Uncategorized – 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.

A Generation Raised on Organic: Why That Matters—and What Cotton Needs to Understand

I have been thinking a lot about generational change and what it means for agriculture, and especially for organic agriculture. The Organic Foods Production Act passed Congress in 1990. The USDA National Organic Program rule was finalized in 2000 and fully implemented in 2002. But the story of organic goes back even further—USDA was already acknowledging organic as a legitimate production system by the late 1970s and early 1980s.

That timeline matters more than we often realize.

Today, we have consumers who are 26, 36, and even 46 years old who have never known a food system without organic. Organic is not something they “discovered” later in life. It was there when they were children. It was part of grocery stores, marketing, school conversations, and broader cultural discussions about health, the environment, and farming.

That shapes how people shop in ways that are fundamentally different from older generations.

Organic Is Not a Trend to Younger Consumers

For many younger consumers, organic is not a niche or a counterculture movement. It is a baseline reference point. Even when they do not buy organic every time, organic still functions as the mental standard for what food should be.

They have grown up hearing that organic is healthier, safer, and better aligned with how nature works. Over time, that messaging—right or wrong in every detail—creates something deeper than preference. It creates a sense of responsibility, sometimes even guilt, when choices do not align with those values.

As incomes rise, behavior follows values. That is exactly what we are seeing now. As these later generations grow older so do their incomes and they are spending it on what they believe in!

Values First, Purchases Second

Younger consumers often get framed as “price sensitive” or “idealistic,” but that misses the point. They are values-driven shoppers who make tradeoffs consciously. They will buy fewer items, buy less often, or delay purchases—but when they buy, they want alignment.

This is not limited to food. It extends into clothing, personal care products, and household goods. The common thread is a desire to move away from synthetic, disposable, and opaque systems toward things that feel natural, transparent, and human-scaled.

Organic Cotton Is About Cotton, Not About Taking Over Agriculture

There is a common concern among cotton producers and researchers that organic cotton somehow represents a threat to conventional cotton production. That organic wants to “replace” conventional cotton or undermine it.

From a consumer standpoint, that framing is simply wrong.

Organic cotton buyers are not primarily comparing organic cotton to conventional cotton. They are comparing cotton to synthetic fibers.

This shift is not limited to organic cotton alone. According to The State of Sustainable Markets 2025, compiled for the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, at least 21% of global cotton acreage—approximately 6.7 million hectares—is now enrolled in recognized sustainable cotton programs, largely in response to consumer and brand demand. Cotton leads all major agricultural commodities in certified area worldwide. This tells us something important: consumers are already shaping how cotton is grown, marketed, and valued. Organic cotton does not stand outside this trend—it represents its most clearly defined endpoint.

This is a critical distinction.

Organic cotton consumers overwhelmingly want:

Natural fibers
Biodegradable materials
Products that feel connected to farming and land, not chemistry and petroleum

For these consumers, cotton is not interchangeable with polyester. Cotton is the anchor. Organic is the qualifier, the thing, the program that ties them back to the farm and the way it is produced.

Organic Cotton Buyers Are Loyal—Unusually Loyal

One of the most underappreciated realities in cotton is how loyal organic cotton buyers are to the fiber itself.

These consumers:

Prefer cotton over synthetics
Will pay more for cotton if it is organic
Will buy fewer garments rather than switch to plastic-based fibers
Associate cotton with authenticity in a way synthetics cannot replicate

This loyalty does not come from marketing alone. It comes from a worldview that favors natural systems over manufactured substitutes.

From that perspective, organic cotton is not competition for conventional cotton. It is a firewall against fiber substitution.

Why This Matters for the Future of Cotton

Cotton already faces its greatest competition not from other crops, but from synthetic fibers. That competition is relentless, global, and price-driven.

Organic cotton creates a space where:

Cotton is not a commodity blur
Fiber identity still matters
Trust, traceability, and story carry economic value

That is not an indictment of conventional cotton. It is a reminder that cotton’s long-term relevance depends on maintaining strong connections to consumers who care about what things are made from—not just how cheaply they can be produced.

A Final Thought

Organic cotton is not asking conventional cotton to become organic. It is asking the cotton industry to recognize that values-driven consumers already exist, and they are growing into economic power.

Those consumers are not leaving cotton. They are holding onto it.

Understanding that distinction changes the conversation. And I believe it is one cotton research, extension, and production communities need to wrestle with—now, not later.

References

International Trade Centre (ITC), FiBL & IISD. The State of Sustainable Markets 2025: Statistics and Emerging Trends. Geneva, Switzerland.
Organic Trade Association (OTA). U.S. Organic Consumer Perception Report 2025.

