I am updating this post to 2026 because I get regular questions about both the cost of composts and quality of composts (or manure) in my visits with organic producers and conventional producers or both. There seems to be this mystery about compost including, what is actually in the compost and how much it is worth? Certainly, there is some mystery since composts do have organic matter and as a result also contain microbes that generally are not measured by the labs. These two ingredients add a lot of value to a compost but in general we have trouble quantifying or putting a $$ value on their presence in the compost.
Almost any company that makes and/or sells a compost product will have an analysis for you to know what is in their product. Typically, they should be taking samples on a regular basis or at least as the supply source changes. Compost is generally made from manure, and manure is made from feed that livestock eat. As a livestock producer changes what their animals eat this can drastically influence what nutrients end up in the manure and ultimately the compost.
The chart below shows some comparisons between different manures or composts with prices. These prices were collected on January 14, 2026, and so your current prices may be different. The chicken manure can be seen as a bargain compared to the pellets, but the pellets have some advantages in ease of application and uniformity of product.
Just click on the spreadsheet above and you can look at the entire sheet much larger!
What we really want is an analysis based on dry matter not with water added so we can compare to commercial fertilizer costs. This gives us a compost value or even a way to compare one compost to another.
I did this analysis above on three different products. One was a manure product that had been composted or dry down to remove some water but not all, and the other two were pelleted compost products which is very common now. To do the calculations the compost or manures typically are expressed on an “as is basis”, so I multiply the ton or 2,000 lbs. times the %nutrient. In the first example there is 3.0% nitrogen X 2,000 lbs. = 60 lbs. of nitrogen. Nitrogen is also in a phosphorus source (18-46-0) so I have to subtract that out to get a value for the nitrogen in the chicken manure based on nutrients I can buy from commercial fertilizer. I do this for all the manure nutrients to establish a value for nutrients.
This picture of my spreadsheet above shows an analysis of the cost of ingredients based solely on Nitrogen, Phosphorus from P2O5, Potassium from K2O and Sulphur from 90% Sulphur. You can see the current cost of those nutrients is based on commercial fertilizer prices so that we get a value to compare composts to each other. In the top example, the $43 chicken manure compost seems to be a bargain, and the nutrients are comparable to the other examples. The water though is a problem for trying to use this product. It won’t spread easily, and you are hauling a lot of water. This example is meant to show that you could pay about $43 per ton for the top example and feel good that you made money at the current price of conventional fertilizer. And, in the second example when you pay $145 and you are getting you are getting $157 in nutrients based on commercial fertilizer, and you get lots of micronutrients, organic matter and microbes. In the third example you may be asking why would I buy that product? First, you are not hauling water; second the product may be very easy to spread based on its high dry matter; third, maybe they stand behind the product as a fertilizer not just a manure.
The point is to do a little comparison shopping before you just look at price per ton, there are a lot of things in the ton you may have never thought about before! Lastly, the benefits of the carbon in compost, which is the food source for microbes add tremendous value. In one sample I was sent it was 23% carbon, and you will not get that from commercial fertilizer!
You (the organic farmer or handler) voluntarily choose to enter the organic system, which is defined by federal law. Once you join, you are legally obligated to follow those rules. Any illegal act is both a violation of federal law and a breach of the organic community’s shared standards and trust.
In Texas, organic is a $1.5 billion dollar industry and growing – so if you cheat you not only break federal law and violate the organic communities shared standards and trust – you also jeopardize your own, and others, livelihood and earning potential. Add in the lost capital investment and years of development, and the costs could be in the billions just in Texas. Now add in the loss of consumer trust because of all the negative publicity and do we have an organic program left?
I have been approached by several farmers and industry folks alike, asking about rumors or telling me about direct observed cases of illegal actions taken by certified organic operations. Because I know, based on good testimony that illegal activity is taking place within the Texas organic program and amongst the Texas organic community; I am obligated to be proactive. This necessarily means I or anyone else who knows about illegal activity should let USDA National Organic Program know about this suspected illegal activity.
