Tag: farming

Texas Organic Experience Comes to the National Organic Standards Board

Texas organic grower and produce-industry leader Jed Murray has been appointed to the National Organic Standards Board, bringing practical experience in organic production, marketing and policy to the national organic program.

USDA has announced five new appointments to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), and one of those appointments is especially important for Texas organic agriculture: Jed Murray of Texas.

For many people outside Texas, Jed may be known today as Director of Government Relations for the Texas International Produce Association. But for those of us who have worked in Texas organic agriculture, there is much more to the story.

Jed has actually been part of Texas organic agriculture. He has grown organic vegetables, packed and marketed them, worked with retailers, advocated for growers, and helped us explore how Texas-grown organic products could reach larger markets.

I have known Jed for many years, and he has consistently supported Texas organic growers and efforts to expand opportunities for organic agriculture. He brings to the NOSB practical experience with what it takes to make organic agriculture work from the field all the way to the consumer.

Why the National Organic Standards Board Matters

The NOSB is not simply another USDA advisory committee.

Congress established the 15-member board under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on organic standards and, particularly, on substances used in organic production and handling. USDA appointed Jed to one of the board’s Public Interest/Consumer Interest Group seats for a five-year term through January 2031.

The NOSB deals with issues that eventually become very practical decisions on organic farms and in organic businesses.

The board reviews substances petitioned for addition to or removal from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, conducts the five-year sunset review of materials already on that list, and develops recommendations concerning organic production, handling and policy. Since its establishment, the NOSB has made more than 600 recommendations to USDA.

For an organic farmer or handler, these decisions can determine whether a fertilizer, pesticide, livestock health product, sanitizer, processing aid or other material can be used—and sometimes the specific restrictions placed on its use. Changes to the National List ultimately occur through USDA rulemaking following NOSB recommendations.

In other words, discussions at the NOSB can eventually affect what happens in a Texas organic field, greenhouse, packing shed, dairy, feed mill or processing facility.

Jed Brings More Than an Interest in Organic Agriculture

USDA’s announcement notes that Jed has 20 years of agricultural experience, including 13 years in the vegetable industry. He currently serves as Director of Government Relations for the Texas International Produce Association and Managing Partner of 9 Kids Compost LLC. His involvement also includes the Texas Department of State Health Services Food Safety and Defense Task Force, Texas Vegetable Association and the Texas A&M Vegetable & Fruit Program.

Those credentials are impressive, but they don’t fully explain why his appointment should matter to Texas organic growers.

Jed was an owner and partner in Tenaza Organics in South Texas, where he was directly involved in commercial certified-organic vegetable production. Tenaza produced crops such as parsley, broccoli, beets, spinach, Swiss chard, kale and cabbage and supplied large retailers and restaurants throughout Texas, with some production moving into export markets.

That means Jed understands organic agriculture from the production side—not simply from meetings, policy discussions or reports.

He knows what it means to plant an organic crop, deal with weather and production risk, manage a highly perishable product, meet buyer expectations, maintain organic integrity and then find a market willing to pay for what was produced.

Organic Farming in the Real World

South Texas agriculture can also provide some hard lessons.

Jed and Tenaza experienced firsthand the devastating February 2021 freeze. A year later, he described how the farm had been doing well before suddenly losing essentially its crop during the freeze. I was there in the summer of 2021 and Jed’s crew was working overtime to plant more crops to make up the losses.

Experiences like that give a person a different understanding of agricultural policy.

Organic standards have to protect the integrity of the organic label, but they also have to function on real farms facing drought, freezes, hurricanes, insects, diseases, labor challenges, market changes and the thousand other things agriculture can throw at a producer.

I believe that practical agricultural perspective is particularly valuable on the NOSB.

He Has Already Helped Shape Texas Organic Agriculture

Jed’s involvement with Texas organics has extended well beyond his own farm.

When Texas A&M AgriLife began a project in 2022 to examine opportunities for expanding markets for Texas-grown organic produce, Jed was an important industry collaborator.

At the time, I described him as an avid organic grower, a member of the Texas Department of Agriculture Organic Advisory Board, and an exemplary cooperator with AgriLife Extension. He also provided ideas about opportunities for exporting Texas organic produce.

The TDA Organic Agricultural Industry Advisory Board has an important mission of its own: helping the Commissioner of Agriculture assess, develop, promote and expand the Texas organic agricultural products industry.

So Jed’s new national role follows years of engagement with many of the same questions here in Texas: How do we protect organic integrity while also helping organic agriculture grow? How do we connect farmers with markets? How do regulations affect producers? And how do we maintain consumer confidence in the organic label?

Recognized for Leadership in the Produce Industry

Jed’s work has also been recognized beyond Texas organic circles.

