Tag: Agriculture

Smart Sensing in Organic Systems: How Drones, Satellites, and Sensors Help Detect Crop Stress Before It Happens

Smart sensing is transforming how we understand plant health in organic systems. By integrating satellite and drone imagery, in-field sensors, and artificial intelligence, we can now detect stress in crops long before symptoms appear. This technology doesn’t replace the farmer’s eye—it strengthens it, helping us protect soil biology, use resources more wisely, and make better management decisions.

Learning from Students and Staying Curious

This past Saturday (October 18), a group of high school students invited me to speak about their project on smart plant monitoring. They were designing a device to track plant health in real time. Their questions—about soil, light, and water—were sharp and curious. It reminded me why I love this field: whether we’re students or seasoned farmers, we’re all learning how to listen to plants a little better.

Their project also made me reflect on how far we’ve come. When I started in Extension, plant monitoring meant walking fields, taking notes, and maybe digging a soil sample. Now, we’re using satellites orbiting hundreds of miles above the earth and sensors no bigger than a pencil eraser to understand how crops respond to their environment.

From Satellites to Soil: The New Eyes of Agriculture

In organic production, timing is everything. A crop under stress can lose days of growth before we even notice it. But RGB drone and satellite imaging now allow us to spot stress early by detecting subtle changes in leaf color, canopy density, or reflectance.

Even more advanced are multispectral and hyperspectral sensors, which measure how plants reflect light across visible and infrared wavelengths. These patterns can reveal water stress, nitrogen deficiency, or disease pressure—well before a plant wilts or yellows.1

Thermal cameras add another layer. Drought-stressed plants reduce transpiration, causing leaf temperature to rise—a change that infrared sensors can detect long before visible damage occurs.2

Once the imagery is captured, we still rely on ground-truthing—walking to the coordinates, checking the crop, soil, and often pulling tissue samples. This blend of technology and touch keeps data meaningful.

Predictive Systems: Seeing Stress Before It Starts

The most exciting progress in recent years has been predictive capability. AI-powered analytics now integrate drone imagery, IoT soil data, and weather patterns to learn what “normal” looks like for a crop. When the system detects deviations—like a drop in chlorophyll fluorescence or a rise in leaf temperature—it flags them early.3

One powerful method is solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF), which measures photosynthetic efficiency. Subtle declines in fluorescence intensity can indicate stress from drought, salinity, or nutrient imbalance days before the plant shows visible symptoms.4

Meanwhile, IoT sensor networks are spreading across fields. These small devices monitor soil moisture, pH, canopy temperature, and even sap flow, sending real-time data to cloud dashboards that can automatically adjust irrigation schedules.5

This isn’t just smart—it’s proactive agriculture.

Image acquisition setups using different sensors (i) DJI Matrice 600 Pro with a Sony Alpha 7R II, 42.4-megapixel RGB camera mounted on it(Sapkota, 2021), (ii) A close-range laboratory imaging system with a Micro-Hyperspec VNIR sensor in controlled lighting condition (Dao et al., 2021a), (iii) HyperCam on the tripod, Fluke TiR1, Lci leaf porometer, Infragold as well as dry and wet references targets (Gerhards et al., 2016) (iv) Chamber equipped with two Raspberry Pi 3B + and an ArduCam Noir Camera with a motorized IR-CUT filter and two infrared LEDs (Sakeef et al., 2023).6

Why This Matters for Organic Systems

Organic farming depends on living systems—soil microbes, organic matter, and ecological balance. Unlike conventional systems, we can’t rely on quick chemical fixes. We need to detect stress early enough to respond biologically—through irrigation management, microbial inoculants, or balanced foliar nutrition.

Smart sensing tools help us manage that complexity. When we combine spectral imagery, soil data, and climate information, we begin to see the farm as an interconnected ecosystem rather than a collection of separate fields.

