Texas Organic Agriculture 2023–2026: How Farmers, Markets, Research and Infrastructure Created the Conditions for Growth

Texas organic agriculture changed rapidly between 2023 and 2026. New certified farms, expanded handler infrastructure, stronger markets, farmer mentoring, research investment and increased Extension outreach helped create better conditions for organic growth across the state.

When USDA’s Transition to Organic Partnership Program began in Texas in 2023, it arrived at an unusually important time for organic agriculture in the state.

Text graphic highlighting the USDA Organic Transition to Organic Partnership Program, featuring the USDA logo and program details.

Texas already had many of the ingredients needed for organic growth: a large agricultural land base, established organic farmers, certified cotton gins, grain elevators, peanut shellers, dairies and other handlers, expanding markets, and producers looking for alternatives that could improve farm profitability. What was often missing was the connection between those pieces—helping a farmer understand certification, find a market, learn from an experienced organic producer, solve production problems, and move from interest to certification.

During the period from July 2023 through September 2026, those pieces have increasingly come together.

Group of people attending a farm tour, discussing corn crops in a field under sunny skies.

146 New Certified Organic Operations

Perhaps the clearest measure is certification itself. Since July 1, 2023, 146 new Texas operations have become certified organic. As a cross-check on that number, the USDA Organic Integrity Database shows approximately 148 new crop certificates issued during essentially the same period. The close agreement between these independently derived counts provides a useful cross-check on the magnitude of recent crop-certification growth.

But the number alone does not explain what has been happening. One of the most important characteristics of organic transition in Texas is that many producers do not begin with land that has recently been conventionally farmed.

Based on Texas TOPP program records and producer contacts, approximately 93% of these newly certified operations entered organic production using land that was already eligible, or nearly eligible, for certification. Much of this acreage had been enrolled in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program, had been idle for several years, or in some cases had not received prohibited materials for decades.

One of the biggest advantages Texas has is land that may already have completed most or all of the three-year organic transition period before a farmer ever applies for certification.

Under USDA organic regulations, land must have had no prohibited substances applied for 36 months before harvest of an organic crop. In many Texas situations, that clock has already run before the farmer ever considers organic certification. For land that has already satisfied the 36-month requirement, the remaining organic certification process may take only a few months. A farmer can begin the certification process during the fall or winter, complete an Organic System Plan, document the land-use history, undergo inspection and, if all requirements are met, be ready for certified organic production the following growing season. That gives Texas an important structural advantage and likely contributed to the nearly 120,000-acre increase in certified organic acreage since summer 2024.

Handler Growth Strengthened Organic Market Infrastructure

Another important change during the TOPP period has been the rapid increase in certified organic handlers in Texas. In 2023, Texas had fewer than 400 certified organic handlers. By September 8, 2026, that number had increased to 728. This growth is important because organic transition depends on much more than certifying farmland. Farmers need certified businesses that can receive, store, process, transport, feed, gin, shell, clean, package or market organic products while maintaining organic integrity.

In Texas, these handlers include businesses such as organic cotton gins, grain elevators, peanut shellers, dairies purchasing organic feed, processors and other agricultural businesses. Their presence creates market pathways for crops such as cotton, wheat, corn, sorghum, peanuts, cowpeas, hay and silage.

A variety of corn cobs, including yellow and red types, labeled with identification tags, displayed on a brown clipboard table with notes in the background.

The increase in certified handlers therefore helps explain why organic transition has been concentrated in particular areas of Texas. Where certified handlers, established organic growers and suitable farmland occur together, a farmer considering organic production faces much less market uncertainty. In practical terms, a producer is far more likely to transition when the question is not, “Who will buy my crop?” but rather, “Which organic market fits my farm?”

The growth from fewer than 400 to 728 certified handlers reflects both expansion of the Texas organic supply chain and changes in USDA certification requirements. The Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule, fully implemented in March 2024, required certification of many businesses involved in organic trade that previously could operate without certification. Even with that qualification, the large number of certified handlers demonstrates the breadth of the infrastructure now available to move organic products from Texas farms into markets.

Organic Agriculture Grows in Clusters, Not One Farm at a Time

The new certifications are also not randomly distributed across Texas. They tend to occur in organic production-and-market clusters—what might informally be called organic “hot spots”—where several parts of the organic supply chain already operate together.

In these areas, a producer may have experienced organic neighbors, an organic cotton gin, a certified grain elevator, a peanut sheller, an organic dairy purchasing feed, or buyers looking for organic wheat, corn, sorghum, cotton, peanuts, cowpeas, hay or silage. That infrastructure changes the transition decision.

Certification itself does not create a market. A producer needs somewhere to deliver the crop, someone who understands organic segregation and handling, and preferably some confidence about price and demand before planting. Where that infrastructure already exists, the risk of organic transition is substantially reduced.

Experienced organic growers are equally important. A producer considering organic wheat or cotton in an area with established organic farms can see how neighboring growers manage weeds, rotations, fertility, insects and certification records. The discussion changes from “Can organic farming work here?” to “How do I make it work on my farm?”