In 2022, American Vegetable Grower selected Tenaza Organics as its Central Region Grower Achievement Award winner. The recognition highlighted not only the farm’s production but Jed’s advocacy for fresh produce, growers, agricultural education and Texas-grown products.

His produce-industry experience also gives him an understanding of the entire organic supply chain—from the farmer to the consumer.

Organic agriculture begins with production practices, but USDA Organic is ultimately a consumer-facing label operating within a federal regulatory system. Maintaining that label requires understanding farmers and handlers while never losing sight of the consumer trust on which the entire organic market depends.

Jed’s experience in production, marketing and public policy gives him insight into each part of that chain.

USDA is getting someone with national produce-industry experience. Those of us in Texas organic agriculture know it is also getting someone who has been in the organic field, worked with organic growers, helped market organic crops and supported the growth of our organic industry for many years.

I am very pleased to see Jed Murray take that experience to the National Organic Standards Board!

More Resources

USDA Announces Five New Members to the National Organic Standards Board
USDA’s announcement and biography of Jed Murray.
Read the USDA announcement

National Organic Standards Board
Background on NOSB membership, responsibilities, meetings and activities.
USDA National Organic Standards Board

NOSB Recommendations
More than 600 recommendations involving organic production practices and materials are available through USDA.
View NOSB recommendations

National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
Learn how substances are evaluated and regulated for organic crop, livestock and handling operations.
USDA National List information

Helping Expand the Market for Texas-Grown Organic Produce
Texas A&M AgriLife’s 2022 look at expanding domestic and international opportunities for Texas organic produce, including Jed’s involvement.
Read the AgriLife Today article

Tenaza Organics – Grower Achievement Award Regional Winner
A look at Tenaza Organics, its crops, markets and Jed’s work promoting produce and Texas growers.
Read the Growing Produce article

Organic Variety Production Tour – Thursday, September 3rd

New Deal, Texas | Registration begins at 9:30 a.m. | No registration fee

One of the continuing challenges for organic crop producers is finding seed varieties developed for the conditions in which we actually farm. This is especially true in the Texas High Plains, where crops must perform under heat, limited rainfall, declining irrigation capacity, organic fertility programs, and significant insect and disease pressure.

On Thursday, September 3, we will hold an Organic Variety Production Tour in the New Deal–Lubbock area to look at efforts underway to address that problem. This tour is built around a Southern SARE Producer Grant led by Seth Fortenberry of New Deal Grain that is helping develop local capacity to produce and supply non-GMO hybrid corn seed for organic and water-limited cropping systems.

Seth farms organic crops in the Texas High Plains and operates New Deal Grain, an organic grain and seed business. One of the problems he and other organic growers continue to face is the limited availability of non-GMO corn hybrids adapted to the hot, dry conditions of our region. Most corn seed production and much of the breeding work supplying non-GMO hybrids has historically been centered in the Midwest. The goal of this project is to begin closing that gap by taking regionally adapted genetics, producing the seed locally, and ultimately making those hybrids available to organic farmers.

New Deal Grain has licensed TAMZ106B and TAMZ107, two non-GMO corn hybrids developed through the Texas A&M AgriLife corn breeding program. The SARE project is helping Seth build the specialized knowledge and infrastructure needed to increase parent seed, produce hybrid seed, maintain genetic purity, process and condition the harvested seed, and move that seed into commercial production. The project also includes testing these hybrids on certified organic farms and comparing their performance under actual production conditions.

The September tour will use that corn seed project as a starting point, but the discussion will be broader. We will look at corn, sorghum, cowpea and guar plots and talk about what characteristics we need when selecting and developing varieties for organic agriculture. That may include yield, drought and heat tolerance, disease and insect resistance, weed competitiveness, forage quality, food quality, seed production characteristics, and opportunities for alternative markets.

At the Texas Tech corn plots, we will discuss corn breeding, promising crosses, commercial possibilities, and high-anthocyanin or High-A corn being developed for specialty food and health-oriented markets. We will then move to cowpea and guar plots to discuss their potential as cover crops, forage crops, protein crops, and alternative cash crops. The final field discussion will focus on organic sorghum, including variety needs, seed availability, and where we see opportunities for the organic sorghum industry.

This is really a tour about connecting plant breeding, seed production, and farmer needs. Developing a good variety is only the first step. Farmers also need enough high-quality seed, produced and conditioned correctly, at a price and quantity that allows them to actually plant it. Building that connection from the breeder’s plot to the farmer’s planter is one of the important long-term goals of this work.