Monitoring also supports stewardship. Water-quality sensors can now detect salinity and bicarbonate buildup that harm roots over time. Linking those readings with AI-derived stress maps helps producers align soil chemistry, water quality, and plant physiology in one continuous feedback system.7

The Human Element Still Matters

Even with all this technology, the farmer’s experience is irreplaceable. Data can tell us something changed, but it takes experience to know why. Was that NDVI dip caused by poor drainage, pests, or a timing issue in irrigation?

Technology should not distance us from the field—it should bring better insight to our decisions. As I often tell growers, just as computers need rebooting, we occasionally need to “reboot” our interpretation—to align the data with what we know from hands-on experience.

A Partnership Between Grower, Plant, and Sensor

When those students asked how technology fits into farming, I told them this: smart monitoring doesn’t make agriculture less human—it makes it more informed.

The future of organic production is a partnership between the grower, the plant, and the sensor. When all three communicate clearly, we grow more than crops—we grow understanding. And in that understanding lies the future of any sustainable agriculture.

Further Reading

References

  1. Dutta, D. et al. (2025). “Hyperspectral Imaging in Agriculture: A Review of Advances and Applications.” Precision Agriculture, 26(3): 445–463. ↩︎
  2. Cendrero-Mateo, M.P. et al. (2025). “Thermal and Spectral Signatures of Plant Stress.” Frontiers in Plant Science, 16:31928. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1631928 ↩︎
  3. Chlingaryan, A. et al. (2025). “Machine Learning for Predictive Stress Detection in Crops.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 218:107546. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169924011256 ↩︎
  4. Guanter, L. et al. (2024). “Solar-Induced Fluorescence for Assessing Vegetation Photosynthesis.” NASA Earthdata Training Series. https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/trainings/solar-induced-fluorescence-sif-observations-assessing-vegetation-changes-related ↩︎
  5. Ahmad, L. & Nabi, F. (2024). Agriculture 5.0: Integrating AI, IoT, and Machine Learning in Precision Farming. CRC Press. ↩︎
  6. Chlingaryan, A. et al. (2025). “Machine Learning for Predictive Stress Detection in Crops.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 218:107546. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169924011256 ↩︎
  7. Gómez-Candón, D. et al. (2025). “Integrating Water Quality Sensors and Remote Sensing for Sustainable Irrigation.” Agricultural Water Management, 298:108072. ↩︎

Hi-A Corn Field Day Brings Farmers, Researchers, and Industry Together

On Thursday, July 31, 2025, the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Halfway Station hosted a Hi-A Corn Breeding and Genetics Field Tour and Research Forum that brought together around 30 participants, including farmers, researchers, seed companies, and agricultural lenders. The event highlighted the exciting potential of Hi-A (high anthocyanin) corn varieties in both production and food markets.

Hi-A Corn Variety Plots at the Halfway Research Station

Field Tours and Research Highlights

The day began with a welcome from Dr. Todd Baughman, followed by an introduction from Dr. Wenwei Xu, Regents Fellow and corn breeder at Texas A&M AgriLife Research in Lubbock.

Dr. Xu has led the development of Hi-A corn varieties, including TAMZ 102, which is known for its deep purple kernels and high anthocyanin content. His work has focused on combining yield performance with enhanced nutritional traits, creating hybrids that perform well in the field while offering health-promoting properties. The Hi-A program under Dr. Xu’s leadership has become a cornerstone of innovation for Texas A&M AgriLife, linking plant breeding with food and health research.

Participants then toured Hi-A corn plots at the Halfway Research Center before traveling to Helms Farms to view large field-scale strip trials. These demonstrations highlighted how Hi-A and short-season hybrids are performing under West Texas growing conditions. Mr. Ken Igo, Halfway Farm Chemicals discussed on-farm performance results at the Edmonson location.

Hi-A Corn Varieties at the Helms Farm. Dr Xu is discussing the variety performance.

The tour then returned to the Halfway Research Center where Dr. Tim Paape (USDA-ARS) provided updates on breeding, genetics, genomics, and metabolism research. Tim Paape is a Research Geneticist with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), who works in the areas of plant and crop genetics, genomics, and molecular biology. He is directly employed with the USDA-ARS Responsive Agriculture Food Systems Research Unit (RAFSRU) located on the Texas A&M College Station campus.

After Dr. Paape spoke, I was able to share about the opportunities for organic corn in Texas, focusing on how Hi-A varieties can align with organic markets where consumer demand for nutritionally dense and colorful grains continues to grow.

Dr. Tim Paape introducing Hi-A Corn to HHS Secretary Kennedy when the Secretary visited the TAMU Campus in early July.

Joe Longoria, president of CASA RICA Tortillas in Plainview, shared his experience using this corn in commercial tortilla production, noting its excellent qualities for both flavor and nutrition. Joe is committed to the healthy food movement and talked about his interest in continuing to showcase healthy grains in his products.

From Research to Food

One of the highlights of the day was the luncheon, where participants tasted enchiladas, chips, and tortillas all made with Hi-A corn. The deep color and flavor of these products come from naturally high anthocyanin content in TAMZ 102. A big thanks to Joe Longoria and Casa Rica for providing the Hi-A chips and tortillas. Amazingly there were no chips or tortillas left after lunch!!

This hands-on experience helped bridge the gap between the research plots and the food plate, showing how agricultural innovation can quickly translate into consumer products.

Building Toward the Future

The classroom event did conclude with an informal Research Forum, where scientists, producers, and industry leaders discussed strategies for integrating breeding, production, and commercialization of Hi-A corn. By combining genetics research with market development, this crop has potential not only in specialty food markets but also in animal nutrition.

A Shared Success

The Field Day was a success thanks to the collaboration of researchers, growers, and industry leaders. With Hi-A corn gaining momentum, it’s encouraging to see strong partnerships forming around this crop. The tortillas, chips, and fresh ears we shared at lunch gave everyone a taste of what the future of corn could look like—nutrient-rich, flavorful, and farmer-driven.

Big thanks and a great deal of appreciation to the Texas Corn Producers Board, Southern SARE, High Plains Underground Water Conservation District, and USDA-ARS. These outstanding groups not only helped fund this important work but attended the field day as well!

Milling, Baking, Planting Organic Wheat: What Farmers Need to Know

When organic wheat growers choose a variety, they aren’t just planting seed—they’re planting bread, tortillas, and the reputation of their crop in the marketplace. That’s why milling and baking quality matter as much as yield. Extension Specialists and Wheat Researchers have been digging into an important question for growers: how do milling quality and baking quality fit into variety choice, especially for organic systems? These traits, along with protein and yield, play a direct role in what millers want and what farmers get paid for.

Milling Quality vs. Baking Quality

  • Milling quality is about how efficiently a kernel turns into flour. Seed size, uniformity, and hardness all affect milling yield.
  • Baking quality is about what happens in the bakery—how dough handles, rises, and produces bread or tortillas that buyers want.

Testing happens at several levels. The Cereal Quality Lab at College Station does preliminary evaluations, while the USDA and Wheat Quality Council conduct full baking and milling trials with multiple mills and bakeries. Every TAM variety is rated, and those scores directly influence variety release decisions.

Variety Highlights for Organic Wheat Growers

TAM 114

Mid-season hard red winter wheat prized for excellent milling and baking quality, solid yield potential, and strong adaptability.

  • Strengths: Excellent dough properties, solid straw strength, good grazing ability, drought tolerance, and winterhardiness. Moderately resistant to stripe, leaf, and stem rusts as well as Hessian fly; good acid soil tolerance.
  • Consistently appears on “Pick” lists for irrigated and limited irrigation systems thanks to its stable performance.
TAM 115

A dual-purpose variety offering both grain yield and grazing potential, with enhanced disease and insect resistance.