That may be one of the most important lessons from the Texas experience: organic agriculture tends to build around clusters rather than isolated farms. Production, handling, markets, information and farmer experience reinforce one another.

A man smiling next to a roll-up banner promoting the USDA Transition to Organic Partnership Program, encouraging support for organic farming.

TOPP Helped Connect the Pieces

USDA created the Transition to Organic Partnership Program as part of its Organic Transition Initiative. Nationally, TOPP was designed around farmer mentoring, technical assistance, community building and organic workforce development. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension participated through the Western and Southwestern regional program led by the CCOF Foundation. TOPP did not create Texas organic agriculture, nor can the growth in certified operations be attributed to one program. What TOPP did provide was additional capacity at exactly the time that producer interest, market opportunities and organic research were expanding. That additional capacity was expressed most clearly through expanded producer education, farmer mentoring, technical assistance and development of Texas-specific organic resources.

TOPP Expanded Extension Reach and Farmer-to-Farmer Learning

One of the most direct impacts of Texas TOPP funding has been the ability to greatly expand face-to-face outreach across the state. Texas is large, and organic agriculture is spread across widely separated production regions. Reaching transitioning and certified organic farmers requires travel, staff time and the ability to bring farmers, researchers, certifiers, buyers and other organic specialists together.

TOPP provided resources that allowed the Texas A&M AgriLife Organic Program to participate in approximately 278 educational venues during the TOPP period, averaging about 69 annually. These have included producer meetings, conferences, tours, field days, short courses, online meetings, market updates and invited presentations across Texas.

TOPP funding also helped the program organize and host organic-specific educational events rather than relying only on general agricultural meetings. These events created opportunities for transitioning and certified farmers to see organic production in the field, visit with experienced growers, learn from researchers and hear directly from organic businesses and technical experts.

Participation has demonstrated the demand for this type of education. A recent Organic Cotton and Peanut Tour attracted more than 100 participants and 18 organic industry sponsors, bringing farmers, researchers, Extension personnel and businesses together around two of Texas’s most important organic crops.

An annual February agricultural event has also provided an opportunity to feature an organic speaker before an audience of more than 250 participants, extending organic production information to farmers who may not yet identify themselves as organic producers but may be considering transition or interested in organic practices.

TOPP resources have also made it possible to bring recognized organic experts into Texas to address emerging production, certification and market issues. This has given Texas producers access to information and expertise that would otherwise be difficult or expensive to obtain locally. These activities are important because organic transition is not accomplished through publications alone. Farmers often need to see another organic farm, examine equipment, ask questions of experienced producers, talk with buyers and handlers, and hear how other farmers solved problems similar to their own.

In that sense, TOPP helped create more than educational events. It helped build a statewide organic learning network in which farmers, researchers, Extension educators, certifiers and agricultural businesses could interact directly. That network is one of the program’s most important lasting contributions.

A group of people observing a greenhouse filled with rows of green and red lettuce plants, highlighting a modern agricultural setting.

Farmer Mentors Became a Core Part of the Texas Organic Network

Farmer-to-farmer mentoring has also been an important part of the Texas TOPP effort. Over the course of the program, 13 experienced organic farmers served as mentors, providing direct assistance to 37 transitioning farmers who specifically requested mentoring support. These relationships helped producers work through practical questions about certification, crop production, recordkeeping, markets, equipment, weed management and other issues that are often best understood by someone who has already managed an organic farm.

The mentors’ influence extended well beyond these formal mentoring relationships. They also interacted informally with many of the 146 operations that became certified during the TOPP period, answering questions, sharing experiences and helping new producers understand how organic production works under Texas conditions.

Mentors regularly participated in organic tours, field days, short courses and producer meetings, where their experience complemented information provided by Extension specialists, researchers and certifiers. They also met informally with the Texas A&M AgriLife Organic Program and became an important source of current information about production conditions, markets, emerging problems and farmer concerns.

In many ways, these producers became the program’s boots on the ground. Because they were actively farming within different organic production regions, they could provide an immediate picture of what was working, what was changing and where additional Extension or research support was needed. This informal network may be one of the more durable outcomes of TOPP. The formal grant period ends, but the relationships among experienced organic farmers, new producers, Extension educators, researchers and agricultural businesses remain.

Digital Outreach Expanded Access to Organic Information

At the end of 2022, the Texas A&M AgriLife Organic website recorded 7,153 annual page views from 3,605 visitors. During just the first eight months of 2026, the site had already reached 60,341 views from 21,425 visitors. By August 2026, website views were already more than eight times the total recorded during all of 2022, while the number of visitors was nearly six times greater.

Since 2023, approximately 183 webpages and online resources have been developed addressing organic certification, crop production, soil fertility, pest management, markets, regulations and other issues faced by transitioning and certified producers.

Two farmers discussing organic sorghum seed systems in a field.

The monthly organic email newsletter has grown from approximately 480 subscribers in 2023 to more than 1,410 subscribers in 2026.

