“If I had a strong, local non-GMO market, I think I’d probably put all my acres into a non-GMO corn program because I think it’s easy,” he says.
Organic Fertility: Still Learning What Works
Organic corn has been much more difficult to figure out in the company’s tests. Webster notes that fertility was one of the biggest challenges, because synthetic fertilizer use was not an option.
“I will be honest again. I don’t know how to feed an organic crop,” he says. “I think what’s been happening over time is I don’t know how to feed it, so I’m just putting a ton of stuff in my protocol.”
Webster acknowledges the fertility program used was heavier than it needed to be.
“I will admit I’m over applying, but we’re trying to understand which of these products works the best,” he says.
The PTI Farm is using chicken litter as one foundation for the organic fertility program. Webster notes it provides some nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium while also contributing biological material.
The farm has also tested a granulated 3-12-0 fertilizer made from liquid manure sourced from hog lagoons. The product is applied on corn at V5 to V6 with high-clearance equipment and banded near the row.
The planter is another important part of the fertility strategy. Webster tested close-to-seed nutrient placement (3" away) and later side-dress applications using Y-drops or similar systems to keep organic nitrogen available to the crop.
He adds that the goal is to move away from treating fertility in corn as a single application and, instead, make nutrients more available throughout the growing season.
Weed Control: Where Lasers Enter the Picture
While fertility is a major hurdle in organic corn, weed control is the bigger concern for Webster.
“This was what I was most scared about. I didn’t know how we were going to control weeds,” he says.
The PTI Farm has tested a variety of mechanical tools including the Treffler precision tine harrow, a Garford camera-based Robocrop guided hoe, and a Kadelbach Manufacturing Weed Flamer. The farm has also tested an AI-powered Carbon Robotics LaserWeeder G2.
The laser technology has generated the most excitement. The machine uses cameras to distinguish crops from weeds and directs lasers at emerging weeds.
“I will tell you that this thing just worked fantastic in the field,” Webster says. “It knows what crop… is there. It’ll leave it alone and just attack those small weeds just coming up.”
PTI’s comparisons showed a significant yield difference among weed-control programs.
The organic “status quo” program, which used flaming and hoeing, resulted in about 219.9 bushels of corn per acre. Webster estimates that adding two early “laser passes” and one “flamer pass” increased yield by about 7 bushels per acre.
The largest gains came from systems using two laser passes, either combined with the Garford Robocrop or used alone.
“Those two applications gave us over 20-bushel gains over just using the traditional flamer and hoe,” Webster reports.
In PTI’s economic comparison, the laser system added $54.40 per acre compared with traditional flaming and cultivation.
The Bottom Line: Dollars Trump Bushels
The PTI findings underscore a common finding when farmers compare GMO corn to alternative production systems: Yield alone usually favors GMO corn.
The non-GMO system lost about 7.8 bushels per acre compared with GMO. The organic system lost about 30.4 bushels.
“You may look at this data and say, ‘Well, I don’t know how thrilled I am to move away from GMO platforms… if my corn yield is going to go down,’” Webster says.
But yield is only one part of the calculations farmers need to make to get a true picture of what system is most profitable for their operation.
When Webster added a 25¢-per-bushel premium to the non-GMO corn, the system generated more than $90 per acre in additional net returns despite the yield loss.
The organic system produced more than $130 per acre in additional returns compared with GMO, based on $8 organic corn versus $4 conventional corn.
Webster cautions that the organic comparison is not “yet a finished production system.” The reason is because PTI is using what he describes as an “over-applied fertility and input program” while it works to identify which products and practices consistently pay. That means the economics could change as the system is refined.
What Growers Should Consider Before Making the Switch
Webster’s trials do not make a case for replacing GMO corn across the Corn Belt. Instead, they show why growers evaluating non-GMO or organic production need to look beyond yield results alone.
Non-GMO corn might be relatively simple for growers who have access to a reliable premium and whose weed-control programs can function well without the traits being removed.
Organic production is a much larger management challenge, particularly when it comes to fertility, weed control and disease management.
Fungicide options also are more limited. PTI has tested biological products such as Pacesetter, but Webster says the farm is still determining which products provide enough benefit to justify their cost.
For corn growers considering alternative production systems, the PTI results point to a number of considerations.
“There are some big gains and returns to be had from those types of platforms,” Webster says, “if we can manage this thing properly.”
The opportunity might not be in producing more bushels, he adds. It may be in determining whether fewer bushels with lower or different input costs and a reliable premium can produce more dollars per acre.
Here’s a summary based on the PTIFarm 2025 data: “Our organic program proved overall yield losses of -30.4 Bu/A compared to the traditional commercial GMO program, but the economics proved an impressive +$138.32/A when factoring in an $8/Bu sale price and $3.87/Bu premium. The non-GMO platform resulted in yield losses of -7.8 Bu/A, though the $0.25/A premium, complimented with a lower seed and herbicide cost, resulted in economic gains of +$91.57/A. The only real management change with the non-GMO program was the removal of glyphosate from the program, while residual, post-program and all other practices remained the same.”
You can watch the presentation recapping these findings on YouTube at the link below:
