farming – Texas A&M AgriLife Organic

Synthetic and Nonsynthetic

Why does it matter?

by: Dr. Brian Baker

Published in the OMRI Materials Review quarterly newsletter and reprinted with permission. omri.org/ I thought this was a great article and I learned some things about early organic organization I had not heard before. A big thanks to OMRI and Dr. Baker for allowing me to share this article. Bob Whitney

Organic standards in the United States differ from those in other parts of the world in many ways. One significant difference between the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) standard and other international standards is the way that inputs are evaluated and approved for use in organic production and handling. In general, the United States’ Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 ( OFPA) legally defined an agricultural production system based on sustainable production methods that rely primarily on natural materials. The OFPA authorizes the USDA to establish organic standards. These standards allow only synthetic materials that appear on the National List. The OFPA also gives the USDA the authority to prohibit non-synthetic substances deemed to be harmful to human health and the environment. Anyone can submit a petition to the NOP to add a substance to the National List. The USDA cannot add any synthetic substance to the National List without a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendation from a supermajority vote, after considering criteria in the OFPA related to the substance’s necessity and impact on health, the environment, and sustainability. All substances on the National List are required to be re-reviewed every five years and reaffirmed through a legislative sunset process. This unique process was established 35 years ago and has been in effect since 2002.

Why did the U.S. adopt an approach that was so heavily oriented toward the source, origin, and manufacturing process of inputs?

Private and State Standards

The roots of the natural/synthetic framework for agricultural inputs trace back to the first organic certification program in the U.S., conducted by the Rodale Press’ Organic Gardening and Farming magazine in the early 1970s, which defined organically grown food as: “Food grown without pesticides; grown without artificial fertilizers; grown in soil whose humus content is increased by the additions of organic matter; grown in soil whose mineral content is increased with applications of natural mineral fertilizers; and has not been treated with preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, etc.”

Rodale ceased their certification program and spun it off to various organic farmers’ organizations, including California Certified Organic Farmers, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), and Northwest Tilth, later to become Oregon Tilth and Washington Tilth. These grassroots organizations based their standards and procedures on Rodale’s model but modified them to meet local conditions.

The original certification standards were brief and subject to interpretation. Prior to federal regulation, the USDA’s Report and Recommendation on Organic Farming found that the organic farming movement covered a broad spectrum. Some organic farmers took a purist approach and used no synthetic inputs. Other organic farmers applied various synthetic fertilizers and/or pesticides selectively and sparingly. Many of the organic farmers that belonged to the organizations that set standards and conducted certification recognized the need to use some synthetic inputs to be economically viable and to grow high quality crops, but only a few that they considered necessary. These exceptions varied by region.

While most standards were set and enforced by the private sector, organic farmers were able to get some state legislatures to pass laws to protect the organic label. Oregon and Maine passed statutes to set organic standards in 1973. In 1979, California passed the California Organic Foods Act, which codified into law the paradigm that synthetic inputs are prohibited and nonsynthetic inputs are allowed, with a limited list of synthetic substances listed as exceptions in the statute. Because California was the state that both produced and purchased the most organic food, the California Organic Foods Act became the most recognized U.S. organic standard. However, it was not the only one. Private certifiers, particularly in the Midwest, were certifying organic products for export to Europe. These certifiers relied on the standards consistent with those set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). The IFOAM standards were more practice oriented, with inputs less important than methods. IFOAM established a closed positive list of inputs permitted for use in organic production and handling that was less open-ended than the California law. It also allowed several synthetic sources of naturally occurring substances, like potassium sulfate, and omitted several nonsynthetic substances, most notably sodium nitrate. The IFOAM standards became the basis for the European Union regulation on organic food and farming that passed in 1991. Various state laws governing organic food production also used a positive list approach to regulating inputs.

