A Pesticide Was Detected—What Does That Mean for My Organic Crop?

We are right in the middle of the growing season, which also means that many certified organic farmers are receiving their annual organic inspection. During some inspections, the inspector may collect plant tissue, harvested grain, fruit, vegetables, soil, water or another sample and send it to a laboratory for pesticide residue testing.

Then the farmer receives a message saying, “A pesticide residue was detected.”

Those words can create some immediate panic! However, a pesticide detection does not automatically mean that your farm has lost organic certification or that you intentionally applied a prohibited pesticide. There is a process that the organic certifier must follow to determine what was detected, how much was found and where it may have come from.

Use Only Products Approved by Your Certifier

Let me start with the most important reminder: every material used on a certified organic farm should be approved by your certifier before it is applied. This includes pesticides, fertilizers, seed treatments, biological products, soil amendments, adjuvants, surfactants and even products used to clean equipment that may contact an organic crop. An OMRI listing is very helpful, but an OMRI-listed product should still be submitted to your certifier and included in your Organic System Plan before use. USDA states that all substances used on an organic operation must be approved by the operation’s certifying agent before use.

There are several reasons for this:

  • The product may only be allowed for certain uses.
  • The label formulation may have changed.
  • A product with a similar name may not be the same formulation.
  • The certifier may need to verify active and inactive ingredients.
  • Some allowed pesticides can only be used after preventive, cultural and biological controls have been documented.

My advice is simple: do not depend only on the OMRI logo on the container. Send the complete product label to your certifier and get written approval before application.

Why Are Organic Farms Tested?

USDA requires organic certifiers to sample and test products from at least 5 percent of the operations they certify each year. A certifier with fewer than 30 certified operations must test at least one operation annually.

The certifier may select farms:

  • randomly;
  • because they produce a large volume of organic products;
  • because the crop or location presents a higher contamination risk;
  • because of a complaint or suspected problem; or
  • as part of an investigation.

Being selected for testing does not mean that the farmer is accused of wrongdoing. Testing is a normal part of protecting the integrity of the organic label. The certifier pays for this required periodic testing, and the sample must be collected by an authorized inspector, maintained under a proper chain of custody and analyzed by an accredited laboratory.

What Happens When Nothing Is Detected?

The easiest result is “not detected.” This means that the laboratory did not find any of the pesticides included in the laboratory screen above the method’s reporting limit. Remember that “not detected” does not necessarily mean that absolutely zero molecules were present. It means that the laboratory did not detect the pesticide at or above the level the test could reliably identify and report. A report may show glyphosate at >0.01 ppm which means it is there and detectable but at very low levels.

What Happens When a Pesticide Is Detected?

Remember you are in a farming area and pesticide residues can sometimes come from:

  • spray drift from a neighboring field;
  • contaminated irrigation water (especially in rice country);
  • contaminated harvest or transportation equipment;
  • inadequate cleanout of storage bins;
  • commingling during handling;
  • residues remaining from earlier land use; or
  • an input that contained an ingredient not disclosed on the label.

The certifier must consider the pesticide, the amount detected, the crop tested and the available production records.

The 0.01 ppm—or 10 Parts per Billion—Decision Point

NOP guidance identifies 0.01 parts per million, or 10 parts per billion, as an important decision point. A concentration of 0.01 ppm is extremely small. It is roughly comparable to one second in a little more than three years. Modern laboratories can detect some pesticides at very low concentrations, which is why a laboratory may find a residue even when the farmer did not intentionally apply that pesticide.

When a prohibited pesticide is detected at or above 0.01 ppm, the certifier first determines whether EPA has established a legal tolerance for that pesticide on the particular crop or commodity tested.

That crop-specific detail is important. A pesticide may have:

  • one tolerance on cottonseed;
  • a different tolerance on corn;
  • another tolerance on vegetables; or
  • no legal tolerance at all on a particular crop (a pesticide is detected but one that is not for the crop being tested. I had an organic hay producer with a detected potato fungicide on the crop. Where did that come from?).

What Is an EPA Pesticide Tolerance?

An EPA tolerance is the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may legally remain in or on a food or agricultural commodity. This is primarily a conventional pesticide and food-safety standard. It is not an organic pesticide allowance. The organic regulations use 5 percent of the EPA tolerance as the level at which an affected product must be excluded from organic sale.

For example, suppose EPA has established a tolerance of 1.0 ppm for a particular pesticide on a particular crop.

Five percent of that tolerance would be: 1.0 ppm times 0.05 = 0.05 ppm

The organic exclusion threshold would therefore be 0.05 ppm, or 50 parts per billion. This example means that if a residue is found in testing your crop that is greater than 0.05 ppm your crop cannot be sold as organic and you will get a notice of noncompliance.