  • Strengths: Excellent milling and baking quality, large seed, high test weight, strong drought tolerance, and resilience against leaf, stripe, and stem rust, greenbug, and wheat curl mite (which contributes to Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus (WSMV) resistance).
  • Adapted across High Plains, Rolling Plains, Blacklands, and even Western Kansas/Eastern Colorado. Performs well under irrigation and good dryland conditions—but less reliable under severe dryland stress due to lower tillering capacity.
TAM 205

TAM 205 is a newer dual-purpose variety known for its strong milling and baking quality paired with unmatched disease resistance. It is highly adaptable across systems and is a strong option for both grain and forage.
Strengths:

  • Exceptional milling and baking quality
  • Good forage potential
  • Broad resistance (leaf, stripe, stem rust; WSMV; Fusarium head blight)
  • High test weight and large seed
TAM 113

A reliable dryland performer with good grain and forage potential, especially under stress.

  • Strengths: Solid grain yield, decent milling quality, and forage use. Early maturing with strong emergence and tillering – valuable in challenging environments. Offers resistance to stripe, leaf, and stem rusts.
  • Remaining a steady Dryland “Pick” in High Plains trials thanks to its adaptability.

Reminder: Organic farmers need to make seed purchase arrangements early (well before planting season) to ensure they have an adequate supply of untreated seed.

Protein Content vs. Protein Functionality

Farmers often watch protein percent, but researchers emphasize that protein functionality—how protein behaves in dough—is more important. While there’s no easy field test for this, variety choice remains a strong predictor.

When evaluating economics, consider total protein yield (bushels × protein percent). Sometimes a lower-yielding but higher-protein field can be more profitable than a high-yield, low-protein one.

Of course, protein levels don’t appear out of thin air. They’re the result of fertility, management, and soil health—areas where organic systems work a little differently than conventional.

Nitrogen and Organic Systems

One point of clarification: organic wheat does not suffer from a “late-season nitrogen challenge” so much as it requires planning ahead for higher yields. Excellent varieties and management can unlock yield potential, but only if soil fertility is built to support them.

  • Cover crops can provide up to 100 lbs of nitrogen per acre.
  • Manure composts from chicken or dairy sources can supply around 40 lbs of nitrogen per 1,000 lbs applied.
  • These are slow-release, biologically active forms of nitrogen. They need to be managed in advance so nutrients are available as the wheat grows.
  • Liquid organic N sources exist, but they are generally too expensive to justify based on the modest yield increases in wheat.

This means success in organic wheat fertility comes from building the soil and feeding the crop over the long term, not chasing protein with late-season nitrogen shots. The key takeaway is that organic fertility is a long game—cover crops and compost must be planned well in advance to match the yield potential of high-quality varieties like TAM 114 and TAM 205.

TAM Varieties and Seed Saving

Beyond fertility, seed access and seed-saving rights also matter to organic growers when planning for the future. All TAM varieties are public releases and not under Plant Variety Protection. Farmers can legally save and replant TAM seed for their own use. This is especially valuable in organic systems where untreated seed availability can be limited.

Why This Matters

In conventional systems, buyers reward bushels. In organic systems, millers and bakers want quality along with yield. Understanding both milling and baking traits—and managing fertility to match variety potential—helps organic growers capture more value.

As we look ahead, TAM 114 remains a cornerstone for organic production, but TAM 205 is quickly emerging as a variety that combines yield, quality, and resilience. With the right fertility planning and variety choice, Texas organic wheat can continue to meet both market demand and farmer profitability.

By combining resilient TAM varieties with thoughtful organic fertility planning, Texas wheat growers can continue to deliver grain that is profitable on the farm and dependable in the marketplace.

Resources for Growers

Organic Weed Control Does Not Start with Herbicides!