Organic Becomes a Federal Matter

In 1989, the CBS television show 60 Minutes reported on a study conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency knowingly allowed residues of a cancer-causing chemical to be present on certain foods. The pesticide implicated was a plant growth regulator used in apple production called Alar (daminozide).

Organic sales skyrocketed immediately after the episode was aired. However, fraud in the organic market was already rampant. Growing demand outstripped the supply of legitimate organic food, which spurred greater fraud. Various states enacted new organic food legislation. Those with existing laws significantly strengthened their standards. By the 1990s, over 20 states had laws on the books that regulated organic food, and each one was different.

The use of pesticides in organic production was hotly debated. Environmental and consumer groups, along with some long-time organic farmers, called on Congress to categorically ban all pesticides in organic production – even natural ones like rotenone and pyrethrum. Most organic farmers’ organizations, processors, and input suppliers lobbied for a bill that allowed some synthetic inputs, including a few pesticides.

The organic community presented Congress with three alternative approaches to address pesticides and other inputs. In addition to the natural/synthetic approach taken by California, and the closed positive list approach taken by many states and domestic private organizations, as well as IFOAM and the EU, another alternative considered was “agronomic responsibility.” That approach proposed organic standards that would permit any input allowed in organic production under limited specific circumstances, with metrics for improving soil. However, the agronomic responsibility model was opposed by certification bodies, environmental groups, and consumer advocates. That narrowed the debate to either the IFOAM/EU model or the California model.

Meanwhile, USDA officials testified against OFPA before Congress. If Congress mandated a closed positive list, USDA officials indicated that they would allow all inputs that were legal to use in conventional production for organic production as well, regardless of origin and without any additional limitations beyond current regulations. Those who promoted a closed, positive list realized that they could not reconcile growing differences between the various state and private standards before the 1990 Farm Bill. The factions of the organic movement worked out a consensus with Senate Agriculture Committee staffer, Kathleen Merrigan, that drew from all three model standards and convinced Congress to pass a bill that took a procedural approach to guide rulemaking.

The Senate Report on the OFPA explained the rationale for this approach: “Most consumers believe that absolutely no synthetic substances are used in organic production. For the most part, they are correct and this is the basic tenet of this legislation. But there are a few limited exceptions to the no-synthetic rule, and the National List is designed to handle these exceptions.”

The OFPA set a high bar for the USDA to make exceptions to the synthetic/nonsynthetic rule. It required an open, transparent process involving stakeholders to review and recommend those exceptions. Congress also recognized that some natural substances pose environmental or human health hazards and should be prohibited for organic production and handling. The National List includes nonsynthetic substances prohibited for organic production to address this anomaly. Congress explicitly mentioned arsenic and botanical insecticides as specific concerns.

Where We Are Today

Today’s National List evolved from organic food standards established prior to OFPA. The synthetic/nonsynthetic foundation of the law comes from tradition and consumer expectations that still hold true today. Exceptions are rarely made. Those few exceptions require a rigorous technical evaluation and a broad consensus of the organic community. The National List process takes a precautionary approach that protects human health and the environment. That approach provides an incentive for innovation that benefits all agriculture.

— End of reprinted article —

Periodically USDA NOP approved inputs are reviewed and either allowed or prohibited to continue to be used in certified organic system plans. This Sunset Review process involves the NOSB and National Organic Program.

Scaling Organic Agriculture: Why Farm Size and Technology Are Not the Problem

A common critique I hear—often from people who genuinely support organic—is that large-scale organic farms and advanced technology somehow “lose the ideals” associated with organic agriculture. The image many people carry is a small farm with diverse plantings, hedgerows, wildlife habitat, and hands-on management. In contrast, when they see a large organic operation using sensors, software, GPS-guided equipment, and streamlined logistics, they sometimes conclude that it is no longer “true organic.”

I understand where that reaction comes from. But as an Extension Organic Specialist, I also find it deeply frustrating, because it reflects a misunderstanding of what organic agriculture is and what it must become if it is going to have real impact. If we want organic to remain a small niche system, then we can keep it mostly hand-scale. But if we want organic to become mainstream—meaning millions of acres managed under organic standards—then organic will necessarily look like agriculture: mechanized, planned, measured, and managed with modern tools.

