Tag: farming

Organic Sorghum Resources (update)

Sorghum’s natural characteristics and compatibility with organic farming principles indeed make it an excellent crop for organic cultivation. While some traits like drought tolerance and non-GMO status are shared with conventional sorghum, these characteristics synergize particularly well with the goals and methods of organic agriculture, offering distinct advantages.

Click a link below to scroll down!

Post Updated 3/27/26

  1. Sorghum’s Advantages
  2. Buying seed?
  3. Sorghum Varieties
  4. Forage Sorghum Varieties
  5. Sorghum Sudan Grass Varieties
  6. Sorghum Seed Companies
  7. Other Resources (just click to see)

Sorghum’s Advantages

  • Drought Tolerance: Sorghum’s inherent drought tolerance makes it an ideal crop for organic systems, which prioritize water conservation and efficient use.
  • Low Fertilizer Needs: Sorghum’s ability to thrive in less fertile soils matches well with organic farming, which relies on natural fertility management rather than synthetic fertilizers.
  • Natural Resistance to Pests and Diseases: Sorghum’s inherent resistance to many pests and diseases minimizes the need for synthetic pesticides, making it easier for organic farmers to manage their crops.
  • Versatility in Use: Sorghum can be utilized in a variety of ways (grain, syrup, fodder) which allows organic producers to cater to diverse markets (food, feed, sweeteners) under organic labels.
  • Contribution to Soil Health: Sorghum’s deep rooting system can improve soil structure and increase water infiltration, beneficial effects that are particularly valued in organic systems focused on long-term soil health.
  • Crop Rotation and Diversity: Sorghum fits well into crop rotations, a cornerstone of organic farming, helping break pest and disease cycles and improving soil health without relying on chemical inputs.
  • Consumer Preference for Non-GMO: Even though there is no GMO sorghum on the market, the strong consumer preference for non-GMO products benefits organic sorghum producers, as their products are guaranteed to meet this demand.
  • Growing Demand for Organic Grains: The increasing consumer demand for organic products extends to grains, including sorghum, for both human consumption and organic animal feed.
  • Carbon Sequestration: Sorghum’s growth habit and biomass production can contribute to carbon sequestration, aligning with the environmental sustainability goals of organic farming.

While many of sorghum’s traits benefit both conventional and organic systems, its natural resilience, low input requirements, and versatility make it particularly well-suited for organic agriculture. These characteristics help organic sorghum producers minimize reliance on external inputs, align with organic principles, and tap into a growing market demand for organic products.

Buying seed?

The number of seeds per pound in sorghum varieties can vary significantly depending on the specific variety and the size of the seeds. Generally, this range can be broad, reflecting differences in genetics, breeding objectives, and end use (grain, forage, or specialty types). Here’s a general overview:

  • Small-Seeded Varieties: Can have as many as 16,000 to 18,000 seeds per pound.
  • Large-Seeded Varieties: May have fewer seeds per pound, typically ranging from 12,000 to 15,000 seeds per pound.
  • Forage sorghums and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid types tend to have larger seeds compared to grain sorghum varieties. The seeds per pound can range from 10,000 to 14,000 for forage types, with sorghum-sudangrass hybrids often on the lower end of this scale due to their larger seed size.

Sorghum Varieties

The varieties listed below are some planted by current organic growers. We are in the process of getting a better list together and will post them here!

These varieties are listed along with their respective websites for more detailed information. Company listings are down below and your source for qualified salespeople. Check with your certifier before buying any sorghum seed especially if the variety is not sold as organically produced. Since we do not have many organic, locally adapted sorghum varieties producers typically buy conventionally produced varieties without seed treatments.

BH Genetics has non-GMO and untreated sorghum and corn seed available for organic growers. To check out the list: BH Genetics Untreated Seed List

Forage Sorghum Varieties

Sorghum Sudan Grass Varieties

Sorghum Seed Companies

Richardson Seeds

DynaGro Seed (Nutrien Ag Solutions)

MOJO Seed

Sorghum Partners, S&W Seed Company

Scott Seed Co

  • 114 E New York St. or PO Box 1732, Hereford, TX  79045
  • Office: 806-364-3484
  • Coby Kreighauser
  • Mobile: 806-683-1868
  • coby@scottseed.net
  • Chuck Cielencki
  • Mobile: 806-683-1868
  • chuck@scottseed.net

Supra Ag International

  • 10808 S River Front Pkwy, Suite 3039, South Jordan, UT 84095
  • Office: 801-984-6723
  • Sales: 806-292-0031
  • info@supra.ag
  • Chris Hendrickson
  • chris@supra.ag

Warner Seeds

Integra, Wilbur-Ellis

LG Seeds

Golden Acres

Innvictis Seed Solutions

Alta Seeds by Advanta

DeKalb (Bayer)

BH Genetics

Other Resources (just click to see)

Small Grains at the Crossroads: Choosing the Best Path for Your Crop

Every year, I am usually out checking small grain fields across Texas this time of year—from the High Plains down to South Texas—and one thing is always clear:

We are not all at the same stage, but we are usually at some sort of decision point.

In the Upper Panhandle, small grains may just be reaching Feekes 5–6 (green-up to jointing).
In Central Texas, crops are often at Feekes 10 or boot to heading.
And in South Texas, many fields are already at pollination (Feekes 10.5 or even moving toward grain fill (Feekes 11).

Even with those differences, the key question remains the same:

What is the best use of this crop from here forward?

Why Growth Stage Still Matters—Even Across Regions

The decisions you make now are still tied closely to crop development, but the options available to you depend on where your crop sits today.

Here is how I think about it across Texas:

  • Feekes 4–6 (Panhandle / later-planted wheat)
    • Full flexibility: grazing, silage, grain, or cover crop
    • Nitrogen decisions still influence yield potential
  • Boot to Heading (Central Texas)
    • Strong window for silage or grazing
    • Grain is still viable, but management decisions are mostly set
  • Pollination to Grain Fill (South Texas)
    • Primary option becomes grain harvest
    • Some late silage possible, but quality declines quickly and silage may not be possible after soft dough!

This variation is not a problem—it’s actually an opportunity. It means across Texas, producers can match their crop stage to the best economic use for their situation.

A More Useful Way to Think About It

Instead of asking:

“What stage is my wheat at?”

You should ask:

“Given where my crop is today, what are my realistic options—and what gives me the best return?”

Option 1: Keep It as a Cover Crop

In organic systems, soil is the driver of fertility. A small grain cover crop is one of the best tools we have to build or amend soil, add fertility and support microbe life.

What You Gain

  • Soil protection from wind and rain
  • Improved water infiltration through root channels
  • Increased soil biology and organic matter
  • Reduced weed pressure

Even moderate biomass (3,000 lb/acre) delivers measurable benefits:

Cover Crop BiomassModerate GrowthHeavy Growth
Dry Matter Produced3,000 lb/acreReturn/Acre6,000 lb/acreReturn/Acre
Nitrogen Returned45–75 lb N$28.80 – $48.0090–150 lb N$57.60 – $96.00
Phosphorus Returned9–15 lb P₂O₅$8.37 – $13.9518–30 lb P₂O₅$16.74 – $27.90
Potassium Returned45–75 lb K₂O$21.15 – $35.2590–150 lb K₂O$42.30 – $70.50
Total Nutrient Value$58 – $97$117 – $194

Heavy biomass can double that value to $117–$194 per acre.

Why This Matters

Think of this like putting money into a soil “savings account.” You may not cash it out immediately, but:

  • Your next crop establishes better
  • Water is used more efficiently
  • Nutrient cycling improves

Over time, that compounds into more stable yields and lower input needs.

Option 2: Cut It for Silage

I see this becoming more important, especially with organic dairies looking for feed alternatives.

Timing Is Everything

  • Boot to early head: ~15% crude protein
  • Soft dough: higher yield, lower quality

But here’s the tradeoff:

  • You give up 1/3 to 1/2 of total grain yield potential

Yield and Value

  • Boot stage: 1.7–2.7 tons DM/acre
  • Soft dough: 4.2–5.9 tons DM/acre
  • Price: $40–$65/ton (32% DM basis)

Why It Can Work

  • Generates cash flow earlier
  • Saves soil moisture compared to full-season grain
  • Opens the door for a second crop

I often think of silage as a “system decision” rather than a crop decision—it’s about fitting into a rotation.

Option 3: Graze It

In many cases, grazing is the most profitable use of small grains.

Typical Returns

  • 40¢–70¢ per lb of gain
  • $18–$25 per head per month

Why It Works

You are converting forage directly into animal weight without:

  • Harvest costs
  • Hauling
  • Storage losses

Key Considerations

  • Stocking rate and timing
  • Moisture and regrowth potential
  • Whether you still want grain afterward

If you have livestock or access to them, this option deserves serious consideration. It often produces steady income with lower risk than grain.

Option 4: Take It to Grain

There is renewed interest in:

  • Organic wheat
  • Ancient grains
  • Barley, rye, and specialty markets
  • High-nutrient or functional grains (like high anthocyanin lines)

What Buyers Are Looking For

  • High protein
  • Strong gluten (for baking)
  • Low DON (vomitoxin)
  • Consistent quality

There is also growing consumer interest in:

  • Whole grain products
  • Local milling
  • Health-driven foods

Why This Matters

Grain gives you:

  • The highest potential gross return
  • Access to premium markets

But also:

  • The highest risk
  • The longest time to cash flow
  • The greatest dependence on weather

Putting It All Together: How I Think Through the Decision

When I am in a producer field at any stage of growth, I usually think through these questions:

1. What is my moisture situation?

  • Limited moisture → lean toward grazing or silage
  • Good moisture → grain becomes more attractive

2. What markets do I have access to?

  • Dairy nearby → silage
  • Livestock → grazing
  • Strong organic grain buyer → grain

3. What does my next crop need?

  • Need soil improvement → cover crop
  • Need time for planting → silage
  • Need moisture conservation → cover crop or grazing

4. What have I already invested?

  • High fertility investment → grain may justify it
  • Low input system → cover crop or grazing may be better

Organic Trends in 2026

This publication was recently published by both FiBL which is The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture and IFOAM Organics International which is the 100-country membership organization for organic agriculture. These two organizations came together to publish this look at statistics for world agriculture but also to give us all some insights into some of the trends.

Just click the picture to be able to download your copy!

I was particularly interested in the special section on Peanuts. This is a “special” section because there is so little production in the world but there is an increasing demand. I am hopeful we can maybe find a way into this market!

Here are the lead paragraphs by Nicolas Lefebvre with FiBL.

Despite their visible presence in European retail – from organic peanut butter to snack products – organic peanuts remain one of the rarest crops in global organic agriculture. Based on available data, organic peanuts account for around 0.1 percent of global peanut area. Even allowing for data gaps in some producing countries, the conclusion is clear: organic peanut production is exceptionally limited.

Biological and agronomic constraints

Peanuts are a legume crop grown in warm climates. The primary organic production regions include Asia (mainly China), Latin America, the United States (particularly the Southeast and Texas), and several African countries, with Egypt being a major producer that relies heavily on intensive irrigation. Peanut cultivation is best suited to sandy soils and is characterized by relatively high-water requirements. While some organic pilot initiatives exist in Europe (notably in Austria and France), climatic constraints remain significant: temperatures are often limited, and wet conditions during autumn harvest can critically compromise crop quality.

The peanut pods develop underground, making the crop highly sensitive to fungal diseases, especially under humid conditions. In conventional systems, these risks are managed with repeated applications of fungicides (mainly systemic), starting with seed treatment at planting time. In organic farming, no comparable solutions are available, resulting in significantly higher yield variability and crop failure risk.

A further major constraint is the risk of aflatoxin contamination. Peanuts are among the crops most exposed to aflatoxins, toxic substances produced by fungi of the Aspergillus genus. These toxins are strictly regulated in the European Union and in the United States, and exceeding the legal limits makes entire lots unmarketable.

Aflatoxin contamination usually occurs at the end of the growing cycle, but it can also develop very rapidly after harvest if storage conditions are poor. For organic producers and traders, the risk is higher, as organic lots cannot be blended or downgraded into conventional markets. One unfavorable season or inadequate post-harvest handling can therefore wipe out the entire economic return. A less visible consequence is that heavily contaminated lots (mainly in less developed countries) may be sold at lower prices on local markets, creating food safety.

This intro to worldwide organic peanut production makes it plain that we have very little competition, but the next section makes it clear that we are the world’s primary producer, and I think the world’s best and cleanest producer!

Economic disincentives and weak infrastructure

From an economic perspective, organic peanuts combine high production risk with limited market incentives. Organic yields are generally lower, labor and monitoring costs are higher, and crop losses can be total. In addition, compared with other open field arable crops, peanut production requires highly specific harvesting equipment, as well as dedicated sorting and shelling infrastructure that is not compatible with other crops. These technical constraints imply substantial fixed investments, making entry into organic peanut production particularly costly for large-scale organic arable farms.
At the same time, consumer willingness to pay organic premiums is more limited than for other nuts such as almonds or cashews. As a result, many farmers prefer alternative organic crops with more predictable returns.
In addition, many major peanut-producing regions lack well-developed organic infrastructure. Advisory services, organic breeding programs, and segregated post-harvest facilities are often missing. Consequently, only a small number of highly specialized projects are able to supply organic peanuts reliably for export markets.

The article concluded with this paragraph below and it highlights our lack of US Organic Peanut penetration into the European Market

Conclusion

Organic peanuts illustrate the limits of organic expansion in crops with high biological and food safety risks. Their extremely low share of global organic area reflects fundamental agronomic and economic constraints rather than a lack of consumer interest. The EU import collapse of 2022–2023 was driven by a combination of climatic shocks, aflatoxin risk, regulatory transition and market conditions, followed by a partial normalization in 2024. Organic peanuts are therefore likely to remain a small but strategically important niche within global organic supply chains.

Lastly they provide some numbers of organic peanut production.

Statistics on world-wide organic peanuts
Organic peanuts remain a niche crop globally (estimated 0.1 percent of total peanut area), but the recorded global organic peanut area increased from 11,101 hectares (2016) to 41,972 hectares (103,717 acres) in 2024 according to the FiBL survey on organic agriculture worldwide. The strong jump in 2024 should be interpreted with care, because it was driven largely by a new data source for the United States, which reported a much larger organic peanut area than the source used previously.
In 2024, the top three countries by organic peanut area were the United States (18,990 hectares (46,925 acres); almost half of the reported global organic peanut area), China (12,238 hectares; ~30 percent), and Mexico (4,116 hectares; ~10 percent).

More Good Market News!

Wintertime is the time for meetings, and both Organic organizations and Organic companies are hosting meetings all over the world to discuss and plan for market programs over the 2026 market year and beyond. This article appeared in the February edition of The Organic and Non-GMO Report which I subscribe to. This is one of my favorite magazines with great articles and good market information. I have seen some similar information from other sources but for sure numbers 1, 2 and 4 fit Texas Organic and fit us well. A big thanks to The Organic & Non-GMO Report for calling our attention to this huge market!

Synthetic and Nonsynthetic

Why does it matter?

by: Dr. Brian Baker

Published in the OMRI Materials Review quarterly newsletter and reprinted with permission. omri.org/ I thought this was a great article and I learned some things about early organic organization I had not heard before. A big thanks to OMRI and Dr. Baker for allowing me to share this article. Bob Whitney

Organic standards in the United States differ from those in other parts of the world in many ways. One significant difference between the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) standard and other international standards is the way that inputs are evaluated and approved for use in organic production and handling. In general, the United States’ Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 ( OFPA) legally defined an agricultural production system based on sustainable production methods that rely primarily on natural materials. The OFPA authorizes the USDA to establish organic standards. These standards allow only synthetic materials that appear on the National List. The OFPA also gives the USDA the authority to prohibit non-synthetic substances deemed to be harmful to human health and the environment. Anyone can submit a petition to the NOP to add a substance to the National List. The USDA cannot add any synthetic substance to the National List without a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendation from a supermajority vote, after considering criteria in the OFPA related to the substance’s necessity and impact on health, the environment, and sustainability. All substances on the National List are required to be re-reviewed every five years and reaffirmed through a legislative sunset process. This unique process was established 35 years ago and has been in effect since 2002.

Why did the U.S. adopt an approach that was so heavily oriented toward the source, origin, and manufacturing process of inputs?

Private and State Standards

The roots of the natural/synthetic framework for agricultural inputs trace back to the first organic certification program in the U.S., conducted by the Rodale Press’ Organic Gardening and Farming magazine in the early 1970s, which defined organically grown food as:  “Food grown without pesticides; grown without artificial fertilizers; grown in soil whose humus content is increased by the additions of organic matter; grown in soil whose mineral content is increased with applications of natural mineral fertilizers; and has not been treated with preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, etc.”

Rodale ceased their certification program and spun it off to various organic farmers’ organizations, including California Certified Organic Farmers, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), and Northwest Tilth, later to become Oregon Tilth and Washington Tilth. These grassroots organizations based their standards and procedures on Rodale’s model but modified them to meet local conditions.

The original certification standards were brief and subject to interpretation. Prior to federal regulation, the USDA’s Report and Recommendation on Organic Farming found that the organic farming movement covered a broad spectrum. Some organic farmers took a purist approach and used no synthetic inputs. Other organic farmers applied various synthetic fertilizers and/or pesticides selectively and sparingly. Many of the organic farmers that belonged to the organizations that set standards and conducted certification recognized the need to use some synthetic inputs to be economically viable and to grow high quality crops, but only a few that they considered neces­sary. These exceptions varied by region.

While most standards were set and enforced by the private sector, organic farmers were able to get some state legislatures to pass laws to protect the organic label. Oregon and Maine passed statutes to set organic standards in 1973. In 1979, California passed the California Organic Foods Act, which codified into law the paradigm that synthetic inputs are prohibited and nonsynthetic inputs are allowed, with a limited list of synthetic substances listed as exceptions in the statute. Because California was the state that both produced and purchased the most organic food, the California Organic Foods Act became the most recognized U.S. organic standard. However, it was not the only one. Private certifiers, particularly in the Midwest, were certifying organic products for export to Europe. These certifiers relied on the standards consistent with those set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). The IFOAM standards were more practice oriented, with inputs less important than methods. IFOAM established a closed positive list of inputs permitted for use in organic production and handling that was less open-ended than the California law. It also allowed several synthetic sources of naturally occurring substances, like potassium sulfate, and omitted several non­synthetic substances, most notably sodium nitrate. The IFOAM standards became the basis for the European Union regulation on organic food and farming that passed in 1991. Various state laws governing organic food production also used a positive list approach to regulating inputs.