Those numbers matter because organic transition is unusually information-intensive. Farmers need agronomic information, but they also need to understand certification standards, recordkeeping, allowable inputs, markets and the consequences of management decisions under the USDA National Organic Program. Building a readily available body of Texas-specific information reduces that barrier.

Research Investment Has Changed as Well

Another major development since 2023 has been the rapid expansion of organic research in Texas. In 2023, two major USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) projects were awarded involving Texas A&M researchers: the Climate-Smart Organic Sorghum Partnership for Grain and Silage Production and Fostering Sustainable Organic Cotton Production in the U.S. through Research and Outreach on Organic Regenerative Practices. USDA records confirm both projects as major Texas organic research efforts. Those projects represented nearly $7 million in initial research investment.

Since then, three additional NIFA OREI grant applications have been submitted to improve Texas organic agriculture totaling more than $8 million, while other organic-related research and demonstration projects in the works have contributed approximately another $500,000.

The significance extends beyond the dollar amount. These projects are building an organic research community in Texas that includes faculty, Extension specialists, postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, technicians and cooperating farmers. Organic fields are increasingly becoming primary research sites where recommendations can be developed and tested within organic systems rather than relying primarily on adaptation of conventional recommendations.

That distinction matters. Organic systems have different weed-management constraints, nutrient-release patterns, crop rotations, biological interactions and market requirements. Research conducted within organic systems allows scientists to investigate those differences directly. Importantly, these projects also contain transition components. Researchers are examining what happens to soils, crops, weeds, nutrients and biological communities as fields move from conventional management into organic production. The result should be increasingly useful recommendations not only for established organic farms but also for the producer asking the most basic transition question: What should I expect during the first several years?

Investment Expanded Organic Market Infrastructure

Production research alone cannot expand organic agriculture if there is nowhere for products to go. USDA’s Organic Market Development Grant program was specifically created to expand organic processing, aggregation, storage, transportation and market capacity. USDA described the program as an effort to address missing market pathways for commodities including organic grains, livestock feed, dairy, fiber and rotational crops.

Texas organic businesses received substantial investment through this program, including projects involving processing equipment, market development and new value-added opportunities. USDA records, for example, document Texas projects ranging from organic citrus processing in the Rio Grande Valley to organic yaupon tea marketing and expanded organic spice, herb and grain processing. Collectively, five Texas organic businesses or organizations received more than $3 million in Organic Market Development Grant funding.

These investments matter to producers because transition is much easier when market capacity grows along with production capacity. A new organic farmer is considerably more likely to succeed when there is a certified elevator, gin, dairy, sheller, processor or other buyer within a practical hauling distance.

Organic Has Become Economically Significant in Texas

All of this activity is occurring within an industry that has become economically important to Texas agriculture. Texas certified organic agricultural sales totaled $424.3 million in 2019, generating an estimated $938.9 million in statewide economic output and supporting more than 8,300 full- and part-time jobs.

By 2021, certified organic sales had reached $572.2 million, a 35% increase from 2019. Those sales were associated with approximately $1.10 billion in statewide economic output, $453.6 million in value added, $267.6 million in labor income and approximately 8,683 jobs.

Using that verified 2021 baseline and a conservative 7% annual growth assumption, Texas organic agricultural sales are estimated at approximately $802.5 million in 2026, supporting about $1.55 billion in total statewide economic activity and more than 12,000 jobs. These 2026 figures are projections based on the verified 2021 baseline and should not be interpreted as USDA-reported 2026 sales.

The important point is not simply that organic acreage or the number of certificates has increased. Organic agriculture is generating meaningful economic activity in rural Texas. Cotton requires ginning. Peanuts require shelling. Grain requires storage, cleaning and transportation. Dairy requires large quantities of feed. Seed production, crop consulting, certification, trucking, processing and other services generate additional economic activity beyond the farm gate. Organic agriculture increasingly functions as a supply chain, not simply as an alternative production practice.

Group photo of agricultural professionals standing in a field, holding a flag, with green crops in the foreground and clear blue sky above.

What the 2023–2026 Period Has Shown

Looking back over the 2023–2026 period, I think the most important lesson from Texas is that farmers transition to organic most readily when several conditions occur simultaneously. Suitable land must be available, a market must exist, handling and processing infrastructure must be accessible, farmers need reliable production information, they need help understanding certification, and they benefit from experienced organic producers nearby.

Researchers need to be working on the production problems farmers encounter, and farmers need confidence that organic agriculture has a future beyond the next crop year. During the TOPP period, Texas strengthened nearly all of those pieces. TOPP helped strengthen the connections among them. When the Texas portion of TOPP reached the end of its grant-funded period on September 30, 2026, perhaps its most important accomplishment was not a single meeting, mentorship, publication or website statistic. It is that organic transition in Texas now operates within a much stronger ecosystem of farmers, markets, handlers, researchers, Extension educators, certifiers and agricultural businesses than existed when TOPP began in 2023. The federal TOPP project may end, but that infrastructure does not disappear.