Organic is a Production Standard, not a Farm Size

The most important clarification is this: organic is defined by a regulated production and handling standard, not by farm size or “farm aesthetics.” In the United States, organic is governed under the USDA National Organic Program (NOP), which sets requirements for:

prohibited and allowed substances
soil fertility and crop nutrient management
pest, weed, and disease control approaches
recordkeeping, traceability, and annual inspection
avoidance of excluded methods (including genetic engineering)

A farm can be 20 acres or 20,000 acres and still follow the same legal standard. Scale does not automatically determine whether a farm is ecologically sound, ethically managed, or agronomically competent. I have seen small farms that are poorly managed and large farms that are exceptionally well managed. The reverse is also true. The difference is not the size—it is the management system and the accountability.

Why “Big Organic” Triggers Concern (and Why Some of It is Valid)

Concerns about large-scale organic often fall into a few categories:

Minimum-compliance farming
Some fear that large operations will do the least required to meet certification rather than aiming for continuous improvement in soil function and ecological resilience.
Simplified landscapes
Large farms can have fewer field borders, fewer habitat features, and fewer “visible signs” of biodiversity. This is a real risk if the production system is not designed intentionally.
Monoculture and rotation weakness
Large farms can drift toward narrow crop sequences, especially when markets or processing infrastructure favor a few commodities.
Values and trust
Organic is a consumer trust program. When consumers associate “corporate” with “profit over stewardship,” they worry the label becomes marketing rather than meaning.

These concerns should not be dismissed. They are worth discussing. But the mistake is assuming that technology or scale automatically causes poor outcomes. Poor outcomes come from poor management decisions, weak incentives, or weak enforcement—not from tractors, sensors, or data.

Technology is Not Anti-Organic: It Can Improve Stewardship

Organic farming is not defined by low technology. It is defined by the intentional avoidance of certain synthetic inputs and the use of systems-based management to support crop productivity and soil health. Technology can support that goal.

1) Sensors and irrigation efficiency

Water management is one of the clearest examples where technology aligns with organic principles. Soil moisture sensors and irrigation scheduling tools can:

prevent over-irrigation
reduce nutrient leaching and runoff risk
improve root health and drought resilience
reduce disease pressure associated with prolonged leaf wetness and saturated soils

In real-world farming, “using less water” is not a public relations statement—it is a measurable conservation outcome.

2) Nutrient management and nitrogen efficiency

Organic nitrogen (N) does not usually come from synthetic fertilizers. It comes from:

composts and manures
cover crops (especially legumes)
mineralization of soil organic matter
allowed inputs such as certain mined minerals and biological amendments

But organic nitrogen is also less predictable in timing and availability than synthetic N. Precision tools that improve the timing and placement of nutrients can reduce losses and improve crop response. Better nutrient planning is not “industrial.” It is good agronomy.

3) Weed and pest monitoring systems

Organic systems often rely on prevention, competition, timing, and mechanical control. Technology supports this by improving decision-making:

mapping weed pressure zones
documenting scouting results
tracking crop stage and pest thresholds
improving spray timing for allowed products that are highly timing-dependent
strengthening records for compliance and traceability

Organic does not become less organic when it becomes more measured. In many cases, it becomes more defensible and more reliable.

The Scaling Reality: Organic Cannot Become Mainstream Without Looking Like Agriculture

Here is the contradiction I see repeatedly:

People want organic to expand and become a major part of agriculture.
But they also want organic to remain small, hand-scale, and “pre-modern.”

Those two goals cannot fully coexist.

If organic expands into a mainstream system, it will require:

mechanization and labor efficiency
stable supply chains and processing capacity
agronomic decision support tools
investment in equipment, storage, and logistics
advanced recordkeeping and traceability systems

These are not signs that organic has failed. They are signs that organic is being implemented at a scale where it can influence land stewardship and food systems in meaningful ways.