I am constantly asked about organic herbicides. I am tempted to shout back, “there are no organic herbicides!” Unfortunately, I would be wrong since the rules do allow for some “organic herbicide” use but overall, I AM RIGHT! The restrictions on using organic herbicides in a certified organic operation should and pretty much do eliminate their use. Here are some guidelines to consider.

Regulatory Framework (7 CFR §205)

The National Organic Program (NOP) requires that organic producers rely primarily on cultural, mechanical, and biological practices for weed control—not routine chemical herbicides. Synthetic substances are prohibited unless explicitly listed on the National List (7 CFR §205.600–607), and nonsynthetic (natural) materials are permitted only if they are not specifically prohibited in §205.602 and are included in guidance like NOP 5034‑1.

What Constitutes Allowed “Herbicides”

  • Soap-based herbicides, which are naturally derived, are allowed—but only for limited situations such as farmstead maintenance, roadways, ditches, building perimeters, and ornamental plantings—not for use in food crop production Legal Information.
  • Other natural herbicidal ingredients—acetic acid (vinegar), essential oils such as garlic or clove, corn gluten meal—may be formulated into commercial products (often OMRI-listed), but their use is still optional and must comply with producer’s approved Organic System Plan (OSP).

Why Use of Organic Herbicides Is Limited by the OSP

  • The Organic System Plan (OSP) is mandatory and must list all substances used in operation. Certifiers evaluate this list, and only substances compliant with 7 CFR §205—including NOP guidance and National List—may be approved National List .
  • Even when a natural herbicide is listed (e.g., an OMRI‑listed product), it must be justified as necessary. The NOP mandates that cultural, mechanical, and biological methods be used first. Only if these methods prove insufficient should pest, disease, or weed control materials—even those allowed—be considered.

Operational Examples

  • A certified organic field might prioritize crop rotation, mulching, flame cultivation, inter-row mechanical cultivation, and cover cropping, with organic herbicide used only for spot treatment of particularly stubborn weeds—such as a few patches too difficult to manage manually. Typical examples are spraying organic herbicides around wellheads, pivot pads, fencerows, etc.
  • Broad, wholesale use of even natural herbicides in food crop production would usually exceed what is allowable under the OSP. It could lead to certification issues or require pre-approval by the certifier.  The general rule is to always check with your certifier but in this case your certifier is not going to allow you to use organic herbicides across your fields!

The Why — Benefits of This Restriction

  1. Preserves ecological balance: Overreliance on even natural herbicides can inadvertently harm non-target organisms like beneficial insects or soil microbes. Just imagine what a soap based, or acid based, or oil based organic herbicide would do to beneficial insects? Also, these organic herbicides do not discriminate – they will kill your crop along with the weeds.
  2. Resonates with organic principles: Organic agriculture emphasizes building soil health, biodiversity, and resilience—principles supported through non-chemical or even organic chemical approaches.
  3. Regulatory integrity: Standardizing allowable inputs assures consumers that “organic” means minimal allowable impact and reliance on natural systems rather than chemical solutions.

Summary Table

ConceptExplanation
Organic HerbicidesOnly certain types (e.g., soap-based) allowed and limited to non-food areas like roadways or ornamentals.
OSP ConstraintsMaterials must be listed and justified; broad use requires regulatory approval.
Order of Control MethodsCultural → mechanical → biological → chemical (only if necessary).
Why RestrictedEnsures ecological integrity, respects organic philosophy, and upholds certification standards.

Insights on inter-row electrical weeding as a non-chemical weed management tool in organic cotton.

by Ryan Hamberg – Graduate Research Assistant and PhD Candidate at Texas A&M University working in weed control research.

Inter-row cultivation is a “go-to” tool in organic production systems. However, repeated soil disturbance is bad for soil health, leading to erosion, organic matter loss, and more. Practices that maintain or enhance soil health are at the forefront of organic production systems. The problem is that few non-chemical tools exist to manage inter-row weeds organically without soil disturbance.