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension’s organic program, the producer networks developed through TOPP, the research projects now underway, the market infrastructure being built and the expanding community of certified organic farmers remain.

And that may ultimately be the most important measure of the investment: Texas has increased not only the number of organic farms, but also its capacity to support the next farmer who decides to become one.

Data note: Certification counts and certified acreage are based primarily on USDA Organic Integrity Database records. USDA NASS Organic Survey figures are used for agricultural sales and related economic measures where indicated. Because the two USDA datasets are developed for different purposes, their operation and acreage totals are not necessarily identical.

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

A pesticide residue detected on an organic crop does not automatically mean loss of certification. The pesticide, residue level, crop, possible source and production records all determine what happens next.

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

A farmer operates machinery on a green field with a red tractor while a hose runs along a dirt path between large farming equipment.

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

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

Use Only Products Approved by Your Certifier

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

There are several reasons for this:

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

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

Why Are Organic Farms Tested?

A woman in a sun hat and gloves inspects cotton plants in a field, holding a leaf sample in a bag marked for pesticide residue analysis. A clipboard with inspection forms is beside her, and text above reads '5% of Operations Sampled'.

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

The certifier may select farms:

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

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

What Happens When Nothing Is Detected?

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

What Happens When a Pesticide Is Detected?

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration explaining what 10 parts per billion (ppb) looks like, featuring a farmer in a field, visualizing a small amount of particles under a magnifying glass, and providing context on the significance of this measurement in organic production.

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

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

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

What Is an EPA Pesticide Tolerance?

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

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

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

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

Below 5 Percent of the EPA Tolerance

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

However, the certifier may still investigate:

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

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

Above 5 Percent of the EPA Tolerance

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

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

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

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

What if There Is No EPA Tolerance?

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

What if the Farmer Applied the Pesticide?

A drone flying above a field with a person in a safety vest observing in the foreground.

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

The certifier may consider:

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

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

What Should a Farmer Do After Receiving a Positive Result?

First, do not panic—but do respond promptly.

I would recommend that the farmer:

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

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

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

More Resources

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

BNI Wheat: Can the Crop Help Manage Its Own Nitrogen?

BNI wheat uses a natural root trait to slow nitrification, helping keep nitrogen in the root zone longer and potentially improving nitrogen-use efficiency in organic farming systems.

Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients in crop production, but it is also one of the hardest to manage well. In organic agriculture, that challenge is even greater because we do not use synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. We depend on legumes, manure, compost, crop rotations, soil organic matter, and biological activity to supply nitrogen over time.

That makes nitrogen efficiency extremely important. Every pound of nitrogen released from manure, compost, legumes, or soil organic matter needs to be captured by the crop as effectively as possible. When nitrogen is lost, the farmer may lose yield potential, grain protein, forage value, and money. The environment can also lose because nitrogen may move into water or escape from the soil as nitrogen gases. This is why a concept called Biological Nitrification Inhibition, or BNI, has great potential and why we are looking at it in our wheat breeding programs.

Comparative diagram illustrating the effects of BNI (Biological Nitrogen Increase) in wheat plants versus traditional methods, highlighting nitrogen fertilizer usage, nitrous oxide emissions, and nitrate leaching into water bodies.

Figure description: BNI wheat slows the conversion of ammonium to nitrate in the soil. This keeps nitrogen in a form that is less prone to leaching, can reduce nitrous oxide emissions, and may allow the crop to use fertilizer nitrogen more efficiently.

Table of Contents

What Is BNI?

BNI is a natural plant trait where roots release compounds that slow down nitrification, the microbial process that converts ammonium nitrogen into nitrate nitrogen.

That matters because ammonium nitrogen, written as NH₄⁺, tends to stay attached to soil particles. Nitrate nitrogen, written as NO₃⁻, is much more mobile and can move with water below the root zone. Nitrate can also be involved in soil processes that produce nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas.

In simple terms, BNI may help the crop slow the leak in the nitrogen bucket.

BNI does not stop nitrogen cycling. It does not sterilize the soil. It simply slows one part of the nitrogen cycle near the root so more nitrogen may remain available to the crop longer. Researchers describe BNI as root exudates suppressing ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea, which are microbes involved in the first major step of nitrification (Coskun et al., 2017; Subbarao et al., 2013; Subbarao et al., 2021).

Why This Matters in Organic Farming

Organic farmers already work hard to build nitrogen through biology. Legume cover crops, compost, manure, crop residues, and soil organic matter all release nitrogen through natural processes. The challenge is timing. The crop needs nitrogen at certain growth stages, but the soil releases nitrogen according to moisture, temperature, microbial activity, and residue quality.

If nitrogen becomes nitrate too early, it may be lost before the crop can use it. BNI wheat may help by keeping more nitrogen in the ammonium form near the root system.

That does not replace good organic management. BNI wheat would still need good rotations, fertility planning, soil health, weed control, and adapted varieties. But if the crop can help hold nitrogen in the root zone longer, it may improve nitrogen-use efficiency in systems where nitrogen is often expensive, limited, or difficult to time correctly.