Organic Becomes a Federal Matter

In 1989, the CBS television show 60 Minutes reported on a study conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency knowingly allowed residues of a cancer-causing chemical to be present on certain foods. The pesticide implicated was a plant growth regulator used in apple production called Alar (daminozide).

Organic sales skyrocketed immediately after the episode was aired. However, fraud in the organic market was already rampant. Growing demand outstripped the supply of legitimate organic food, which spurred greater fraud. Various states enacted new organic food legislation. Those with existing laws significantly strengthened their standards. By the 1990s, over 20 states had laws on the books that regulated organic food, and each one was different.

The use of pesticides in organic production was hotly debated. Environmental and consumer groups, along with some long-time organic farmers, called on Congress to categorically ban all pesticides in organic production – even natural ones like rotenone and pyrethrum. Most organic farmers’ organizations, processors, and input suppliers lobbied for a bill that allowed some synthetic inputs, including a few pesticides.

The organic community presented Congress with three alternative approaches to address pesticides and other inputs. In addition to the natural/synthetic approach taken by California, and the closed positive list approach taken by many states and domestic private organizations, as well as IFOAM and the EU, another alternative considered was “agronomic responsibility.” That approach proposed organic standards that would permit any input allowed in organic production under limited specific circumstances, with metrics for improving soil. However, the agronomic responsibility model was opposed by certification bodies, environmental groups, and consumer advocates. That narrowed the debate to either the IFOAM/EU model or the California model.

Meanwhile, USDA officials testified against OFPA before Congress. If Congress mandated a closed positive list, USDA officials indicated that they would allow all inputs that were legal to use in conventional production for organic production as well, regardless of origin and without any additional limitations beyond current regulations. Those who promoted a closed, positive list realized that they could not reconcile growing differences between the various state and private standards before the 1990 Farm Bill. The factions of the organic movement worked out a consensus with Senate Agriculture Committee staffer, Kathleen Merrigan, that drew from all three model standards and convinced Congress to pass a bill that took a procedural approach to guide rulemaking.

The Senate Report on the OFPA explained the rationale for this approach: “Most consumers believe that absolutely no synthetic substances are used in organic production. For the most part, they are correct and this is the basic tenet of this legislation. But there are a few limited exceptions to the no-synthetic rule, and the National List is designed to handle these exceptions.”

The OFPA set a high bar for the USDA to make exceptions to the synthetic/nonsynthetic rule. It required an open, transparent process involving stakeholders to review and recommend those exceptions. Congress also recognized that some natural substances pose environmental or human health hazards and should be prohibited for organic production and handling. The National List includes nonsynthetic substances prohibited for organic production to address this anomaly. Congress explicitly mentioned arsenic and botanical insecticides as specific concerns.

Where We Are Today

Today’s National List evolved from organic food standards established prior to OFPA. The synthetic/nonsynthetic foundation of the law comes from tradition and consumer expectations that still hold true today. Exceptions are rarely made. Those few exceptions require a rigorous technical evaluation and a broad consensus of the organic community. The National List process takes a precautionary approach that protects human health and the environment. That approach provides an incentive for innovation that benefits all agriculture.

— End of reprinted article —

Periodically USDA NOP approved inputs are reviewed and either allowed or prohibited to continue to be used in certified organic system plans. This Sunset Review process involves the NOSB and National Organic Program.

Scaling Organic Agriculture: Why Farm Size and Technology Are Not the Problem

A common critique I hear—often from people who genuinely support organic—is that large-scale organic farms and advanced technology somehow “lose the ideals” associated with organic agriculture. The image many people carry is a small farm with diverse plantings, hedgerows, wildlife habitat, and hands-on management. In contrast, when they see a large organic operation using sensors, software, GPS-guided equipment, and streamlined logistics, they sometimes conclude that it is no longer “true organic.”

I understand where that reaction comes from. But as an Extension Organic Specialist, I also find it deeply frustrating, because it reflects a misunderstanding of what organic agriculture is and what it must become if it is going to have real impact. If we want organic to remain a small niche system, then we can keep it mostly hand-scale. But if we want organic to become mainstream—meaning millions of acres managed under organic standards—then organic will necessarily look like agriculture: mechanized, planned, measured, and managed with modern tools.

