Category: Uncategorized

Lessons from a Study on Hay Variability: Insights for Organic Producers – An Update

I wrote this longer article back in October of 2024, but since we are in the midst of cutting hay right now, I thought an update would be a good thing! So, before discussing the surprising variability found among individual hay bales from a single field, it is worth remembering that a forage analysis is only as good as the sample submitted to the laboratory. Many producers still collect a handful of hay from the outside of a bale and send it for analysis. Unfortunately, this approach often provides misleading results because leaves, stems, and different portions of the bale are not represented equally.

The preferred method is to use a hay probe attached to a cordless drill and collect core samples from a minimum of 20 representative bales within a hay lot. A hay lot should consist of hay from the same field, cutting, forage type, and harvest period. I carry a bucket with me and put each core in the bucket as I sample a bale. The core sampler is a 24″ model since almost everyone has round bales today. The individual cores are combined into a single composite sample (the bucket), mixed thoroughly, and submitted to a forage testing laboratory.

The picture above is a clip I copied from a longer article in Hay and Forage Magazine, April 2025 edition. The article is just a good reminder of proper sampling, but the best part of the article is a list of all the places to order a hay probe. Just click on the picture or here Hay Probes to see the list!

Variability in Nutrient Composition: What the Data Tells Us

When it comes to hay production, many farmers assume that bales harvested from the same field will contain similar nutrient levels. The differences across fields was evident in a recent article by Michael Reuter in Progressive Forage1. His article and data show us all, the significant differences even among bales from the same field. Understanding and managing these differences can make a big impact, especially for organic farmers who want to optimize livestock nutrition and maintain a consistent quality of forage.

The following table from the article1 presents the nutrient composition and analysis of 20 individual bales randomly sampled from an 86-acre hay field, which was managed as a unit and harvested all at the same time:

The analysis of the 20 hay bales showed surprising variability in key nutrients such as Crude Protein (%CP), fiber content (measured as %ADF and %NDF), and essential minerals like Calcium (%CA) and Phosphorus (%P). Summary statistics of the nutrient composition are presented below:

Crude protein, for example, varied from 9.7% to 15.9%. This 6.2 percentage point difference could significantly influence the nutritional value of hay fed to livestock.

Fiber levels also differed substantially. The ranges in Acid Detergent Fiber (%ADF) and Neutral Detergent Fiber (%NDF) directly affect how digestible the hay is and how much livestock will eat. Calcium and phosphorus levels, which are critical for bone health and metabolic functions, also showed noteworthy differences between bales.

Why Does This Variability Happen?

Even in a well-managed hayfield, several factors can contribute to this nutrient variability:

  1. Soil Fertility Differences: Organic amendments like compost or manure may not be evenly spread across the field. Variability in soil nutrients can cause different areas of the field to produce hay with varying nutrient levels.
  2. Crop Rotation and Plant Diversity: Rotating different crops or allowing natural diversity in the field is beneficial for soil health, but it can also lead to differences in how well each crop absorbs nutrients.
  3. Pest, Weed, and Microclimate Effects: Organic fields often have more variability in pest pressure, weed growth, and microclimates. These differences can lead to uneven growth, which in turn affects nutrient content.
Managing Nutrient Variability

To minimize these differences and provide more consistent forage quality, farmers can take several practical steps:

  • Soil Testing: Regularly test soil across different sections of the field. This helps identify nutrient deficiencies or hotspots, allowing targeted amendment application.
  • Even Amendment Application: When applying compost, manure, or other organic fertilizers, try to ensure even distribution across the field. Variability in amendment application is a key factor in nutrient inconsistency.
  • Use Cover Crops: Cover cropping can help improve soil structure and increase nutrient cycling, which leads to more uniform plant growth.
  • Monitor Harvest Stages: Harvesting at a consistent plant maturity stage across the field can help reduce variability. Plants harvested at different growth stages can differ significantly in nutrient content.
  • Matching Regular Soil and Forage Testing: Applying soil nutrients based on soil tests and then testing multiple hay bales gives a clearer picture of the overall nutrient profile from start to finish. Testing hay allows adjustments in livestock feeding to meet nutritional needs effectively and maybe even save money!
Why Managing Nutrient Variability Matters

In organic systems, where synthetic supplements are not allowed, maximizing the natural nutrient content of forages is essential. Variable hay quality can significantly impact livestock health, as inconsistencies in nutrition may lead to reduced growth rates, lower milk production, or other health issues. Moreover, optimizing the quality of on-farm forage can reduce the need for expensive purchased supplements and any organic supplements are not cheap.