Texas A&M AgriLife wheat research plots in the field.

Wheat research conducted by Texas A&M AgriLife Research. Photo courtesy of Dr. Amir Ibrahim, Texas A&M AgriLife Research.

Why Wheat?

Wheat is one of the most flexible crops in American agriculture. It can be harvested for grain, cut for silage, grazed as forage, used in dual-purpose systems, or grown as a cover crop. That makes wheat especially important in organic systems. In Texas, wheat is often part of livestock systems and row-crop rotations. For organic dairy, beef, grain, and cover crop systems, a more nitrogen-efficient wheat could have value across the whole farm.

Is BNI Wheat Genetically Engineered?

No! The BNI wheat being discussed in current research is developed through conventional plant breeding methods, not genetic engineering. Researchers identified a strong BNI capacity in a wild relative of wheat called Leymus racemosus. The BNI-associated chromosome segment from that wild relative was transferred into wheat, and researchers have since developed BNI-enabled wheat lines such as MUNAL-BNI and ROELFS-BNI (Subbarao et al., 2021; Bozal-Leorri et al., 2022).

This work uses crossing, backcrossing, marker-assisted selection, root exudate testing, and field evaluation. These are conventional breeding tools, even though some are advanced. Marker-assisted selection simply helps breeders identify which plants inherited the desired chromosome segment. It does not create a genetically engineered plant. That distinction matters for organic agriculture because BNI wheat fits within the conventional plant breeding pathway.

What Do We Know So Far?

The science is still developing, but the early evidence is encouraging. Research has shown that BNI capacity exists in wild relatives of wheat and in some wheat landraces. One study found significant BNI activity in several wheat landraces, showing that BNI is not limited only to wild species (O’Sullivan et al., 2016). More recent work shows that wheat genotypes vary in root exudate chemistry and BNI activity, which means breeders may have useful natural variation to work with (Ghatak et al., 2025).

Studies with BNI-enabled wheat lines have reported reduced ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, lower nitrification potential, lower nitrate levels, greater ammonium retention, improved nitrogen uptake, and no yield penalty in many cases (Subbarao et al., 2021; Bozal-Leorri et al., 2022; Karwat et al., 2025).

That does not mean every question is answered. Soil type, pH, temperature, nitrogen source, crop stage, and variety background can all affect how well BNI works. But the evidence is strong enough to justify serious breeding, field testing, and organic systems research.

Wheat field with mature wheat plants.

Wheat field representing commercial wheat production. Photo: Adobe Stock.

What Could BNI Wheat Mean for Farmers?

For organic grain farmers, better nitrogen-use efficiency could help with both yield and grain protein. Protein is especially important in bread wheat markets, and nitrogen availability is one of the major drivers of protein.

For organic dairy and livestock producers, BNI wheat could have value as forage, silage, grazing, or feed grain. If wheat can use nitrogen more efficiently, it may improve the economics of growing organic feed locally.

For organic crop rotations, BNI wheat could become another tool to help stabilize fertility. It will not replace legumes, compost, manure, or cover crops, but it may help the crop use those biological nitrogen sources more efficiently.

For the environment, BNI wheat may reduce nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions. Reviews of BNI research suggest that BNI crops can improve nitrogen-use efficiency and reduce nitrogen losses, although field performance will depend on soil, climate, crop genetics, and management (Coskun et al., 2017; Subbarao et al., 2013; Saud et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021).

References and Further Reading

Bozal-Leorri, A., Subbarao, G., Kishii, M., Urmeneta, L., Kommerell, V., Karwat, H., Braun, H., Aparicio-Tejo, P., Ortiz-Monasterio, I., González-Murua, C., & González-Moro, M. (2022). Biological nitrification inhibitor-trait enhances nitrogen uptake by suppressing nitrifier activity and improves ammonium assimilation in two elite wheat varieties. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1034219

Coskun, D., Britto, D., Shi, W., & Kronzucker, H. (2017). Nitrogen transformations in modern agriculture and the role of biological nitrification inhibition. Nature Plants, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.74

Ghatak, A., et al. (2025). Natural variation of the wheat root exudate metabolome and its influence on biological nitrification inhibition activity. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 23, 4755–4772. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.70248

Karwat, H., et al. (2025). Nitrogen dynamics and yield performance of an elite bread wheat line with BNI capacity expressed in an alkaline soil. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.29.667244

O’Sullivan, C., Fillery, I., Roper, M., & Richards, R. (2016). Identification of several wheat landraces with biological nitrification inhibition capacity. Plant and Soil, 404, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-2822-4

Subbarao, G. V., et al. (2021). Enlisting wild grass genes to combat nitrification in wheat farming: A nature-based solution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106595118

Subbarao, G. V., et al. (2013). A paradigm shift towards low-nitrifying production systems: The role of biological nitrification inhibition (BNI). Annals of Botany, 112(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs230

Wang, X., et al. (2021). Effects of biological nitrification inhibitors on nitrogen use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural soils: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 220, 112338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112338

Text from the United States Department of Agriculture, including the Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, and Transition to Organic Partnership Program. Features the USDA Organic logo.