A useful analogy is medicine: we may admire the “natural” remedies of the past, but if we want health outcomes at population scale, we use systems, research, logistics, and quality control. Organic agriculture, if it is to influence millions of acres, will also require systems and quality control.

The Real Question is Not “Small vs Large” — It’s “Well-Managed vs Poorly Managed”

When we focus on scale, we miss the more important scientific questions:

Is soil organic matter improving over time?
Is aggregate stability improving (meaning the soil holds together better under water impact)?
Is infiltration increasing and runoff decreasing?
Are nutrients cycling efficiently, or being lost through leaching and erosion?
Is biodiversity supported through rotations, habitat, and reduced toxicity risk?
Are weeds being managed through integrated strategies rather than emergency reactions?
Are pests managed through ecological approaches and targeted interventions?

These are measurable outcomes. They are also where organic systems can succeed or fail, regardless of farm size.

A “Both/And” Vision for Organic

Organic agriculture needs both:

The ecological heart of organic

soil building
rotations
biodiversity
prevention-based pest management
conservation practices that protect water and habitat

The infrastructure and tools to function at scale

organic seed systems and breeding programs
equipment and mechanical weed control innovation
precision irrigation and nutrient planning
traceability systems that protect market integrity
research-based decision support tools

If we demand the heart without the infrastructure, organic stays fragile, expensive, and limited.
If we build infrastructure without the heart, organic becomes hollow and purely transactional.

The goal is not to keep organic small. The goal is to keep organic meaningful.

Closing Thought

I want organic to remain grounded in stewardship and biological systems. I also want organic to be agronomically credible, economically viable, and scalable enough to matter. That means I will continue supporting farmers—large and small—who are doing the hard work of growing crops under organic standards while improving soil function and resource efficiency.

Organic should not be judged by whether it “looks old-fashioned.”
Organic should be judged by whether it produces food and fiber with integrity, measurable conservation outcomes, and long-term resilience.

References (U.S. Organic Standards)

USDA National Organic Program Regulations (7 CFR Part 205)
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-205

USDA AMS National Organic Program (program overview)
https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program

Surveys, Recipes, More Surveys and Organic Investments!

Here are few things that are important but don’t need their own blog post. Take a quick look and see if they apply to you!

Table of Contents – Just click on one to read about it!

Organic Dairy and Internal Parasites: Challenges, Practices, and What’s Next

Parasite control remains one of the most persistent health challenges in organic dairy herds. Unlike conventional systems, treatment options are strictly limited under the National Organic Program (NOP). If unapproved treatments are used, the animal loses its organic status. Currently, fenbendazole, and moxidectin may be used on organic dairies, but only under emergency situations when preventive practices are not effective. Their use also comes with strict restrictions by USDA Guidance:

· Not allowed in slaughter stock.

· For dairy cows, milk or milk products cannot be sold as organic for 2 days after treatment.

· For breeder stock, treatment cannot occur in the last third of gestation if the calf is marketed as organic and cannot be used during lactation for breeding animals.

Mandatory outdoor access (at least 120 days of grazing annually) can increase exposure to parasites, especially in warm or wet climates.

Why Internal Parasites Matter

Internal parasites, such as gastrointestinal nematodes and coccidia, can reduce body condition, compromise milk production, and increase veterinary costs. Symptoms often include weight loss, poor thriftiness, or anemia. These problems can be amplified in years with high rainfall, when parasite populations thrive in pastures (even in dry climates like Texas). While conventional systems can rely on endectocides with varying formulations and withdrawal times, organic producers must navigate parasite control with far fewer pharmaceutical options.