Maintaining consistent forage quality also supports animal welfare, which is a core value of organic and sustainable farming. Healthy, well-fed animals are more resistant to disease, aligning with the organic principle of promoting natural immunity and reducing intervention.

Conclusion

Variability is a natural part of farming, but with informed management, we can turn that variability into an opportunity for learning and improvement—ultimately providing better feed for our livestock and keeping our farms resilient.

1.Data Source: October 1, 2024 issue of Progressive Forage written by Michael Reuter, Analytical Services Technical Manager at Dairy One Cooperative Inc. and Equi-Analytical Labs.

Organic Agriculture, Markets, and Trust: Emerging Trends for Texas Producers

  1. Organic Agriculture as a Long-Term Strategy
  2. Organic Market Report for Texas Organic Farmers
  3. Organic Wheat
  4. Organic Corn
  5. Organic Dairy
  6. Organic Soybeans
  7. Organic Integrity and Import Oversight Expand Under USDA SOE Rule
  8. Sources and Market References

Organic Agriculture as a Long-Term Strategy

Organic agriculture is increasingly revealing itself as more than simply a production system built around prohibited substances. Over the long term, it may be better understood as a biological and economic strategy centered on trust, resilience, traceability, and system function. While conventional agriculture often optimized around maximum efficiency, scale, and external inputs, organic agriculture has gradually emphasized relationships between soil biology, nutrient cycling, biodiversity, food quality, and consumer confidence. The USDA National Organic Program helped create a framework where consumers can trust production methods they cannot personally observe, making organic agriculture as much a transparency system as a farming system. At the same time, many long-term organic farmers increasingly report that mature organic systems (greater than 5-7 years) often become less dependent on purchased inputs as soil health, rotations, and biological regulation improve over time.

I hear often from farmers, bakers, dairy processors, and food manufacturers who frequently report differences in flavor, functionality, storage, processing quality, and handling characteristics that go beyond simple yield measurements. Meanwhile, rising transportation costs, supply-chain complexity, and consumer interest in traceability may and do, increasingly favor organic systems. Also, we are seeing technologies such as digital traceability, AI-driven compliance systems, and integrated recordkeeping beginning to reduce some of the traditional burdens associated with organic certification.

These broader trends are also becoming increasingly visible within organic grain and dairy markets themselves, where pricing is often shaped less by simple commodity production and more by quality, traceability, transportation, end use, and long-term supply relationships. Current (Jan. to May 2026) USDA AMS reports and organic market activity continue to show that organic agriculture operates through highly differentiated markets where buyer confidence, dependable supply, and product identity can significantly influence value.

Organic Market Report for Texas Organic Farmers

Organic markets continue to show strong differentiation by quality, delivery structure, end use, and contract type rather than functioning as simple commodity markets. Across grains and dairy, USDA AMS reports continue to show active forward contracting, regional price variation, and premiums tied to quality, storage, transportation, and dependable supply relationships. While organic market reporting remains in “short supply” in some Southern regions, including Texas, the overall market signals suggest that buyers continue working to secure reliable supplies of organic feed grains, food-grade products, and dairy inputs well ahead of delivery.

Organic Wheat

Organic wheat prices remain highly differentiated by class, protein, buyer type, delivery terms, and contract structure. In recent AMS reports, Soft Red Winter values often fall in the high single digits to low teens, while Hard Red Spring commands a stronger premium, with some flour-mill forward contracts reaching $20/bu. The main takeaway is that organic wheat is priced less as a generic commodity and more as a set of niche markets defined by end use, quality, freight terms, and whether the transaction is spot, bid, or forward contracted.

For Texas organic wheat farmers, this means harvest is also a marketing decision. Growers who can protect test weight, maintain protein, and keep grain clean and dry are in the best position to capture milling premiums, while those selling quickly into generic feed or elevator channels may leave money on the table. Before cutting, it is worth comparing buyers, delivery terms, and contract options, because in this market the details can matter as much as the wheat itself.

Organic Corn

Organic corn markets continue to show relatively strong and stable pricing compared to many other organic commodities, with much of the AMS-reported activity clustering around the mid-$10 per bushel range (but I see it steadily increasing). Prices still vary by location, contract structure, and whether the grain is old crop or new crop, but the overall pattern suggests a market supported by steady feed demand, active forward contracting, and ongoing regional supply shortages. Unlike organic wheat, where protein and milling quality create wider price separation, organic corn remains heavily influenced by livestock feed demand, freight costs, and regional availability.