Under the updated USDA organic enforcement regulations, the maximum civil penalty for knowingly selling or labeling products as “organic” in violation of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) has a maximum of $22,974 per violation. This amount comes from the federal civil penalty provisions in the regulations (7 C.F.R. 3.91(b)(1)(xxxvi)). This means that although a chemical or ingredient you use may be legal in conventional production – it is not legal to sell that product as organic and doing so can mean +/- $22,974 per violation (per truck load sold, per farm, per buyer, etc.). Also, you could face jail time if there is a case of fraud.
If you haven’t been caught, YET! Now might be a good time to stop!!!
Texas organic agriculture is dominated by field crops, yet the number of certified organic varieties available to our growers remains very small (probably easier to say none!). Even when varieties are not genetically engineered (GE) and could theoretically fit organic systems, many are simply not adapted to Texas conditions—our heat, drought cycles, variable rainfall, soils, and intense pest pressure. I see this every year: organic producers are forced to choose between varieties bred for very different regions or varieties developed with conventional systems in mind. That gap limits yield stability, increases risk, and ultimately slows the growth of organic acreage in Texas.
What We Are Actively Developing
To address this, we are intentionally investing (money, time, resources) in organic-first variety development within Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension. A runner peanut, TAMRun OL 11, is currently in development under organic management and will be available, with the possibility of releasing two additional hybrid Spanish peanut varieties by the end of next year. We are also working on an organic barley that is moving toward release through the Texas Foundation Seed Service. In corn, we have two organic-adapted lines on track for potential release by the end of 2026. We are testing right now conventional wheat varieties for their development in organic systems with the hopes of licensing at least two outstanding performers. In addition, we are beginning an organic sorghum breeding program, expanding into a crop that is critically important for Texas organic grain systems. Beyond grains and oilseeds, we now have two new organic guar varieties and one new cowpea variety developed through Dr. Waltram Ravelombola’s organic breeding program at Texas A&M AgriLife Research in Vernon. For cotton Dr. Dever and Dr. Kelly both worked to develop a very adaptable and high-quality fiber cotton variety, CA4019, that is under organic development with hopes to be available in a few years. At our Stephenville center we are working hard to develop and release some possible organic Sunn Hemp cover crop varieties and are working on organic faba bean variety development – a winter high protein legume that can be used for the developing protein market and as a winter cover crop. Organic faba bean is in high demand!
Preparing for the Future of Organic Seed
One reason this work matters is forward-looking. There is growing discussion within organic agriculture—and at USDA NOP—around whether organic varieties may eventually be required (no longer strongly encouraged) in Organic System Plans (OSPs). At the same time, many working in the organic program are increasingly concerned about GE technologies embedded upstream in conventional variety development, so that GE could be hard to detect except in the final product which can mean loss of value. Developing varieties entirely within organic systems helps address both issues. It gives producers confidence in the integrity of their seed and positions Texas organic agriculture to respond proactively rather than reactively to future regulatory or market changes.
Dr. Wenwei Xu, Texas A&M AgriLife Corn Breeder. Dr. Xu is a great friend and colleague working on variety development without gene editing. These are high yielding, very resilient, disease and insect tolerant, and developed in Texas!Wenwei and other Texas A&M AgriLife Breeders are committed to organic variety development.
Why This Is a Long-Term Investment
Breeding organic varieties can be slower, expensive (costs are going down fortunately), and demanding—but it is foundational. A good organic variety reduces the need for inputs, tolerates stress, competes better with weeds, and works with biological systems rather than against them. My goal is simple: when a Texas organic grower asks, “What variety should I plant?” I want the answer to be locally adapted, organically developed, and readily available. We are not there yet—but these efforts are a big step in that direction. And yes, this approach makes sense if we are serious about the long-term resilience, integrity, and growth of organic agriculture in Texas.
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.