Help Us Learn from You

We want to better understand how organic dairy producers are managing these challenges today. To do this, Texas A&M and UC Davis have teamed up to do a survey on internal parasite management and deworming practices on organic dairies. Sharing your experience will help us to identify practical and sustainable approaches that work for organic farms like yours

· The survey takes about 10–15 minutes to complete.

· Your answers will remain confidential.

Take the Survey: Just click the link below!

https://ucdavis.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9SjgqBhzdWZW7Qi

Texas Rice Recipe Contest

Rice recipe contests have history and tradition in Texas. In 1951, The Texas Rice Promotion Association and the Abilene Reporter-News have announced a rice recipe contest. The contest was well documented and communicated in The Abilene Reporter-News. Recipes were received from fourteen towns and in multiple categories. The judges were overwhelmed by the success and diversity of recipes featuring Chinese, Hungarian, Syrian, Indian, Uruguayan and other recipes.

To read more about the history of rice recipe contests or to enter this contest just click this link: Texas Rice Recipe Contest

Dr. Lee sent me this request. They need farmers who are interested in robotic technologies (this includes your tractor guidance) to do the survey and get a gift card. Surely, we can help!

We are faculty members from Texas A&M University conducting a study under the Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture. This research focuses on understanding Texas farmers’ perspectives on robotic technologies in agriculture, as well as their overall health and daily work activities.

Why we are contacting you: We are currently seeking 500 local farmers or retired farmers in Texas to complete survey questionnaire.

What we are asking: We are seeking your assistance in sharing this opportunity with your network or community. Participants will receive a $10 gift card. The survey itself will take 10-15 minutes and include questions about robotic technologies in agriculture, farmers’ overall health and well-being, and daily work activities.

To start the survey just click this link: ShaRE Robotics

Thank you for considering this request. Your assistance in sharing this opportunity is invaluable to research efforts.

Kiju Lee, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution (ETID), Texas A&M University

Investment Act to Expand Capacity and Compete Against Imports

This article is from the Organic Trade Association¹ and went out to the membership (I am a member) to highlight the work being done. I am excited about the potential and hope we have a chance for Texas organic to apply and win some of this grant money!

The culmination of more than two years of advocacy work, the introduction of the Domestic Organic Investment Act (DOIA) will put into action what the organic sector needs to thrive by investing in infrastructure to expand production capacity for farmers and manufacturers.

The bipartisan, bicameral bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME), with Andrea Salinas (D-OR) and Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) as sponsors in the House, builds on the strength of the Organic Market Development Grant (OMDG) program introduced in 2023. This program, administered by USDA, helps solve supply chain gaps and drive organic growth through grants to organic farmers and businesses.

The DOIA legislation directs USDA to set annual priorities that reduce dependence on imports and reflect input from organic farmers, businesses, and other stakeholders. Additionally, the Act supports U.S.-based farmers and businesses who apply, including producers, producer cooperatives, and commercial entities (including tribal governments) who handle certified organic products. All grants will require matching funds from the farm or business recipient.

Two businesses that have benefited from the OMDG program – PURIS and Meadowlark Organics – are examples of how these investments have paid off and serve as a bellwether for the future success of the Domestic Organic Investment Act.

PURIS is committed to four times their OMDG $539K grant award to expand processing capacity for milled organic field pea fiber at their facility in Harrold, South Dakota. This was done by adding a fiber milling line to an existing organically certified pea handling facility. The upgrade transforms pea hulls, currently a product with little value, into a marketable, high-value organic pea fiber.

Currently, imported organic pea protein has been selling at prices 28-75 percent below U.S. producers for multiple years. The investment supported PURIS to create additional value from the supply chain while also helping to strengthen the domestic supply chain overall.

In the words of PURIS CEO, Nicole Atchison, “This grant has enabled PURIS to move the project from a mere concept to a tangible reality, significantly benefiting rural American manufacturing. The grant has not only accelerated our project timeline it provided a pathway to expand the value generated from the organic peas grown by PURIS farmers.”