For Texas organic corn growers, the message is to stay flexible and market carefully checking regularly on prices. Producers who can store grain, preserve quality, and deliver into specialty feed, dairy, poultry, or food-grade channels may be able to capture better returns than those forced to sell at harvest. Transportation costs and local buyer demand can make a meaningful difference, particularly in regions where organic feed supplies remain limited. Forward contracts (some but not all!) also remain important because they help secure long-term supply relationships and reduce risk in a market that continues rewarding dependable volume and consistent quality.

Organic Dairy

The USDA Organic Dairy Market News Report for May 4–15 provides a snapshot of current organic dairy market conditions rather than a policy or technical standards document. The report shows that organic milk demand remained strong during spring 2026, with U.S. sales of total organic milk products up 5.6 percent for March and organic whole milk sales also showing strong year-over-year growth. Retail organic dairy products, especially milk and yogurt, continue maintaining noticeable price premiums, reflecting continued consumer demand for organic dairy products and broader interest in food products associated with transparency, animal welfare, and ingredient sourcing.

The report also demonstrates how closely the organic dairy sector remains tied to feed markets and broader supply conditions. Organic grain and feed markets remain active, with some forward contracts extending into 2027, indicating that buyers continue working to secure future supply. For producers, the overall signal is that organic dairy demand and premium pricing remain solid, but feed costs, export movement, and retail advertising trends continue shaping a competitive market that remains sensitive to supply and input conditions.

Organic Soybeans

I know we don’t produce many organic soybeans, but they do indicate some import protein trends. Organic soybean markets continue showing some of the strongest structural support among major organic grain commodities, with pricing being driven largely by protein demand, livestock feed markets, and food-grade specialty channels. Unlike organic wheat, where class and milling quality create major price separation, soybean values appear more closely tied to dependable supply, identity preservation, and end use. AMS-reported activity suggests that forward contracting remains active, indicating that buyers continue working to secure long-term supply in a market where domestic production remains limited and imported soybeans still influence overall availability and pricing.

For Texas organic producers, soybeans provide an important lesson even where acreage remains limited. Organic soybean markets demonstrate how protein quality, cleanliness, storage, and buyer relationships increasingly shape value in organic agriculture. Food-grade and identity-preserved soybeans can carry significant premiums over generic feed channels, reinforcing the idea that organic crops are often marketed less as bulk commodities and more as differentiated products tied to specific supply chains. The continued influence of imported soybeans also highlights the importance of dependable domestic production capable of meeting both feed and food-grade demand.

As Texas organic markets continue developing, similar trends may increasingly influence corn, sorghum, wheat, peanuts, and other crops where end use, traceability, and dependable supply relationships become more important than simple yield alone.

Organic Integrity and Import Oversight Expand Under USDA SOE Rule

The USDA National Organic Program continues expanding oversight of imported organic products through the Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) rule. New Organic Insider reports highlight how USDA is now using import certificate data, shipment tracking, and compliance analytics to identify irregular trade patterns and investigate potential fraud before products reach the marketplace. Several recent investigations involved imported organic products lacking valid import certificates, while another case involving raspberries from Mexico demonstrated how residue testing and traceability systems prevented contaminated products from entering U.S. commerce. The increased emphasis on farm-to-market traceability reflects USDA’s growing focus on maintaining consumer confidence and strengthening enforcement throughout global organic supply chains.

The newly released 2025 organic import data also provide a revealing picture of the modern organic marketplace. Total U.S. organic imports approached $12 billion in 2025 (total organic sales in the US are $76 billion), with Mexico representing more than 20% of total import value. Organic beef, coffee, bananas, blueberries, avocados, olive oil, and processed soybean products ranked among the largest import categories. The data reinforce that organic agriculture has become deeply connected to international supply chains and value-added food manufacturing systems rather than operating solely as a domestic farm commodity market.

For U.S. organic producers, these trends highlight both continued strong consumer demand for organic products and the increasing importance of traceability, market relationships, and maintaining trust in the organic label. For Texas organic farmers specifically, future competitiveness may depend less on maximizing volume alone and more on building dependable supply relationships, preserving quality, improving traceability, and positioning farms within regional food systems that value identity preservation, biological function, and long-term resilience.