Figure 1. The Zasso inter-row electrical weeding prototype. (Left) The generator is located at the back of the tractor and the front applicator attachment. (Right) This unit is designed for small plot research and covers just two rows

Research is underway at the Texas A&M University Research Farm, where a “first-of-its-kind” prototype inter-row electrical weeder (EW) in cotton is being tested (Figure 1). This prototype unit was designed through collaboration with Zasso (Indaiatuba, Brazil) and purchased through the support of AgriLife Research and Cotton Incorporated. The prototype includes a large generator and transformer that is powered by the tractor PTO, with the applicator attached to the front loader (Figure 1). Many growers may already be familiar with the Weed Zapper or similar tools that can manage weeds present above the canopy (Figure 2). Though both technologies use electricity, this EW prototype uses a distinctly different delivery method and can kill weeds present between the rows, allowing for control of weeds present below the crop canopy.

Figure 2. A more common electrical weeder design that only targets weeds taller than the crop canopy.

Numerous experiments are currently being conducted to test this prototype unit to determine the feasibility of using this technology in organic row crops, including cotton. The study highlighted in this article aims to determine how EW compares to traditional cultivation methods. Treatments were applied at the early post-emergence timing, when cotton was at the 4-leaf stage. The treatment structure was as follows:

  • One pass EW @ 0.8 mph
  • Two-pass (double-knock) EW @ 0.8 mph – 2nd pass immediately after
  • Two-pass (double-knock) EW @ 0.8 mph – 2nd pass 3 days after
  • One pass EW @ 2 mph
  • Two-pass (double-knock) EW @ 2 mph – 2nd pass immediately after
  • Two-pass (double-knock) EW @ 2 mph – 2nd pass 3 days after
  • One pass inter-row cultivation
  • One pass EWC @ 3.5 mph
  • Two-pass (double-knock) EW @ 3.5 mph – 2nd pass immediately after
  • Two-pass (double-knock) EW @ 3.5 mph – 2nd pass 3 days after
  • Nontreated control

The field tested in this experiment was infested with hophornbeam copperleaf, ivyleaf morningglory, Palmer amaranth, Johnsongrass, and Texas panicum. Weeds ranged in height from 5 to 10 cm at the time of application. Between-row weed control was evaluated at 3 and 14 days after treatment (DAT). Broadleaf weed control exceeded 95% across all treatments at both evaluation timings (Figures 3 & 4). In general, electrical weeding performed comparably to cultivation for broadleaf control, except for a single pass at 3.5 mph. Control of grasses varied across treatments at both timings. Grass control at 0.8 and 2 mph was slightly higher (~ 3%) with two passes of EW compared to a single pass of cultivation. Electrical weeding at 3.5 mph reduced grass control to 70% with one pass. Even with two passes at 3.5 mph, control ranged from 74% to 81% (Figure 3). Some concerns over potential current transfer into crop roots were raised, and therefore, cotton injury was also assessed at 3 and 14 DAT. Cotton injury never exceeded 1% of the plot and was generally <1% overall (Data not shown). The cotton injury observed was always due to contact with the electrode of the EW and there was no indication that root transfer was occurring.

The present study indicates that inter-row EW holds promise as a non-chemical weed control option in row crop systems. The EW performed as well as inter-row cultivation on broadleaf weeds while minimizing soil disturbance. Reduced grass control at faster travel speeds suggests that slower applications are necessary when grass weeds are present. Previous research has found grasses as more tolerant to other thermal weed control tools such as flaming (Ulloa et al., 2010). Overall, the feasibility of the EW has been demonstrated. Ongoing and future research will assess the potential role of this tool within integrated weed management programs specifically designed for organic cropping systems.

Figure 3. Visual control ratings of broadleaf and grass weeds following electrical weeding at varying travel speeds compared to cultivation. The red dashed line represents the 90% control threshold.