In the case of Meadowlark Organics of Ridgeway, WI, USDA grant funds provided in 2024 helped the organic grain farm purchase three pieces of equipment to help increase the availability of locally grown organic grain across the Upper Midwest. The new equipment includes a gravity table, optical sorter, and a connecting bucket elevator to the farm’s existing cleaning facility and flour mill.

This increased capacity will enable the farm to partner with even more organic grain farmers across the region and ultimately connect a diversity of culinary grains with more customers. The expected growth in organic grains and livestock feed capacity is over 900,000 pounds, with a projected 35 percent sales increase.

As shared by Halee and John Wepking of Meadowlark, “We are farmers first, and vertically integrating from the grassroots up is capital intensive and technically challenging. This funding has allowed us to improve our grain cleaning infrastructure at a critical time for our growth and development. Debt financing these acquisitions on top of already existing farm debts was untenable, and the support of the USDA through this grant is something we need to see more of, to help add value to make farms more profitable.”

Those businesses are great examples provided by OTA in their article, but I will call attention to our own Texas OMDG recipients:

Diversifying Organic Supply Chains for Small Producers in the Rio Grande Valley. Triple J Organics, LLC, Mission, TX

Steelbow Farm: Expanding Access to Local, Organic Produce in Central Texas. Steelbow Farm LLC, Austin, TX

Promotion of Organic Yaupon Tea as a Domestic Alternative to Imported Tea Distributed to The Foodservice Industry. Yaupon Holly Tea, LLC, Cat Spring, TX

Enhancing Organic Dairy Production and Market Access in Texas. Armagh Fine Foods LLC dba Armagh Creamery, Dublin TX

Expanding Capacity and Improved Quality of Organic Cotton. RKH GIN LLC, dba Woolam Gin, Odonnell, TX

https://ota.com/news-center/ota-champions-domestic-organic-investment-act-expand-capacity-and-compete-against?utm_source=news-flash&utm_medium=ota-email&utm_campaign=news-center-advocacy ↩︎

From the Field: Choosing Wheat for Organic Systems

On Thursday, November 13th, Dr. Brandon Gerrish, State Extension Small Grain Specialist planted our first Texas Organic Wheat Variety Trial at Todd Vranac’s certified organic farm in Rule, Texas. This test is an opportunity to evaluate wheat lines under authentic organic production conditions. This irrigated farm, managed organically over many seasons, offers an environment that conventional research plots often cannot replicate.

Wheat trials help us look at agronomic traits of wheat as well as evaluate our production systems in organic!

Each variety in the trial allows us to observe how wheat responds when relying on soil biology for nutrient cycling, competing with weeds without herbicides, and performing under the constraints of organic fertility sources. As organic wheat acreage expands in Texas, field-based evaluations like this are essential for identifying varieties that align with the agronomic realities of organic systems and for improving the recommendations available to growers.

Why Organic Variety Testing Isn’t Optional

One of the most important conversations I’ve had this year was with Dr. Jackie Rudd, Dr. Gerrish and the TAMU wheat breeding team this past August at the Small Grain Breeding Group meeting. We talked about the gap that still exists between conventional breeding and organic production, and why organic growers need data generated in organic fields.

The traits that matter most in organic systems differ from what many conventional trials measure. Organic producers need wheat that can do things like:

1. Emerge from deeper planting depths

Organic growers often plant deeper to reach moisture and to make mechanical weed control possible. With deeper rooting we can use rotary hoes or tine weeders to take our early season weeds and start cleaner. But many modern semi-dwarfs simply don’t have the coleoptile length to handle that depth. Lines with longer coleoptiles or alternative dwarfing genes (like Rht8) stand a better chance of thriving in these conditions.

2. Fight disease with genetics, not chemistry

Stripe rust, leaf rust, stem rust, Fusarium head blight, BYDV—these aren’t just occasional threats in organic wheat. Without fungicides, genetic resistance to disease becomes the primary protection for diseases. Multi-gene and adult-plant resistance are particularly valuable.