Sources and Market References

This market analysis and commentary were developed using information from the following USDA and industry reports:

Additional market interpretation and analysis were developed through ongoing observations of organic grain, dairy, and specialty crop markets relevant to Texas organic producers.

BNI Wheat: Can the Crop Help Manage Its Own Nitrogen?

Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients in crop production, but it is also one of the hardest to manage well. In organic agriculture, that challenge is even greater because we do not use synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. We depend on legumes, manure, compost, crop rotations, soil organic matter, and biological activity to supply nitrogen over time.

That makes nitrogen efficiency extremely important. Every pound of nitrogen released from manure, compost, legumes, or soil organic matter needs to be captured by the crop as effectively as possible. When nitrogen is lost, the farmer may lose yield potential, grain protein, forage value, and money. The environment can also lose because nitrogen may move into water or escape from the soil as nitrogen gases. This is why a concept called Biological Nitrification Inhibition, or BNI, has great potential and why we are looking at it in our wheat breeding programs.

What Is BNI?

BNI is a natural plant trait where roots release compounds that slow down nitrification, the microbial process that converts ammonium nitrogen into nitrate nitrogen.

That matters because ammonium nitrogen, written as NH₄⁺, tends to stay attached to soil particles. Nitrate nitrogen, written as NO₃⁻, is much more mobile and can move with water below the root zone. Nitrate can also be involved in soil processes that produce nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas.

In simple terms, BNI may help the crop slow the leak in the nitrogen bucket.

BNI does not stop nitrogen cycling. It does not sterilize the soil. It simply slows one part of the nitrogen cycle near the root so more nitrogen may remain available to the crop longer. Researchers describe BNI as root exudates suppressing ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea, which are microbes involved in the first major step of nitrification (Coskun et al., 2017; Subbarao et al., 2013; Subbarao et al., 2021).

Why This Matters in Organic Farming

Organic farmers already work hard to build nitrogen through biology. Legume cover crops, compost, manure, crop residues, and soil organic matter all release nitrogen through natural processes. The challenge is timing. The crop needs nitrogen at certain growth stages, but the soil releases nitrogen according to moisture, temperature, microbial activity, and residue quality.

If nitrogen becomes nitrate too early, it may be lost before the crop can use it. BNI wheat may help by keeping more nitrogen in the ammonium form near the root system.

That does not replace good organic management. BNI wheat would still need good rotations, fertility planning, soil health, weed control, and adapted varieties. But if the crop can help hold nitrogen in the root zone longer, it may improve nitrogen-use efficiency in systems where nitrogen is often expensive, limited, or difficult to time correctly.

Why Wheat?

Wheat is one of the most flexible crops in American agriculture. It can be harvested for grain, cut for silage, grazed as forage, used in dual-purpose systems, or grown as a cover crop. That makes wheat especially important in organic systems. In Texas, wheat is often part of livestock systems and row-crop rotations. For organic dairy, beef, grain, and cover crop systems, a more nitrogen-efficient wheat could have value across the whole farm.

Is BNI Wheat Genetically Engineered?

No! The BNI wheat being discussed in current research is developed through conventional plant breeding methods, not genetic engineering. Researchers identified a strong BNI capacity in a wild relative of wheat called Leymus racemosus. The BNI-associated chromosome segment from that wild relative was transferred into wheat, and researchers have since developed BNI-enabled wheat lines such as MUNAL-BNI and ROELFS-BNI (Subbarao et al., 2021; Bozal-Leorri et al., 2022).

This work uses crossing, backcrossing, marker-assisted selection, root exudate testing, and field evaluation. These are conventional breeding tools, even though some are advanced. Marker-assisted selection simply helps breeders identify which plants inherited the desired chromosome segment. It does not create a genetically engineered plant. That distinction matters for organic agriculture because BNI wheat fits within the conventional plant breeding pathway.

What Do We Know So Far?

The science is still developing, but the early evidence is encouraging. Research has shown that BNI capacity exists in wild relatives of wheat and in some wheat landraces. One study found significant BNI activity in several wheat landraces, showing that BNI is not limited only to wild species (O’Sullivan et al., 2016). More recent work shows that wheat genotypes vary in root exudate chemistry and BNI activity, which means breeders may have useful natural variation to work with (Ghatak et al., 2025).