Below 5 Percent of the EPA Tolerance

When the residue is at or below 5 percent of the EPA tolerance, the crop is not automatically excluded from organic sale solely because of the residue level.

However, the certifier may still investigate:

  • whether the farmer applied the pesticide;
  • whether spray drift occurred;
  • whether buffers were adequate;
  • whether shared equipment was properly cleaned;
  • whether storage and transportation protected the organic crop; and
  • whether the farmer followed the approved Organic System Plan.

If the farmer did not apply the pesticide and had reasonable preventive practices in place, the result may represent unavoidable contamination rather than a violation by the farmer. The certifier may still require corrective action. For example, the farmer may need to increase a buffer, improve equipment-cleaning records, communicate with a neighboring applicator or change how the harvested crop is stored.

Above 5 Percent of the EPA Tolerance

When testing detects a prohibited pesticide at a level greater than 5 percent of EPA’s tolerance for that pesticide on that commodity, the affected agricultural product cannot be sold, labeled or represented as organic. This does not necessarily mean that the entire farm immediately loses certification.

The certifier must determine what product the sample represents. Depending on the circumstances, the affected product could be:

  • one field;
  • one harvest lot;
  • one bin;
  • one truckload;
  • one storage unit; or
  • a larger quantity that was commingled.

Good field, harvest and storage records become extremely important. If a farmer can clearly show which field supplied each lot or bin, the certifier may be able to limit the problem to the affected product. When records are incomplete and several fields or loads have been mixed together, it may be difficult to separate the contaminated product from the rest of the crop.

What if There Is No EPA Tolerance?

Sometimes a laboratory detects a pesticide for which EPA has not established a tolerance on the tested crop. If there is no EPA tolerance and no applicable FDA action level, NOP guidance says that a prohibited pesticide residue above 0.01 ppm generally results in the affected product being excluded from organic sale. The certifier must also determine whether the result should be reported to EPA, FDA or the appropriate state agency. This is one reason that the name of the pesticide and the crop tested are just as important as the amount detected.

What if the Farmer Applied the Pesticide?

The 5-percent threshold does not create permission to use a prohibited pesticide. If an investigation shows that a prohibited pesticide was intentionally applied, the farmer may be out of compliance even when the residue detected is very low.

The certifier may consider:

  • exclusion of the affected crop from organic sale;
  • a notice of noncompliance;
  • suspension or revocation of certification; and
  • whether the field must complete a new 36-month transition period.

The basic organic requirement remains that prohibited substances cannot be applied to land during the 36 months before harvesting an organic crop. The residue level helps determine what happens to the product, but the investigation determines whether prohibited use occurred.

What Should a Farmer Do After Receiving a Positive Result?

First, do not panic—but do respond promptly.

I would recommend that the farmer:

  1. Ask for the complete laboratory report.
  2. Confirm the pesticide that was detected.
  3. Confirm the concentration in ppm or ppb.
  4. Ask whether EPA has a tolerance for that pesticide on the tested crop.
  5. Review all input and application records.
  6. Review neighboring pesticide applications and any drift concerns.
  7. Review equipment cleanout, harvest, storage and transportation records.
  8. Identify exactly which field, lot, bin or load the sample represents.
  9. Provide the certifier with any information that could help identify the source.
  10. Document corrective actions that may prevent another occurrence.

Do not immediately assume that a neighboring farmer caused the detection. The location of the sample, pesticide chemistry, timing of nearby applications, weather, field pattern and other evidence should be considered before reaching that conclusion.

Finally, a positive test may begin an investigation, but good practices and good records help tell the complete story.

More Resources

  • USDA Memo to Certifiers: Periodic Residue Testing of Organic Products. (AMS)
  • USDA NOP 2613: Responding to Results from Pesticide Residue Testing. (AMS)
  • USDA Organic Regulations, §§ 205.670–205.671. (eCFR)

TAMZ107 Stands Out in a Wet Year for Corn Ear Rots

Sometimes two ears of corn can tell an important plant-breeding story.

Ears from the 2026 Taylor, Texas, corn hybrid trial. TAMZ107 (top) remained free of visible ear-rot symptoms, while an unnamed commercial hybrid (bottom) showed severe ear-rot damage.

Both ears pictured came from a 2026 corn hybrid trial near Taylor, Texas—one location in our multilocation testing program. The ear on top is TAMZ107, developed by Dr. Wenwei Xu, Texas A&M AgriLife Research corn breeder at Lubbock. The ear on bottom is an unnamed commercial hybrid.

Frequent rainfall and humid conditions during the 2026 growing season have favored corn ear rots across parts of Texas. The commercial ear shows severe ear-rot symptoms, with Fusarium among the predominant ear-rot pathogens observed this season. All commercial hybrids in this trial showed some ear-rot damage, while the TAMZ hybrids remained free of visible symptoms.