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

How Soil Can Develop in Just Decades

Most of us grew up hearing that “soil takes thousands of years to form.” That statement is still true for deep, fully developed soils with strong horizon development. But what I’ve come to appreciate more and more—especially when working with organic and regenerative growers—is that the early stages of soil formation can move much faster than we were taught.

In the right conditions, soil can develop measurable structure and function on a decadal timeline (2-3 decades). The key reason is simple: biology accelerates soil formation.

Soil Formation Starts When Life Colonizes Minerals

Pedogenesis (soil formation) begins when organisms colonize bare mineral material—rock, ash, subsoil, or exposed parent material. The first colonizers are “pioneer organisms” that can survive with very little water and almost no nutrients. These include:

Lichens (fungus + algae/cyanobacteria partnerships)
Cyanobacteria and algae
Fungi
Mineral-weathering bacteria

These organisms don’t just “live on rock.” They actively change it. They attach to mineral surfaces, grow into microcracks, and begin chemically and physically transforming the material into something more soil-like.¹

Biological Weathering Is Faster Than Purely Geological Weathering

Once microbes and fungi are present, weathering becomes a biological–geochemical process.

Chemical weathering

Organisms produce compounds such as organic acids and chelators that dissolve minerals and release nutrients like:

calcium (Ca²⁺)
magnesium (Mg²⁺)
potassium (K⁺)
phosphorus (PO₄³⁻)

Carbon dioxide from respiration also forms carbonic acid in water, which further increases mineral dissolution. These acids powerfully dissolve parent material.

Physical weathering

Fungal hyphae and plant roots widen cracks. Wet–dry cycles and freeze–thaw cycles fracture material. Windblown dust can add fine mineral particles. The result is more surface area and faster breakdown.

In short, biology makes the parent material more reactive and easier to transform.

Organic Matter and Clay Create Nutrient-Holding Capacity

As the pioneer organisms mentioned above die and recycle, organic residues accumulate. Even small organic inputs matter (adding compost/grow cover crop) because they start forming organo-mineral associations—the foundation of stable soil.

At the same time, primary minerals weather into secondary minerals (including clays and short-range-order minerals, depending on parent material). Both clays and humified organic matter carry negative charge, which contributes to:

CEC (cation exchange capacity) — the soil’s ability to hold and supply nutrient cations like Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, and NH₄⁺.

This is a major transition point: the soil begins to function as a nutrient reservoir rather than a leaching-prone mineral surface.

A good example of rapid stabilization and soil development occurs in volcanic ash materials, which are highly reactive and can form strong mineral–organic associations relatively quickly.²

Aggregation: The “Soil Structure” Breakthrough

One of the clearest signs that soil is forming rapidly is the development of aggregation—stable crumbs and clods that resist slaking and erosion.

Aggregation is built biologically through:

fungal hyphae physically binding particles
microbial extracellular polymers (EPS) acting as glue
root exudates stimulating microbial activity

As aggregation increases, the soil improves in:

water infiltration
pore space and aeration
erosion resistance
root penetration
drought resilience

This is why many growers can “feel” soil improvement within a few years when biological activity is high.

Why Decadal Soil Development Is Plausible

Traditional statements about soil taking thousands of years usually refer to fully developed soil profiles under slow geologic weathering. But modern evidence supports that early soil formation can proceed rapidly when:

biological activity is high
parent material is reactive
vegetation establishes quickly
erosion is controlled
carbon inputs are consistent

So, time matters, but biology often controls the rate—especially in early pedogenesis.³

Picture: Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research 2020. The New Zealand Soils Portal. https://doi.org/10.26060/3nyh-mh28

What This Means for Organic and Regenerative Production

Organic and regenerative systems often accelerate soil development because they intentionally support the same drivers that build soil in nature:

living roots longer during the year (cover crops, perennials)
high biomass carbon inputs (residue retention, mulches)
reduced disturbance where possible
organic amendments that stimulate microbial activity

When we manage for biology, we aren’t “creating soil out of thin air.” But we are increasing the processes that build soil structure, nutrient retention, and resilience faster than many people expect.

Bottom Line

Soil formation is not just slow geology. It is an active biological process. Under the right conditions, the early stages of pedogenesis—weathering, organic matter accumulation, clay development, and aggregation—can produce measurable improvements in soil function within decades, and sometimes even sooner.

That’s encouraging science for anyone trying to rebuild soil health on real farms in real time.

References

Soil formation overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_formation ↩︎
Volcanic ash soils and rapid stabilization: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3072 ↩︎
Soil formation factors (Landcare Research NZ): https://soils.landcareresearch.co.nz/topics/understanding-soils/how-do-soils-form ↩︎

What is the True Cost of Compost (or manure) in 2026?

$$$$$$$

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!

Other Resources (just click a link!)

Cheating in the Certified Organic Program?

Think about this statement below!

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!!!