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
ShaRE: The Shared Robotic Ecosystem for Smart and Collaborative Agriculture
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
The article below appears in the Fall 2025, “OMRI Materials Review” newsletter sent out by OMRI to subscribers. I thought this article was interesting since it concerns pesticide residues – a hot topic in Texas Organic Agriculture! It is reprinted with permission by OMRI.
By Doug Currier
The work to modernize residue testing in USDA organic production could impact input material review.
Residue Testing for a Global Supply Chain (RTGSC) is an ongoing discussion being led by National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) with input from public stakeholders and the National Organic Program (NOP). It is well established that organic production is based on organic system plans that, if followed, ensure adherence to the organic standards. Testing to detect residues of both prohibited substances and excluded methods is seen as an important measure of the success of those system plans, or whether those plans were followed at all. This type of testing is required within the USDA organic standard1, but for the testing to remain “relevant” and “impactful,” changes to the USDA standard and guidance documents are being considered. This is the aim of RTGSC.
Before we consider some of these changes, it is helpful to become clear on the sources of these residues and the possible reasons they may appear in organic systems. The 2013 “Pesticide Rule”23 established the current residue testing requirements to ensure that organic system plans prevent commingling and contamination with prohibited substances. Testing has long focused on detecting genetically modified crops to address the commingling issue.
Because of how the “Pesticide Rule” is written, there is a focus on detecting prohibited pesticides as a way to address the contamination issue. Both GMO and pesticide residues can come from neighboring non‑organic farms through “drift” or can occur when cleanout procedures used between processing non‑organic and organic commodities are ineffective. These two examples can be referred to as “organic control points” in a production system where the risk of contamination is high. There are many facets to the strategies used to detect contamination in organic production systems—far too many to examine in this article.
The NOSB Spring 2025 meeting materials call for an in-depth description of these issues. Before we move on to the changes being discussed to modernize the current approach to testing and detection, it can be helpful to acknowledge that the “Pesticide Rule” was not necessarily written with fraud detection in mind. Also, input materials themselves can be a source of contaminant residue that are actionable from the perspective of accredited certification bodies (“certifiers”).
Positive results from residue testing impact organic growers in several ways, with perhaps the most significant being the inability to sell produce as organic. In our work, we have seen growers lose their ability to sell produce as organic because of positive test results that were traced back not to their farm, but to the input materials, just like with other sources of residues—whether due to unintentional contamination or intentional adulteration. It is therefore promising to see that within the RTGSC conversation is a proposal to redefine the definition of Unavoidable Residual Environmental Contamination (UREC) to one that acknowledges that sometimes no matter how strong the system plan, contamination can occur. This is not to say that the contamination can go unaddressed. But relieving the grower of some responsibility seems to be a step in the right direction. How that contamination is ultimately addressed, and how often, is a separate matter.
A significant focus of RTGSC is to modernize the strategies for testing for contamination in a way that more meaningfully centers on pesticides and GMOs. A “Target List” or consumer‑focused list does good work to identify materials and input materials where extraordinary high levels of heavy metals and harmful organic contaminants may exist.
With that said, the advancements in test methodologies, test sensitivities, and the realization that detection strategies—especially those used to detect fraud—are more sensitive now than ever, suggest that the RTGSC ideas coming from the NOSB for the NOP to consider could change the nature of input material review work: (1) development and adoption of accredited methods for Organic Authenticity Testing as it relates to detecting whether inorganic nitrogen is manufactured from allowed or prohibited sources, and (2) broadening the list of substances for which there is regular testing.
Regarding the former, we are supportive of this long‑needed move towards methods and accreditation. As for the latter, we are mindful that widening the net, through expansion of the substances list and more sensitive testing, could mean for us and the manufacturers with which we work.
There is still much to consider and absorb before changes that move our industry beyond the 2013 “Pesticide Rule.” Achieving RTGSC’s goal of keeping testing relevant and impactful will affect nearly everyone. OMRI will continue to monitor these developments closely and share updates as the RTGSC process moves forward.
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.
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.