Flame Weeding, Soil Biology, and Organic Farming: Questions Worth Asking

Flame weeding can suppress difficult weeds without deeply heating the soil, but its value in organic farming depends on how it fits within the larger biological and agronomic system.

One of the interesting things about organic agriculture is that it constantly forces us to balance competing biological, ecological, and practical realities. Recently, I posted a short video showing a farmer using a propane flame weeder to suppress field bindweed, and it generated a spirited discussion about soil biology, climate impacts, and whether flame weeding even belongs in organic systems.1

Suppression of field bindweed in advance of crop planting. Video courtesy of a Texas organic farmer.

Rather than turning that discussion into “who won the argument,” I think it raises some important questions that many farmers, gardeners, and consumers are already asking.

Field bindweed itself is a good example of why these conversations matter. Field bindweed is one of the most difficult perennial weeds in organic farming. It spreads aggressively through deep underground roots and rhizomes, and tillage can actually make infestations worse by cutting and moving living root fragments throughout the field.

Table of Contents

Does Flame Weeding Sterilize the Soil?

This is probably the biggest concern people have when they first see flame weeding. The answer is no — not in the way many imagine.

Flame weeding is a very shallow, fast exposure of heat. The objective is usually not to incinerate the plant but to rupture plant cells in the foliage. Most flame weeding systems move rapidly across the soil surface, and soil itself is actually a very effective insulator.

Research has shown that the heat impact declines dramatically within just a few millimeters of soil depth. Surface microorganisms may certainly be affected, especially some bacteria very near the soil surface, but the overwhelming majority of the soil microbial ecosystem remains protected below that thin layer.2

That distinction matters because soil microbial communities are not static. Bacterial populations can rebound extremely quickly under favorable conditions. Fungi, spores, protected aggregates, organic matter, and deeper microbial habitats often remain largely intact.

A useful comparison is prescribed burning in rangelands and forests. Fire can temporarily suppress some organisms near the surface while simultaneously stimulating nutrient cycling, changing plant competition, reducing excess residue, and shifting ecological balance. The outcome depends heavily on intensity, duration, frequency, and what happens afterward.

Why would an organic farmer use flame weeding at all?

A farming implement with a large tank and metal arms, used for agricultural purposes, set in a rural field with tractors visible in the background.

Texas A&M AgriLife weed research just got the new Red Dragon Engineering flaming attachment setup to allow for burndown as well as in-row applications. Hopefully, this will be another useful tool in the toolbox. The “weed team” will be testing it in organic cotton and sorghum this summer.

Organic farming is not simply “avoiding chemicals.” It is a management system focused on biological function, long-term productivity, and ecological balance. But organic farmers still have to manage weeds. Perennial weeds create especially difficult problems because many standard control methods can worsen the issue. With bindweed, repeated tillage often spreads the infestation. Herbicides are not available in certified organic systems. Hand labor is expensive and often impractical at field scale. In the case from the video, the farmer was not trying to permanently kill bindweed with a single flame pass. That would be unrealistic but instead, the goal was suppression.

The farmer was temporarily weakening the bindweed canopy until soil temperatures became warm enough to plant a highly competitive sorghum forage crop. Sorghum can become an extremely aggressive shading crop that competes strongly against bindweed while simultaneously contributing large amounts of root biomass and crop residue back into the soil.

Why do grasses like sorghum often stimulate bacterial activity?

Grass crops such as sorghum, corn, wheat, and other cereals typically produce extensive fibrous root systems. Those roots release large amounts of carbon compounds — called root exudates — into the rhizosphere, which is the narrow zone of soil surrounding roots. These exudates feed bacteria and other microorganisms.

Many soil biology tests, including PLFA (phospholipid fatty acid analysis) and Haney soil testing approaches, often show strong bacterial responses following vigorous grass growth. That does not mean fungi are unimportant. In fact, healthy soils need both fungal and bacterial communities. But grasses frequently shift the system toward greater bacterial dominance compared to some perennial or woody systems. The important point is that soil biology is dynamic. A single management event does not define the entire biological trajectory of a field.

What about climate concerns from propane?

That is also a fair question. Propane is a fossil fuel. There is no reason to pretend otherwise. But agricultural systems are rarely evaluated honestly if we isolate one input without comparing alternatives.

A large white tank labeled 'WEED SCIENCE' on a farm, surrounded by a field and a pickup truck in the background under a cloudy sky.

The comparison is not “flame weeding versus doing nothing.” The comparison is usually:

  • repeated tillage passes,
  • additional tractor operations,
  • cultivation,
  • soil disturbance,
  • diesel fuel use,
  • erosion risk,
  • moisture loss,
  • or long-term perennial weed spread.

In some situations, a targeted flame treatment may actually reduce total disturbance compared to aggressive tillage programs. Organic agriculture often involves choosing between imperfect tools while trying to move the system toward better long-term outcomes.