The importance of this comparison is not the identity of the commercial company. It is the value of years of public plant breeding. Dr. Xu selected resistant inbred parents and combined them to produce TAMZ hybrids adapted to Texas conditions. TAMZ107 has been tested for several years and is now ready for release and fits an organic program because it is GMO free and adapted to organic conditions.

Genetic resistance is especially valuable for organic farmers because it arrives in the seed. The plant begins the season with its own protection rather than depending on a treatment after disease develops. Resistant hybrids can also benefit any farmer facing difficult weather and disease pressure.

See the TAMZ Hybrids in the Field

The TAMZ hybrids will be featured during the Field to Fiesta Corn Tour on Wednesday, August 12, beginning at 9 a.m. at the Halfway Research Center in Halfway, Texas. The tour will include the research center and nearby farm fields, followed by a sponsored lunch.

Topics will include heat during pollination, corn borers and earworms, drought tolerance, ear rots and herbicide drift. For attendance information, contact Extension Agronomist Kristie Keys at kristie.keys@ag.tamu.edu. View the program announcement.

New World Screwworm Update for Texas Organic Livestock Producers

I am writing this post to try and keep you updated on the procedures, policies and movement of New World Screwworm in Texas.  I have had several internal meetings with Extension Entomologists, Livestock and Veterinarian Specialists recently to better understand the situation, get status reports and possible treatments.  I am also on a “Task Force” of organic livestock producers and industry organized by the Organic Trade Association to discuss organic options, treatments and processes in the wake of this rapidly moving infestation. This task force also includes Lia Sieler with the Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, and she has been extremely helpful for raising organic dairy and livestock issues and in developing resources that help organic producers.

Let me first address the issue of NWS detections and infested-zone movement restrictions.  The map below is from this web page and is updated frequently by the Texas Animal Health Commission.  Texas Animal Health Commission

You can click on the website address or the pictures below to see these pages in your browser.  

As you look at this picture or the map below, you can see that the NWS is making fast progress through Southwest Texas and moving north and east as new cases are found. Click on a picture to go to the webpage.

This is the statement on livestock movement: Warm-blooded animals moving outside of an infested zone must contact the TAHC to set up an inspection. During this inspection, an animal health official will fill out an animal movement certificate listing the product used for prevention or treatment and the animals’ official ID. This certificate will need to accompany the animal movement. Additional guidance can be provided during an initial inspection request call to TAHC and general guidance can be referenced in the Livestock Movement from a NWS-Infested Zone handout.

If you do end up in an infested zone and need to move livestock, then you will need to get an NWS Animal Movement Certificate.  As an Extension Specialist, I went through the training and am now an Authorized NWS-Certified Inspector as are many veterinarians, county extension agents, etc.  This screwworm is the same one we had in Texas when they had so much trouble getting eradicated till 1966 when it was finally done (I am old enough to remember that program).  They determined that part of the problem with eradication was that unrestricted livestock movement caused reinfestation issues.  Now with available prevention and treatment products, the already operating Sterile Fly program, and the restriction on animal movement from infested areas, they hope to get to eradication again much quicker.

Lastly, there are organic issues with any of the approved treatment options for NWS.  At this time, the approved/authorized NWS treatment and prevention products I am aware of are not allowed for use in certified organic livestock production.  At this time, organic producers should assume that use of currently authorized synthetic NWS treatment products may affect that animal’s organic eligibility, so treatment decisions should be carefully documented and coordinated with TAHC, your veterinarian, and your certifier.  What we are hoping to see happen is the possibility of using Ivermectin (was on the NOP approved but has since been removed from the approved list) in infested zones only to treat calves as a preventative to NWS because of open wounds (umbilicus, castration, etc.).  This is being discussed even as I write this, but – Ivermectin may be part of conventional NWS prevention or treatment protocols, but it is not currently allowed under USDA organic rules for NWS.

As we learn more, you will receive the information ASAP so that you can make adjustments.  For now, you should:

  1. Inspect your animals on a regular and consistent basis. Even tick wounds can be a place for flies to lay eggs.
  2. Report any suspected cases. You can report to the Texas Animal Health Commission, to an Extension Agent or Specialist, to your veterinarian.  Just report it so animal health officials can confirm the case and trigger the appropriate response, including sterile fly release where warranted.
  3. Protect by having a working relationship with your veterinarian who knows you are certified organic.  

WODPA Developed Posters

As I mentioned, Lia Sieler and the Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance have been staying on top of this issue for organic dairy farmers. They have produced a couple of posters on New World Screwworm that are available to post in your milking parlor and hand out to your workers. One in English and one in Spanish. If you want to print them out it is best printed on 8.5 X 14 paper! Just click on a link below and it will open up in a new webpage.

English Version of New World Screwworm

Spanish Version of New World Screwworm

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. 

More Resources

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