3. Use nutrients efficiently through the soil microbiome

Organic wheat depends on soil biology to help acquire nutrients. Varieties with strong root systems, mycorrhizal associations, and efficient nutrient uptake consistently do better in slow-release, biological systems. Traits like enhanced nitrate transporter activity or strong remobilization of nutrients during grain fill make a visible difference in yield.

4. Outcompete weeds

Early vigor, aggressive tillering, and a fast-closing canopy are necessary to yield production. These are the traits that help organic wheat shade out early warm season weeds and other winter annuals long before the weeds become yield-limiting.

5. Deliver high-quality grain for a premium market

Organic buyers want protein, strong gluten, good milling quality, low DON (a mycotoxin), and consistency. They also increasingly look for functional food traits like higher mineral content (iron, zinc, even selenium). The right variety can put an organic grower into a higher-value market.

This Year’s Trial

The trial this year includes a mix of public and private genetics—everything from long-standing varieties like TAM 114 and Smith’s Gold to experimental Oklahoma and Texas lines, plus new materials such as Green Hammer, Paradox, High Cotton, and Guardian. Click the link below to see the trial information.

Wheat Variety Trial in Excel

Organic tests like this will help answer important questions about how “conventional varieties” preform growing under organic conditions:

Which varieties take off fast enough to hold back early weeds?
Which can take advantage of irrigation while still operating under organic nutrient constraints?
Which lines show strong fall vigor and winter hardiness?
Which have the disease packages organic growers rely on?
Which varieties convert organic fertility into grain yield the most efficiently?

Organic Grower Research is Very Important!

Hosting a trial like this requires commitment, and I’m grateful for Todd Vranac’s willingness to put research into his organic acres. Organic agriculture depends on exactly this kind of farmer-researcher collaboration because:

It takes place under the conditions organic growers actually face.
Weather, weeds, fertility, and soil biology are real—not simulated.
It gives producers confidence that variety recommendations apply to their own operations.
It builds a shared knowledge base across the organic community.

As we go through the season I hope to share updates from the trial, including stand counts, disease observations, and eventually yield and quality results. Organic growers across Texas need these answers, and trials like this give us the data to make better variety recommendations year after year.

Testing varieties in organic fields doesn’t just improve one season’s crop. It strengthens the long-term resilience of organic grain production in the Southern Plains. And it helps breeders refine the traits that matter most for growers working in biologically driven systems.

Other Resources:

Lots of Summer Tours with Organic Topics!

There have been a lot of opportunities this summer for Organic Farmers to attend tours held outside, in the field, that featured organic agriculture. I hope that you as an organic farmer took the time to attend, learn, and show your support. I hope that organic farmers realize that Extension education works much like a business! If farmers do not show up (make a purchase) then there will be an assumption that they do not need Extension organic education. If they do not need organic education, then the “educators” might be forced to do something else – just saying! Check out the pictures and information and then plan to be a part the next time you get the invitation!

The picture above is at the Hi-A Corn Field Day held July 31 in and around Halfway just west of Plainview. There was a good crowd of farmers, seed producers and businesses interested in new corn hybrids.

The pictures below are of the Organic Cotton and Peanut Field Day held on August 19 just north of Seminole in Neil Froese’s fields. We toured peanuts, cotton and had a robot demonstration and a great talk by Aigen about their new robot weeders.

Dr. John Cason has his back to us in the picture as he talks to the crowd about the organic peanut variety trial. It was great weather that day with a little over 2 inches of rain the day before.

The picture above is some discussion about the organic cotton fields surrounding the crowd. The fields were clean of weeds, and we discussed the implements and timing to keep them clean.

Below the picture is showing a potential crop robot developed by Texas A&M researchers using common components found in most electronic stores. The technology is sophisticated but the design and parts are pretty simple. Imagine building robots in your shop that could run continuously weeding your fields!