Figure 4. Plots showing weed control treatments three days after application.

Planning Organic Production with a Practical Price Index

In Extension, we’re often asked to help farmers and food businesses plan for the future—whether it’s transitioning acreage to organic, developing budgets, or evaluating the economics of new practices. One of the most common challenges we face is this: how do you plan for prices in an unpredictable market?

While no one can forecast future prices with certainty, that doesn’t mean we’re flying blind. We base our planning on something measurable, reliable, and rooted in history—and in organic agriculture, one of the most useful tools for this is a broad price index or multiplier.

Why Use a Price Multiplier?

Organic markets—like all markets—fluctuate. Prices are affected by everything from weather and input costs to consumer demand and global trade. But when we look at long-term trends, we begin to see patterns that can inform sound decision-making.

When we have access to strong market data—such as for organic corn, cotton, dairy, and many fruits and vegetables—we can use that data to create benchmarks. These help answer practical questions:

  • What kind of price can I reasonably expect if I go organic?
  • How much more can I budget for input costs and still break even?
  • Will this transition pencil out?

To answer these questions, we need a reference point—and that’s where a 1.6 multiplier comes in.

What Is the 1.6 Organic Multiplier?

The 1.6 multiplier means that organic farmgate prices tend to average about 1.6 times higher than conventional prices for many major commodities over the long run. That’s a 60% premium, based on real market data and USDA price tracking over the past decade or more. I happened to stumble onto this idea when I read an article in Progressive Dairy about conventional milk price forecasts through 2025. (Click to Read) This article made me wonder if I could use historical organic dairy milk prices in relation to conventional dairy milk prices and use this ratio to predict future organic prices. It was amazing to see what I kind of knew, that organic prices do follow with conventional prices for the most part!

So, this is not a guess. It’s backed by:

  • USDA AMS organic market summaries for corn (1.6 is pretty stable for corn) and cotton (less stable as prices have been higher making the index 1.6-2.0 or higher).
  • National organic dairy price reports, which show organic milk regularly selling at 1.5 to 1.65 times the price of conventional.
  • Industry-wide organic vegetable and fruit pricing that shows farmgate premiums in the 1.5 to 1.7 range across categories like tomatoes, lettuce, and apples.

Whether you’re planning production, analyzing risk, or applying for a grant or loan, this index provides a realistic baseline. It is not too optimistic or too pessimistic and is useful for planning purposes.

When This Index Works—and When It Doesn’t

The 1.6 multiplier is a planning tool, not a crystal ball. It works best:

  • When building enterprise budgets for row crops, dairy, and produce.
  • When discussing profitability potential with transitioning farmers.
  • When negotiating contracts or thinking through insurance or risk tools.
  • In extension workshops, to help audiences grasp market potential quickly.

However, this index doesn’t capture every situation. Local sales, direct markets, specialty crops, and extreme weather or supply chain issues can cause premiums to fall below or rise above the average. Sometimes, organic produce in a saturated market may only bring in a 10–20% premium, while other times a rare variety or short supply can push that number above 2x (or higher) the conventional price.

Why It’s Still Useful

Despite those swings, planning requires a number—and the 1.6 index is a solid, evidence-based starting point.

When I help producers set up organic systems, I don’t want to promise the moon. Instead, it is better to offer realistic projections grounded in long-term national trends.

Always I encourage producers to:

  • Adjust their projections up or down depending on crop, region, and market access.
  • Keep checking updated USDA-AMS, Argus Media, or buyer data each year.
  • Use the 1.6x benchmark as a baseline, not a guarantee.

Final Thoughts

As organic agriculture continues to grow, tools like this price index become more and more valuable. They help all of us in organic talk apples to apples with producers, gins, co-ops, lenders, and buyers. They also help demystify what can sometimes feel like a complex or volatile market.

My plan and my job is to keep helping farmers make decisions that are smart, sustainable, and rooted in good data.