Studies with BNI-enabled wheat lines have reported reduced ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, lower nitrification potential, lower nitrate levels, greater ammonium retention, improved nitrogen uptake, and no yield penalty in many cases (Subbarao et al., 2021; Bozal-Leorri et al., 2022; Karwat et al., 2025).

That does not mean every question is answered. Soil type, pH, temperature, nitrogen source, crop stage, and variety background can all affect how well BNI works. But the evidence is strong enough to justify serious breeding, field testing, and organic systems research.

What Could BNI Wheat Mean for Farmers?

For organic grain farmers, better nitrogen-use efficiency could help with both yield and grain protein. Protein is especially important in bread wheat markets, and nitrogen availability is one of the major drivers of protein.

For organic dairy and livestock producers, BNI wheat could have value as forage, silage, grazing, or feed grain. If wheat can use nitrogen more efficiently, it may improve the economics of growing organic feed locally.

For organic crop rotations, BNI wheat could become another tool to help stabilize fertility. It will not replace legumes, compost, manure, or cover crops, but it may help the crop use those biological nitrogen sources more efficiently.

For the environment, BNI wheat may reduce nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions. Reviews of BNI research suggest that BNI crops can improve nitrogen-use efficiency and reduce nitrogen losses, although field performance will depend on soil, climate, crop genetics, and management (Coskun et al., 2017; Subbarao et al., 2013; Saud et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021).

References

Bozal-Leorri, A., Subbarao, G., Kishii, M., Urmeneta, L., Kommerell, V., Karwat, H., Braun, H., Aparicio-Tejo, P., Ortiz-Monasterio, I., González-Murua, C., & González-Moro, M. (2022). Biological nitrification inhibitor-trait enhances nitrogen uptake by suppressing nitrifier activity and improves ammonium assimilation in two elite wheat varieties. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1034219

Coskun, D., Britto, D., Shi, W., & Kronzucker, H. (2017). Nitrogen transformations in modern agriculture and the role of biological nitrification inhibition. Nature Plants, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.74

Ghatak, A., et al. (2025). Natural variation of the wheat root exudate metabolome and its influence on biological nitrification inhibition activity. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 23, 4755–4772. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.70248

Karwat, H., et al. (2025). Nitrogen dynamics and yield performance of an elite bread wheat line with BNI capacity expressed in an alkaline soil. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.29.667244

O’Sullivan, C., Fillery, I., Roper, M., & Richards, R. (2016). Identification of several wheat landraces with biological nitrification inhibition capacity. Plant and Soil, 404, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-2822-4

Subbarao, G. V., et al. (2021). Enlisting wild grass genes to combat nitrification in wheat farming: A nature-based solution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106595118

Subbarao, G. V., et al. (2013). A paradigm shift towards low-nitrifying production systems: The role of biological nitrification inhibition (BNI). Annals of Botany, 112(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs230

Wang, X., et al. (2021). Effects of biological nitrification inhibitors on nitrogen use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural soils: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 220, 112338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112338

Flame Weeding, Soil Biology, and Organic Farming: Questions Worth Asking

One of the interesting things about organic agriculture is that it constantly forces us to balance competing biological, ecological, and practical realities. Recently, I posted a short video showing a farmer using a propane flame weeder to suppress field bindweed, and it generated a spirited discussion about soil biology, climate impacts, and whether flame weeding even belongs in organic systems.1

Rather than turning that discussion into “who won the argument,” I think it raises some important questions that many farmers, gardeners, and consumers are already asking.

Field bindweed itself is a good example of why these conversations matter. Field bindweed is one of the most difficult perennial weeds in organic farming. It spreads aggressively through deep underground roots and rhizomes, and tillage can actually make infestations worse by cutting and moving living root fragments throughout the field.

Can flame weeding fit within a biologically minded organic system? Does flame weeding sterilize the soil?

This is probably the biggest concern people have when they first see flame weeding. The answer is no — not in the way many imagine.

Flame weeding is a very shallow, fast exposure of heat. The objective is usually not to incinerate the plant but to rupture plant cells in the foliage. Most flame weeding systems move rapidly across the soil surface, and soil itself is actually a very effective insulator.

Research has shown that the heat impact declines dramatically within just a few millimeters of soil depth. Surface microorganisms may certainly be affected, especially some bacteria very near the soil surface, but the overwhelming majority of the soil microbial ecosystem remains protected below that thin layer.2

That distinction matters because soil microbial communities are not static. Bacterial populations can rebound extremely quickly under favorable conditions. Fungi, spores, protected aggregates, organic matter, and deeper microbial habitats often remain largely intact.

