That's a big question without an easy answer, ndayicy.

Generally speaking, no, for several reasons: organic fertilisers are less effective (or at least work in a different way to) inorganic fertilisers. Second, it is wrong to suggest that there are no problems with "eutrophication, metal contamination, GHG emission, finite phosphorus" with organic fertilisers. In fact the potential for eutrophication can be greater (depending on how the organic fertilisers are used) and recent research has shown that all systems, organic or inorganic are dependent on supplies of rock phosphate (a non-renewable resource).

In terms of viability, it is hard to prove that organic fertilisers are more cost effective than inorganic fertilisers - although both suffer from a chronic lack of knowledge about Soil Science in many cirumstances to ensure that they are used in the best possible way. Indeed, most organic fertilisers are only used when they are supplied at a low cost or free.

Dear Participants,

Thank you for your efforts about the resource recovery from human excreta. I have a question related to organic fertilizers (or organic based fertilizers) in general. Considering the adverse impacts of mineral/conventional fertilizers (eutrophication, metal contamination, GHG emission, finite phosphorus, etc.) on one hand, and the benefits of organic/organic based fertilizers (bio crops, resource recovery, environmental protection, public health, etc.) on the other hand; we may like to totally shift from mineral to organic fertilizers! However, my concern is about the economic viability of organic fertilizers (in general). Apart from the laboratory/research/study scale, do you know any place or any industry with mass production of organic fertilizer that can compete against conventional fertilizer on an open market scenario ? Here I mean without any subsidy and/or incentives.
I ask this a researcher in an industrial development sector, but also as an environmentalist.