The pictures below are from the Resilient Cropping Systems Tour held on September 24 that started at the Quarterway Cotton Growers but toured from there to the Helms Farm south of Halfway. This tour featured so many speakers and demonstrations that I can’t name them all but organic was discussed on many of the tour stops. I want to also mention that Megan Singletary is doing some great work in organic weed control and results should be something we can use to improve our fields.

Let me add one more tour that I wish I had more pictures to show you the crowd and facilities. I am a terrible photographer and wish I would do better! The Southwest Dairy Day had over 300 attending and Organic Dairy was front and center.

This is just one of many seminars given at the Southwest Dairy Day held on October 9. The day featured lots of exhibits in outdoor tents, lots of equipment demonstrations, and a tour of the Aurora Organic “Pepper” Dairy just outside of Dublin Texas. The Pepper Organic Dairy features the latest in robot milkers for batch milking. A completely automated system we were able to tour from above the entire operation from the balcony at the milking parlor – it was a site to see!

Texas Organic Agriculture: Expanding from Farm to Market

The Texas organic industry continues to grow on both ends of the supply chain—from the farms that grow organic crops and livestock to the companies that process, package, and distribute them. As of October 2025, the state lists 412 certified organic grower operations, including farms that produce crops, livestock, and wild crops on 512,000 Texas acres. At the same time, the number of certified organic handlers—processors, distributors, and packers—has climbed from 457 in 2023 to 694 in 2025, a 52% increase in just two years.

Who’s Growing Organically in Texas

Organic production in Texas is anchored by key field crops such as cotton (175 farms), peanuts (147), and wheat (132)—mainstays of the High Plains and Rolling Plains, where organic systems are well adapted to semi-arid soils and rotations. Corn (51) and sorghum or milo (49) are part of diversified feed and grain operations, while rice (25) remains strong along the Gulf Coast. Forage crops like alfalfa (25) and grass (40) support both organic livestock and soil health, while vegetable operations (21) range from small local farms near urban markets to large commercial producers serving regional buyers.

Among these 412 operations, 28 are certified for livestock, including 20 cattle and 8 poultry operations. The cattle operations include both grass-fed beef and organic dairy systems, emphasizing rotational grazing and homegrown forage to meet organic standards. The poultry farms focus mainly on pasture-based egg and broiler production, serving local and specialty markets. Together, these farms show how organic agriculture in Texas is evolving into an integrated system linking crops, forages, and livestock within the same ecological and market framework.

A Rapid Rise in Certified Handlers

The sharp increase in certified organic handlers—from 457 to 694—signals strong momentum beyond the farm gate. Much of this growth is tied to the USDA’s Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) rule, implemented in 2023. This rule requires certification for more middle-market entities such as brokers, traders, and distributors who take ownership of organic products. The result is a more transparent and traceable supply chain, but also a measurable expansion in the number of certified businesses operating within it.

Texas’s 694 organic handlers now represent a wide range of activities. The largest sectors include fruits and vegetables (285), beverages (125), grains, flours, and cereals (105), nuts and seeds (111), seasonings and flavorings (102), and oils and oleoresins (71). These categories show that Texas’s organic sector is growing not only in raw production but in value-added processing, product manufacturing, and consumer-ready goods. Additional activity in livestock feed (23), dairy and dairy alternatives (27), meat, poultry, and eggs (35), processed foods (47), and fiber, textiles, and cotton (20) rounds out the picture of a maturing organic industry.

A Strengthening Organic Ecosystem

The combined growth in organic growers and handlers marks a new phase for Texas organic agriculture. Producers are supplying more raw organic commodities, and a growing network of handlers is processing, packaging, and marketing those products—creating a more complete and resilient organic system. The enforcement of SOE has helped formalize this network, ensuring that products remain traceable from farm to table. What was once a scattered mix of farms and processors is now forming into a connected supply chain—one capable of supporting long-term growth in the Texas organic market.