Organic is a Production Standard, not a Farm Size

The most important clarification is this: organic is defined by a regulated production and handling standard, not by farm size or “farm aesthetics.” In the United States, organic is governed under the USDA National Organic Program (NOP), which sets requirements for:

  • prohibited and allowed substances
  • soil fertility and crop nutrient management
  • pest, weed, and disease control approaches
  • recordkeeping, traceability, and annual inspection
  • avoidance of excluded methods (including genetic engineering)

A farm can be 20 acres or 20,000 acres and still follow the same legal standard. Scale does not automatically determine whether a farm is ecologically sound, ethically managed, or agronomically competent. I have seen small farms that are poorly managed and large farms that are exceptionally well managed. The reverse is also true. The difference is not the size—it is the management system and the accountability.

Why “Big Organic” Triggers Concern (and Why Some of It is Valid)

Concerns about large-scale organic often fall into a few categories:

  1. Minimum-compliance farming
    Some fear that large operations will do the least required to meet certification rather than aiming for continuous improvement in soil function and ecological resilience.
  2. Simplified landscapes
    Large farms can have fewer field borders, fewer habitat features, and fewer “visible signs” of biodiversity. This is a real risk if the production system is not designed intentionally.
  3. Monoculture and rotation weakness
    Large farms can drift toward narrow crop sequences, especially when markets or processing infrastructure favor a few commodities.
  4. Values and trust
    Organic is a consumer trust program. When consumers associate “corporate” with “profit over stewardship,” they worry the label becomes marketing rather than meaning.

These concerns should not be dismissed. They are worth discussing. But the mistake is assuming that technology or scale automatically causes poor outcomes. Poor outcomes come from poor management decisions, weak incentives, or weak enforcement—not from tractors, sensors, or data.

Technology is Not Anti-Organic: It Can Improve Stewardship

Organic farming is not defined by low technology. It is defined by the intentional avoidance of certain synthetic inputs and the use of systems-based management to support crop productivity and soil health. Technology can support that goal.

1) Sensors and irrigation efficiency

Water management is one of the clearest examples where technology aligns with organic principles. Soil moisture sensors and irrigation scheduling tools can:

  • prevent over-irrigation
  • reduce nutrient leaching and runoff risk
  • improve root health and drought resilience
  • reduce disease pressure associated with prolonged leaf wetness and saturated soils

In real-world farming, “using less water” is not a public relations statement—it is a measurable conservation outcome.

2) Nutrient management and nitrogen efficiency

Organic nitrogen (N) does not usually come from synthetic fertilizers. It comes from:

  • composts and manures
  • cover crops (especially legumes)
  • mineralization of soil organic matter
  • allowed inputs such as certain mined minerals and biological amendments

But organic nitrogen is also less predictable in timing and availability than synthetic N. Precision tools that improve the timing and placement of nutrients can reduce losses and improve crop response. Better nutrient planning is not “industrial.” It is good agronomy.

3) Weed and pest monitoring systems

Organic systems often rely on prevention, competition, timing, and mechanical control. Technology supports this by improving decision-making:

  • mapping weed pressure zones
  • documenting scouting results
  • tracking crop stage and pest thresholds
  • improving spray timing for allowed products that are highly timing-dependent
  • strengthening records for compliance and traceability

Organic does not become less organic when it becomes more measured. In many cases, it becomes more defensible and more reliable.

The Scaling Reality: Organic Cannot Become Mainstream Without Looking Like Agriculture

Here is the contradiction I see repeatedly:

  • People want organic to expand and become a major part of agriculture.
  • But they also want organic to remain small, hand-scale, and “pre-modern.”

Those two goals cannot fully coexist.

If organic expands into a mainstream system, it will require:

  • mechanization and labor efficiency
  • stable supply chains and processing capacity
  • agronomic decision support tools
  • investment in equipment, storage, and logistics
  • advanced recordkeeping and traceability systems

These are not signs that organic has failed. They are signs that organic is being implemented at a scale where it can influence land stewardship and food systems in meaningful ways.

A useful analogy is medicine: we may admire the “natural” remedies of the past, but if we want health outcomes at population scale, we use systems, research, logistics, and quality control. Organic agriculture, if it is to influence millions of acres, will also require systems and quality control.

The Real Question is Not “Small vs Large” — It’s “Well-Managed vs Poorly Managed”

When we focus on scale, we miss the more important scientific questions:

  • Is soil organic matter improving over time?
  • Is aggregate stability improving (meaning the soil holds together better under water impact)?
  • Is infiltration increasing and runoff decreasing?
  • Are nutrients cycling efficiently, or being lost through leaching and erosion?
  • Is biodiversity supported through rotations, habitat, and reduced toxicity risk?
  • Are weeds being managed through integrated strategies rather than emergency reactions?
  • Are pests managed through ecological approaches and targeted interventions?