Can flame weeding be overused?

Absolutely! If someone used intense flame applications repeatedly with no larger biological or agronomic strategy, there could certainly be negative consequences. Like tillage, grazing, cover crops, fertilizers, or irrigation, the effect depends on how the tool is used. Flame weeding should generally be viewed as a targeted management tool, not the foundation of the farming system.

A biologically focused farmer should still prioritize:

  • living roots,
  • residue cover,
  • diverse rotations,
  • microbial habitat,
  • reduced disturbance,
  • carbon cycling,
  • and competitive crop canopies.

Organic farming is often about tradeoffs, not perfection

One challenge in discussing organic agriculture publicly is that people sometimes assume every organic practice must have zero environmental cost. Real farming does not work that way. Organic farming is a systems approach. Farmers constantly balance weed pressure, economics, soil biology, labor, fuel use, crop competition, erosion risk, and long-term field productivity.

The more useful question is usually not:
“Is this tool perfect?”

But rather:
“Does this tool move the overall system in a healthier direction over time?”

For difficult perennial weeds like bindweed, many organic farmers would argue that temporary suppression combined with competitive crops, biological improvement, and reduced tillage may be preferable to aggressive cultivation that spreads the weed even further. That does not end the discussion, but it does make the conversation more nuanced than simply saying “fire is bad for soil biology.”

References

  1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/part-205#p-205.206(c)(5) ↩︎
  2. Rahkonen, J., Pietikäinen, J., & Jokela, H. (1999). The Effects of Flame Weeding on Soil Microbial Biomass. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 16, 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.1999.9755239. ↩︎

Additional Resources

Text display of the USDA logo and programs related to organic farming, including the National Organic Program and Transition to Organic Partnership Program.

How Soil Can Develop in Just Decades

Soil formation is often described as a process that takes thousands of years, but the early stages can move much faster. Biology, organic matter, mineral weathering and aggregation can build measurable soil structure, nutrient-holding capacity and resilience within decades under the right conditions.

Most of us grew up hearing that “soil takes hundreds or thousands of years to form.” That is a useful reminder that mature soil profiles and distinct soil horizons develop slowly. But it can also leave the impression that meaningful soil development cannot occur within a farmer’s lifetime.

That is not necessarily true.

Research on young soils and soil chronosequences shows that biological activity, organic matter accumulation, aggregation, mineral weathering, and other measurable soil properties can begin changing within years to decades. A mature soil profile may take centuries or longer to develop, but the processes that build a functioning soil begin much sooner.1 2

Under favorable conditions, measurable changes in soil biology, organic matter, aggregation, nutrient cycling, and other soil properties can occur within years to decades.

By “soil development,” I am not suggesting that a mature soil profile forms in 20 or 30 years. I am referring to measurable changes in soil structure, biological activity, organic matter, nutrient retention, weathering, and other properties associated with pedogenesis.3 4

Soil Formation Starts When Life Colonizes Minerals

Biological colonization is one of the most important accelerators of early pedogenesis. On newly exposed rock, ash, sediment, or other parent material, organisms such as lichens, algae, cyanobacteria, fungi, bacteria, and eventually plants begin interacting with mineral surfaces.

  • Lichens (symbiotic associations between fungi and algae and/or cyanobacteria)
  • 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.

Biology Accelerates Mineral 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 reactions can increase mineral dissolution and release plant nutrients from susceptible minerals.

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). Organic compounds associated with mineral surfaces can also contribute to nutrient retention and carbon stabilization.

CEC (cation exchange capacity) — the soil’s ability to hold and supply nutrient cations like Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, and NH₄⁺. This increasing exchange capacity matters because it gives the developing soil more ability to retain positively charged nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, potassium, and ammonium rather than allowing them to move readily with water.

This is a major transition point: the developing soil gains greater capacity to retain and cycle nutrients.

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.

Biology contributes strongly to aggregation 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 one reason growers may notice a soil becoming easier to work, infiltrating water better, or forming more stable crumbs within only a few seasons—even though the underlying soil profile is still essentially the same soil.

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

Time matters, but the rate and direction of pedogenesis depend on the interaction of biology, climate, parent material, landscape position, and management. In young soils, biological activity can be an especially powerful accelerator.6

Statements such as “an inch of topsoil takes hundreds of years to form” and evidence of soil development within decades refer to different things. The first generally describes long-term development or replacement of soil material. The second describes measurable changes in soil properties and pedogenic processes. Soil can become more structured, biologically active, carbon-rich, and functionally different long before a mature soil profile has formed.

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

Many practices used in organic and regenerative production can strengthen the same biological and physical processes involved in soil development:

  • 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.

On an established farm, our goal is usually not to “form a new soil.” It is to improve the structure, biological activity, organic matter dynamics, nutrient cycling, and water relations of the soil we already have.