A useful comparison is prescribed burning in rangelands and forests. Fire can temporarily suppress some organisms near the surface while simultaneously stimulating nutrient cycling, changing plant competition, reducing excess residue, and shifting ecological balance. The outcome depends heavily on intensity, duration, frequency, and what happens afterward.

Why would an organic farmer use flame weeding at all?

Texas A&M AgriLife weed research just got the new Red Dragon Engineering flaming attachment setup to allow for burndown as well as in-row applications. Hopefully, this will be another useful tool in the toolbox. The “weed team” will be testing it in organic cotton and sorghum this summer.

Organic farming is not simply “avoiding chemicals.” It is a management system focused on biological function, long-term productivity, and ecological balance. But organic farmers still have to manage weeds. Perennial weeds create especially difficult problems because many standard control methods can worsen the issue. With bindweed, repeated tillage often spreads the infestation. Herbicides are not available in certified organic systems. Hand labor is expensive and often impractical at field scale. In the case from the video, the farmer was not trying to permanently kill bindweed with a single flame pass. That would be unrealistic but instead, the goal was suppression.

The farmer was temporarily weakening the bindweed canopy until soil temperatures became warm enough to plant a highly competitive sorghum forage crop. Sorghum can become an extremely aggressive shading crop that competes strongly against bindweed while simultaneously contributing large amounts of root biomass and crop residue back into the soil.

Why do grasses like sorghum often stimulate bacterial activity?

Grass crops such as sorghum, corn, wheat, and other cereals typically produce extensive fibrous root systems. Those roots release large amounts of carbon compounds — called root exudates — into the rhizosphere, which is the narrow zone of soil surrounding roots. These exudates feed bacteria and other microorganisms.

Many soil biology tests, including PLFA (phospholipid fatty acid analysis) and Haney soil testing approaches, often show strong bacterial responses following vigorous grass growth. That does not mean fungi are unimportant. In fact, healthy soils need both fungal and bacterial communities. But grasses frequently shift the system toward greater bacterial dominance compared to some perennial or woody systems. The important point is that soil biology is dynamic. A single management event does not define the entire biological trajectory of a field.

What about climate concerns from propane?

That is also a fair question. Propane is a fossil fuel. There is no reason to pretend otherwise. But agricultural systems are rarely evaluated honestly if we isolate one input without comparing alternatives.

The comparison is not “flame weeding versus doing nothing.” The comparison is usually:

  • repeated tillage passes,
  • additional tractor operations,
  • cultivation,
  • soil disturbance,
  • diesel fuel use,
  • erosion risk,
  • moisture loss,
  • or long-term perennial weed spread.

In some situations, a targeted flame treatment may actually reduce total disturbance compared to aggressive tillage programs. Organic agriculture often involves choosing between imperfect tools while trying to move the system toward better long-term outcomes.

Can flame weeding be overused?

Absolutely! If someone used intense flame applications repeatedly with no larger biological or agronomic strategy, there could certainly be negative consequences. Like tillage, grazing, cover crops, fertilizers, or irrigation, the effect depends on how the tool is used. Flame weeding should generally be viewed as a targeted management tool, not the foundation of the farming system.

A biologically focused farmer should still prioritize:

  • living roots,
  • residue cover,
  • diverse rotations,
  • microbial habitat,
  • reduced disturbance,
  • carbon cycling,
  • and competitive crop canopies.

Organic farming is often about tradeoffs, not perfection

One challenge in discussing organic agriculture publicly is that people sometimes assume every organic practice must have zero environmental cost. Real farming does not work that way. Organic farming is a systems approach. Farmers constantly balance weed pressure, economics, soil biology, labor, fuel use, crop competition, erosion risk, and long-term field productivity.

The more useful question is usually not:
“Is this tool perfect?”

But rather:
“Does this tool move the overall system in a healthier direction over time?”

For difficult perennial weeds like bindweed, many organic farmers would argue that temporary suppression combined with competitive crops, biological improvement, and reduced tillage may be preferable to aggressive cultivation that spreads the weed even further. That does not end the discussion, but it does make the conversation more nuanced than simply saying “fire is bad for soil biology.”