These are measurable outcomes. They are also where organic systems can succeed or fail, regardless of farm size.

A “Both/And” Vision for Organic

Organic agriculture needs both:

The ecological heart of organic

  • soil building
  • rotations
  • biodiversity
  • prevention-based pest management
  • conservation practices that protect water and habitat

The infrastructure and tools to function at scale

  • organic seed systems and breeding programs
  • equipment and mechanical weed control innovation
  • precision irrigation and nutrient planning
  • traceability systems that protect market integrity
  • research-based decision support tools

If we demand the heart without the infrastructure, organic stays fragile, expensive, and limited.
If we build infrastructure without the heart, organic becomes hollow and purely transactional.

The goal is not to keep organic small. The goal is to keep organic meaningful.

Closing Thought

I want organic to remain grounded in stewardship and biological systems. I also want organic to be agronomically credible, economically viable, and scalable enough to matter. That means I will continue supporting farmers—large and small—who are doing the hard work of growing crops under organic standards while improving soil function and resource efficiency.

Organic should not be judged by whether it “looks old-fashioned.”
Organic should be judged by whether it produces food and fiber with integrity, measurable conservation outcomes, and long-term resilience.

References (U.S. Organic Standards)

USDA National Organic Program Regulations (7 CFR Part 205)
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-205

USDA AMS National Organic Program (program overview)
https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program

Surveys, Recipes, More Surveys and Organic Investments!

Here are few things that are important but don’t need their own blog post. Take a quick look and see if they apply to you!

Table of Contents – Just click on one to read about it!

  1. Organic Dairy and Internal Parasites: Challenges, Practices, and What’s Next
  2. Texas Rice Recipe Contest
  3. ShaRE: The Shared Robotic Ecosystem for Smart and Collaborative Agriculture
  4. Investment Act to Expand Capacity and Compete Against Imports

Organic Dairy and Internal Parasites: Challenges, Practices, and What’s Next

Parasite control remains one of the most persistent health challenges in organic dairy herds. Unlike conventional systems, treatment options are strictly limited under the National Organic Program (NOP). If unapproved treatments are used, the animal loses its organic status. Currently, fenbendazole, and moxidectin may be used on organic dairies, but only under emergency situations when preventive practices are not effective. Their use also comes with strict restrictions by USDA Guidance:

· Not allowed in slaughter stock.

· For dairy cows, milk or milk products cannot be sold as organic for 2 days after treatment.

· For breeder stock, treatment cannot occur in the last third of gestation if the calf is marketed as organic and cannot be used during lactation for breeding animals.

Mandatory outdoor access (at least 120 days of grazing annually) can increase exposure to parasites, especially in warm or wet climates.

Why Internal Parasites Matter

Internal parasites, such as gastrointestinal nematodes and coccidia, can reduce body condition, compromise milk production, and increase veterinary costs. Symptoms often include weight loss, poor thriftiness, or anemia. These problems can be amplified in years with high rainfall, when parasite populations thrive in pastures (even in dry climates like Texas). While conventional systems can rely on endectocides with varying formulations and withdrawal times, organic producers must navigate parasite control with far fewer pharmaceutical options.

Help Us Learn from You

We want to better understand how organic dairy producers are managing these challenges today. To do this, Texas A&M and UC Davis have teamed up to do a survey on internal parasite management and deworming practices on organic dairies. Sharing your experience will help us to identify practical and sustainable approaches that work for organic farms like yours

· The survey takes about 10–15 minutes to complete.

· Your answers will remain confidential.

Take the Survey: Just click the link below!

https://ucdavis.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9SjgqBhzdWZW7Qi

Texas Rice Recipe Contest

Rice recipe contests have history and tradition in Texas. In 1951, The Texas Rice Promotion Association and the Abilene Reporter-News have announced a rice recipe contest. The contest was well documented and communicated in The Abilene Reporter-News. Recipes were received from fourteen towns and in multiple categories. The judges were overwhelmed by the success and diversity of recipes featuring Chinese, Hungarian, Syrian, Indian, Uruguayan and other recipes.

To read more about the history of rice recipe contests or to enter this contest just click this link: Texas Rice Recipe Contest

ShaRE: The Shared Robotic Ecosystem for Smart and Collaborative Agriculture

Dr. Lee sent me this request. They need farmers who are interested in robotic technologies (this includes your tractor guidance) to do the survey and get a gift card. Surely, we can help!

We are faculty members from Texas A&M University conducting a study under the Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture. This research focuses on understanding Texas farmers’ perspectives on robotic technologies in agriculture, as well as their overall health and daily work activities. 