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

  1. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service — Soil Facts / Soil Formation and Classification. ↩︎
  2. Huggett, R.J. 1998. Soil chronosequences, soil development, and soil evolution: a critical review. CATENA 32:155–172. ↩︎
  3. Nature of the Belowground Ecosystem and Its Development during Pedogenesis. Advances in Agronomy 127:43–109 (2014). ↩︎
  4. Spinola et al. 2024. Rapid soil formation and carbon accumulation along a Little Ice Age soil chronosequence in southeast Alaska. CATENA 246:108460. ↩︎
  5. Volcanic ash soils and rapid stabilization: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3072 ↩︎
  6. Soil formation factors (Landcare Research NZ): https://soils.landcareresearch.co.nz/topics/understanding-soils/how-do-soils-form ↩︎

Turning Oilfield Wastewater into Agricultural Opportunity

As farmers in the Texas know all too well, water is the lifeblood of our land—and it’s in short supply. But what if one of the most abundant waste streams in our region could be cleaned up and used to grow crops? That’s the question being tested right now in several pilot projects across Texas, where treated oilfield wastewater, called produced water, is being evaluated for agricultural use.

WaterTectonics at a site in Midland treating Produced Water for reuse in a fracking operation. Similar to what might be done in agriculture. Picture from https://www.watertectonics.com/project/texas-produced-water-reuse-treatment/

What is Produced Water?

Produced water is the salty, chemical-laden byproduct that comes up with oil and gas during drilling operations. The Permian Basin alone generates around 24 million barrels of this water every day—that’s equivalent to roughly 1 billion gallons, about 37,196 acre-inches, or over 3,100 acre-feet daily. Historically, this water has been disposed of underground, but with growing water needs and improving treatment technologies, many are asking: can we make this water safe and useful for agriculture??

New Pilot Projects in Texas Agriculture

Thanks to recent legislation (notably SB 1145, effective Sept. 1, 2025), Texas is laying the groundwork for farmers to eventually use treated produced water. But for now, only pilot projects are permitted—and here are some of the most important ones:

OrganizationPilot ScopeLocationCrops or Focus
Texas Pacific Water Resources (TPWR)Treating water with reverse osmosis; testing 400+ contaminantsMidland and Pecos River areaAlfalfa, native grasses (greenhouse & outdoor)
Deep Blue OperatingIrrigation pilot using up to 27,300 gal/dayMidland CountyCotton, bermuda grass, alfalfa, wheat
Texas Produced Water ConsortiumResearch coordination, data analysisMultiple West Texas sitesSupports 5 pilot sites with varying treatment systems
TETRA & EOG ResourcesDesalination pilot with high recovery ratesPermian BasinRangeland grasses (greenhouse testing)
Aris Water Solutions & GarverMembrane & thermal treatment systemsPermian BasinSystem design; seeking TCEQ irrigation permits
General Land Office & EOG Resources1-acre soil/crop health trialReeves CountyMonitoring nutrient uptake and plant health

These pilot projects are being carefully watched—not only by state regulators but by farmers, environmental scientists, and rural water managers. If successful, they could help shift produced water from being a liability to a resource.

Opportunities for High-Value Ag

For Texas (particularly West Texas) growers, the implications are huge. While piping treated produced water to distant farms is one possible use, its greatest potential may lie right at the source—near oilfields. These areas often have access to electricity, trucking infrastructure, and available land. That makes them ideal for developing high-value production systems where water and logistics are already in place. In this context, treated produced water could potentially support:

  • Alfalfa for hay export or dairy feed
  • Hydroponic cotton in controlled environments—growing cotton without soil in greenhouses using treated produced water. This approach, pioneered in Spain by Magtech and now being explored by researchers in Texas, can increase cotton yield up to 60 times per plant while reducing water use by as much as 70%. With greenhouse infrastructure, electricity, and logistics already in place at oilfield sites, hydroponic cotton may offer a promising high-value use for treated produced water.
  • Small grains for forage or cover crop use—including some hydroponic or germinated forage systems grown in controlled buildings, which allow rapid biomass production using minimal land and continuous water supply
  • New specialty crops on reclaimed or marginal land—such as tomatoes, cut flowers, ornamentals, and guayule—offering high-value returns in controlled or niche markets
  • Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) in Containers/Buildings — Treating produced water and using it in hydroponic or aeroponic systems within shipping containers or retrofitted buildings.

However, it’s not without concern. Produced water contains salts, heavy metals, even traces of radioactive materials and PFAS (so-called “forever chemicals”). These pilot projects are focused on whether new treatment technologies can remove or neutralize those contaminants. No broad use is permitted yet—only tightly monitored experiments.

What Happens Next?

Texas regulators (RRC and TCEQ) are developing rules for future land application. Meanwhile, the Texas Produced Water Consortium at Texas Tech is coordinating research and setting potential standards. Full-scale use in agriculture will depend on:

  • Successful pilot results
  • Clear treatment and monitoring rules
  • Economic viability for farmers
  • Long-term environmental and crop safety

Bottom Line for Farmers

This is not ready for prime time—but it’s getting closer. If you’re farming in Texas near where there is Produced Water and facing water stress, this is an idea worth watching. You may soon have access to a new, local water source that was once just oilfield waste.