References

  1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/part-205#p-205.206(c)(5) ↩︎
  2. Rahkonen, J., Pietikäinen, J., & Jokela, H. (1999). The Effects of Flame Weeding on Soil Microbial Biomass. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 16, 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.1999.9755239. ↩︎

Additional Resources

“Probing Our Country’s Soil Health”

A new public-private partnership for improving how soil health can help with management decisions is being conducted in the United States. The project is called “Probing Our Country’s Soil Health”.  They are looking for farmers and ranchers to participate. In fact, the project is looking for 420 fields in Texas with up to 210 participants – just in Texas. The only restriction is that you be a farmer – sorry gardeners, just farmers should apply!

Organic Farmers should jump at this chance to get free soil health testing including someone to actually take the samples! At least ~$1200 in value……

Participating landowners will receive: 

  • Compensation for your time (~ 1 hour) for helping
  • A personalized soil health report of your fields. The value of this lab work (at no cost to you) is about a thousand dollars per field.
  • A copy of a book called “Probing Our Country’s Soil Health”. This will be a hard-copy photo book illustrating soil health across the country and the outcomes to this project.

To learn more about this project, click on Probing Our Country’s Soil Health to see a short video:

If interested in participating, you will need to:

  • Sign up for a one-hour Zoom Meeting where a facilitator will lead you through a management survey for 2 or 3 fields.
  • Grant access to fields for hand-probe soil sampling 2 or 3 sampling sites from each field. Normally this will happen 3-6 months after the survey; you will be notified beforehand.

To enroll as a landowner participant, click on this booking page link to schedule an appointment:

Select a Date & Time – Calendly

GOTS Version 8.0 – What It Means for Texas Organic Cotton

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is the primary certification used to verify organic cotton as it moves from the farm through the gin and into textile markets. While USDA organic certification covers production, GOTS governs how that cotton is handled, processed, and sold as organic in the textile supply chain.

GOTS released Version 8.0 this spring (effective March 1, 2027), and while most of the discussion centers around global textile supply chains, there are several changes that matter directly to organic cotton producers and gins here in Texas. From my perspective, this update is less about changing how we grow cotton and more about tightening how the system verifies and documents what we are already doing. I hate more rules but we do operate in a global market!

One of the clearest shifts in Version 8.0 is the increased focus on the gin as the first control point in the organic textile chain. GOTS continues to define the gin as the “first processor,” but now places more emphasis on what happens at that stage—especially around segregation, documentation, and traceability. In practical terms, this means the gin is no longer just moving cotton through the system; it is playing a key role in protecting and verifying organic integrity.

Another area that will get attention is GMO testing at the gin level. GOTS 8.0 reinforces the requirement for testing, but it is important to understand what did not change. There is still no numeric GMO threshold written into the standard. Instead, certification decisions continue to be based on whether the farmer followed approved organic practices and whether the certifier can verify compliance. In other words, a test result by itself does not determine the outcome—the system and the documentation behind it still matter most.

The biggest structural change in GOTS 8.0 is the introduction of a more formal due diligence approach. That is a technical way of saying that every part of the supply chain—from farm to gin to buyer—is now expected to identify risks, document them, and show how they are being managed. For organic cotton, this puts more focus on real-world issues we already deal with, such as neighboring GMO crops, harvest handling, and maintaining clean separation through the gin.

Traceability also continues to tighten. GOTS has always relied on Scope Certificates and Transaction Certificates, but Version 8.0 reinforces that every step in the chain must be documented clearly and consistently. Clean paperwork and clear records are becoming just as important as clean cotton.

Finally, GOTS 8.0 continues to reinforce a rule that is especially important in Texas: no blending of conventional cotton into organic textile streams. With organic and conventional production often side by side, this keeps pressure on gins to maintain strict separation and handling practices.

What This Means on the Ground

From a practical standpoint, most organic farmers will not need to change what they are doing in the field. The fundamentals remain the same—approved seed, buffers, and a solid organic system plan. Where things are changing is in how well that system must be documented and verified after harvest.

For gins, the role is becoming more critical. There will be increased expectations around segregation, documentation, and participation in the verification process. The gin is now clearly a key link in maintaining organic integrity.

Bottom Line

GOTS 8.0 is not about rewriting organic production—it is about proving that the system worked all the way through the supply chain. That means more attention to testing, documentation, and traceability, but the foundation remains the same: organic certification is based on process and compliance, not just a single test result.

References

GOTS Version 8.0 released: Advanced supply chain accountability, from fiber to finished product