environment – Texas A&M AgriLife Organic

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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:

Ask for the complete laboratory report.
Confirm the pesticide that was detected.
Confirm the concentration in ppm or ppb.
Ask whether EPA has a tolerance for that pesticide on the tested crop.
Review all input and application records.
Review neighboring pesticide applications and any drift concerns.
Review equipment cleanout, harvest, storage and transportation records.
Identify exactly which field, lot, bin or load the sample represents.
Provide the certifier with any information that could help identify the source.
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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Can flame weeding fit within a biologically minded organic system? 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?

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.

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

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/part-205#p-205.206(c)(5) ↩︎
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

How Soil Can Develop in Just Decades

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

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

Soil Formation Starts When Life Colonizes Minerals

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

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

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

Biological Weathering Is Faster Than Purely Geological Weathering

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

Chemical weathering

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

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

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

Physical weathering

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

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

Organic Matter and Clay Create Nutrient-Holding Capacity

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

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

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

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

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

Aggregation: The “Soil Structure” Breakthrough

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

Aggregation is built biologically through:

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

As aggregation increases, the soil improves in:

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

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

Why Decadal Soil Development Is Plausible

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

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

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

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

What This Means for Organic and Regenerative Production

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

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

References

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

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:

Organization	Pilot Scope	Location	Crops or Focus
Texas Pacific Water Resources (TPWR)	Treating water with reverse osmosis; testing 400+ contaminants	Midland and Pecos River area	Alfalfa, native grasses (greenhouse & outdoor)
Deep Blue Operating	Irrigation pilot using up to 27,300 gal/day	Midland County	Cotton, bermuda grass, alfalfa, wheat
Texas Produced Water Consortium	Research coordination, data analysis	Multiple West Texas sites	Supports 5 pilot sites with varying treatment systems
TETRA & EOG Resources	Desalination pilot with high recovery rates	Permian Basin	Rangeland grasses (greenhouse testing)
Aris Water Solutions & Garver	Membrane & thermal treatment systems	Permian Basin	System design; seeking TCEQ irrigation permits
General Land Office & EOG Resources	1-acre soil/crop health trial	Reeves County	Monitoring 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.

GMO Testing in Organic Cotton: What Farmers Need to Know

Organic cotton farmers work hard to maintain their certification, ensuring that their crops are grown without synthetic chemicals, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or prohibited inputs. Even when farmers follow organic practices to the letter, GMO contamination can still occur!

Let’s take a closer look at how GMO testing works, what the results mean, and why the final decision on certification can sometimes feel arbitrary.

How is GMO Contamination Measured?

GMO testing in Seed Cotton (raw cotton including fibers and seeds) is performed using real-time PCR analysis, a widely used method to detect genetic modification markers in cotton DNA. The gin will take samples of your seed cotton and submit those samples to their Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) Certifier. The GOTS Certifier will submit those samples to a lab, usually OMIC which will then run them for GMO presence. The results are then submitted back to the GOTS Certifier. Here are some things that are being investigated.

Standard Limit of Quantification (LOQ): 0.1% GMO content – This is the most commonly used threshold for accurately measuring contamination.
More Sensitive Tests: Some advanced labs claim they can detect levels as low as 0.01%, but I have not seen this as an industry-standard threshold for Seed Cotton testing. But you could see this from European labs!
Anything above a 0.1% is detectable and reported as such as you can tell from this test sheet with all the names removed!

Here is another test with some different results.

What the Test Results Mean

This sample contains GMO markers including Bt toxin (Cry1Ab/Ac) and herbicide resistance (otp/mepsps).
p35S, pFMV, and tNOS confirm genetic modification.
Organic certifiers would likely reject this cotton since GMO elements were clearly detected.
If contamination was unintentional, an investigation might be needed to determine if the cotton can still qualify for certain supply chains.

Marker	Detected?	GMO Trait Significance
SAH7 (Cotton Gene)	✔ Yes	Confirms valid cotton DNA
Cry1Ab/Ac (Bt Toxin)	✔ 1.44%	Indicates Bt Cotton (Insect Resistance)
otp/mepsps (Glyphosate Resistance)	✔ 0.47%	Possible Roundup Ready Cotton (Herbicide Resistance)
p35S (CaMV Promoter)	✔ 1.93%	Common GMO activation switch
PAT (Glufosinate Resistance)	❌ Not Detected	No Liberty Link herbicide resistance
pFMV (FMV Promoter)	✔ 1.91%	Used for GMO gene activation
tNOS (Terminator)	✔ 3.27%	Common GMO terminator sequence
GM Elements (General GMO Presence)	✔ Yes	Confirms GMO modification detected

Now What Happens?

What happens when an organic cotton sample tests positive for GMOs? That really depends on a lot of different things, and this is where farmers can get frustrated. I have provided you with some sample test results but usually you won’t even see these results. At this point the GOTS Certifier for the Gin has your test results. This is a small list of what they do:

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) Says:

No intentional use of GMOs is allowed.
If contamination is detected, the GOTS certifier launches an investigation instead of outright rejection.
If the farmer can prove they used verified non-GMO seed and followed organic practices, then there is a strong possibility that they may still be approved.

GOTS Certifier Reaches Out

The next step is for the GOTS Certifier to reach out to your Organic Certifier at the farm level. Because a “red flag” is now waving, your certifier is going to be looking at your Organic System Plan (OSP) with a fine-toothed comb! They will be looking at your cottonseed information, at your field and field locations, at every record you submitted to determine if there is anything that might have caused a “voluntary” versus “involuntary” contamination. You will probably know that something is up either by just a notice of an investigation or possibly a full-blown visit. Either way, they (your certifier) are trying to find out why the raw seed cotton is showing up with detectable levels of GMO.

Most of the time there is absolutely nothing you did to cause a detectable limit of GMO in your seed cotton. We might call this an “Act of God” because no one knows why it happens. The planting seed tested good, the field was good and there is no drift. No one knows what happened or why and so you get a clean bill of health. The system is designed with some flexibility because there can be an “Act of God” and to be honest I am glad to recognize that God is Sovereign even over cotton fields and cotton farmers!

On the other hand, it can sometimes be identified as a wrong bag of planting seed picked up, a wrong module or bale marking, or some other contamination issue along the way. Elevated levels of GMO in your raw seed cotton will throw up all kinds of red flags and could lead to a non-compliance, rejected organic cotton and a microscopic look at all other aspects of your organic operation! Let’s hope we don’t go there……

What Can Farmers Do?

Test early and often. If you suspect contamination, conduct your own tests before sending cotton to market. Newsletter Article Page 2
Maintain strong records. Prove that you sourced verified non-GMO seed and followed organic protocols.
Work with a certifier who understands the realities of farming. Some certifiers are more flexible in their investigations than others or ask the right questions instead of just assuming you are wrong.
Improve segregation. Make sure that cotton stays separate at every stage, from harvesting to ginning.

Final Thoughts

Organic farmers face an uphill battle when it comes to avoiding GMO contamination. Even with perfect compliance, your cotton test results can find GMOs, and certification decisions often depend on factors beyond the farmer’s control. Don’t panic and be willing to go the extra mile to find out why. Your organic certifier has their neck on the line too as does your ginner and we all want you to succeed. As we are at the very start of a new crop year do all you can now to stay out of this “mess” later!