Why we are contacting you: We are currently seeking 500 local farmers or retired farmers in Texas to complete survey questionnaire. 

What we are asking: We are seeking your assistance in sharing this opportunity with your network or community. Participants will receive a $10 gift card. The survey itself will take 10-15 minutes and include questions about robotic technologies in agriculture, farmers’ overall health and well-being, and daily work activities. 

To start the survey just click this link: ShaRE Robotics

Thank you for considering this request. Your assistance in sharing this opportunity is invaluable to research efforts. 

Kiju Lee, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution (ETID), Texas A&M University

Investment Act to Expand Capacity and Compete Against Imports

This article is from the Organic Trade Association1 and went out to the membership (I am a member) to highlight the work being done. I am excited about the potential and hope we have a chance for Texas organic to apply and win some of this grant money!

The culmination of more than two years of advocacy work, the introduction of the Domestic Organic Investment Act (DOIA) will put into action what the organic sector needs to thrive by investing in infrastructure to expand production capacity for farmers and manufacturers.  

The bipartisan, bicameral bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME), with Andrea Salinas (D-OR) and Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) as sponsors in the House, builds on the strength of the Organic Market Development Grant (OMDG) program introduced in 2023. This program, administered by USDA, helps solve supply chain gaps and drive organic growth through grants to organic farmers and businesses. 

The DOIA legislation directs USDA to set annual priorities that reduce dependence on imports and reflect input from organic farmers, businesses, and other stakeholders. Additionally, the Act supports U.S.-based farmers and businesses who apply, including producers, producer cooperatives, and commercial entities (including tribal governments) who handle certified organic products. All grants will require matching funds from the farm or business recipient.    

Two businesses that have benefited from the OMDG program – PURIS and Meadowlark Organics – are examples of how these investments have paid off and serve as a bellwether for the future success of the Domestic Organic Investment Act.  

PURIS is committed to four times their OMDG $539K grant award to expand processing capacity for milled organic field pea fiber at their facility in Harrold, South Dakota. This was done by adding a fiber milling line to an existing organically certified pea handling facility. The upgrade transforms pea hulls, currently a product with little value, into a marketable, high-value organic pea fiber.  

Currently, imported organic pea protein has been selling at prices 28-75 percent below U.S. producers for multiple years. The investment supported PURIS to create additional value from the supply chain while also helping to strengthen the domestic supply chain overall.  

In the words of PURIS CEO, Nicole Atchison, “This grant has enabled PURIS to move the project from a mere concept to a tangible reality, significantly benefiting rural American manufacturing. The grant has not only accelerated our project timeline it provided a pathway to expand the value generated from the organic peas grown by PURIS farmers.”

In the case of Meadowlark Organics of Ridgeway, WI, USDA grant funds provided in 2024 helped the organic grain farm purchase three pieces of equipment to help increase the availability of locally grown organic grain across the Upper Midwest. The new equipment includes a gravity table, optical sorter, and a connecting bucket elevator to the farm’s existing cleaning facility and flour mill.

This increased capacity will enable the farm to partner with even more organic grain farmers across the region and ultimately connect a diversity of culinary grains with more customers. The expected growth in organic grains and livestock feed capacity is over 900,000 pounds, with a projected 35 percent sales increase.  

As shared by Halee and John Wepking of Meadowlark, “We are farmers first, and vertically integrating from the grassroots up is capital intensive and technically challenging. This funding has allowed us to improve our grain cleaning infrastructure at a critical time for our growth and development. Debt financing these acquisitions on top of already existing farm debts was untenable, and the support of the USDA through this grant is something we need to see more of, to help add value to make farms more profitable.”

Those businesses are great examples provided by OTA in their article, but I will call attention to our own Texas OMDG recipients:

Diversifying Organic Supply Chains for Small Producers in the Rio Grande Valley. Triple J Organics, LLC, Mission, TX

Steelbow Farm: Expanding Access to Local, Organic Produce in Central Texas. Steelbow Farm LLC, Austin, TX

Promotion of Organic Yaupon Tea as a Domestic Alternative to Imported Tea Distributed to The Foodservice Industry. Yaupon Holly Tea, LLC, Cat Spring, TX

Enhancing Organic Dairy Production and Market Access in Texas. Armagh Fine Foods LLC dba Armagh Creamery, Dublin TX

Expanding Capacity and Improved Quality of Organic Cotton. RKH GIN LLC, dba Woolam Gin, Odonnell, TX

  1. https://ota.com/news-center/ota-champions-domestic-organic-investment-act-expand-capacity-and-compete-against?utm_source=news-flash&utm_medium=ota-email&utm_campaign=news-center-advocacy ↩︎