Tentative Tour Agenda

9:30–10:00 a.m. – Registration, Introductions and Tour Overview at
New Deal Grain – Bob Whitney, Extension Organic Specialist and Seth Fortenberry, New Deal Grain

10:00 a.m. – Depart for Texas Tech Farm – Corn Plots

10:15 a.m. – Corn Breeding and Variety Development
Overview of the corn breeding program, varieties and crosses, potential industry uses, and High-A corn. Andrew Sellers, Texas A&M AgriLife Research Corn Breeding Technician and Bob Whitney

10:45 a.m. – Depart for Sorghum, Cowpea and Guar Plots

10:55 a.m. – Field Overview – Seth Fortenberry

11:00 a.m. – Organic Cowpea and Guar
Discussion of the plots and their potential as cover crops, protein crops, forage crops, and alternative crops for organic production – Dr. Waltram Ravelombola, Assistant Professor, Organic & Specialty Crop Breeding

11:25 a.m. – Organic Sorghum
Sorghum plot discussion, organic sorghum production and variety development, seed needs, and the future of organic sorghum – Dr. Bill Rooney, Professor, Sorghum Crop Breeder and Nick Porter, Senior Research Associate, Sorghum Breeding

12:00 noon – Depart for Lunch at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Lubbock
Lunch provided by Orlando’s

12:45 p.m. – Wrap-Up

Registration

There is no cost to attend the tour or lunch, but we need an accurate meal count.

Please contact Bob Whitney at 979-571-2086 to register.

Registration begins at 9:30 a.m. at New Deal Grain in New Deal, Texas, and we will leave for the field tour promptly at 10:00 a.m.

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.

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:

  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)

TAMZ107 Stands Out in a Wet Year for Corn Ear Rots

A wet 2026 Texas corn trial highlighted TAMZ107’s strong ear-rot resistance, showing how years of public plant breeding can deliver disease protection directly through the seed.

Sometimes two ears of corn can tell an important plant-breeding story.

Ears from the 2026 Taylor, Texas, corn hybrid trial. TAMZ107 (top) remained free of visible ear-rot symptoms, while an unnamed commercial hybrid (bottom) showed severe ear-rot damage.

Both ears pictured came from a 2026 corn hybrid trial near Taylor, Texas—one location in our multilocation testing program. The ear on top is TAMZ107, developed by Dr. Wenwei Xu, Texas A&M AgriLife Research corn breeder at Lubbock. The ear on bottom is an unnamed commercial hybrid.

Frequent rainfall and humid conditions during the 2026 growing season have favored corn ear rots across parts of Texas. The commercial ear shows severe ear-rot symptoms, with Fusarium among the predominant ear-rot pathogens observed this season. All commercial hybrids in this trial showed some ear-rot damage, while the TAMZ hybrids remained free of visible symptoms.

The importance of this comparison is not the identity of the commercial company. It is the value of years of public plant breeding. Dr. Xu selected resistant inbred parents and combined them to produce TAMZ hybrids adapted to Texas conditions. TAMZ107 has been tested for several years and is now ready for release and fits an organic program because it is GMO free and adapted to organic conditions.

Genetic resistance is especially valuable for organic farmers because it arrives in the seed. The plant begins the season with its own protection rather than depending on a treatment after disease develops. Resistant hybrids can also benefit any farmer facing difficult weather and disease pressure.

See the TAMZ Hybrids in the Field

The TAMZ hybrids will be featured during the Field to Fiesta Corn Tour on Wednesday, August 12, beginning at 9 a.m. at the Halfway Research Center in Halfway, Texas. The tour will include the research center and nearby farm fields, followed by a sponsored lunch.

Topics will include heat during pollination, corn borers and earworms, drought tolerance, ear rots and herbicide drift. For attendance information, contact Extension Agronomist Kristie Keys at kristie.keys@ag.tamu.edu. View the program announcement.

Lessons from a Study on Hay Variability: Insights for Organic Producers

Hay quality can vary considerably among bales from the same field. Proper sampling and forage testing help organic livestock producers understand that variability and make better feeding decisions.

Technical content updated June 2026 to include recommendations for collecting representative hay samples.

Start with a Representative Hay Sample

I wrote this longer article back in October of 2024, but since we are in the midst of cutting hay right now, I thought an update would be a good thing! Before discussing the surprising variability found among individual hay bales from a single field, it is important to remember that a forage analysis is only as good as the sample submitted to the laboratory. Many producers still collect a handful of hay from the outside of a bale and send it for analysis. Unfortunately, this approach often provides misleading results because leaves, stems, and different portions of the bale are not represented equally.

The preferred method is to use a hay probe attached to a cordless drill and collect core samples from a minimum of 20 representative bales within a hay lot. A hay lot should consist of hay from the same field, cutting, forage type, and harvest period. I carry a bucket with me and put each core in the bucket as I sample a bale. The core sampler is a 24″ model since almost everyone has round bales today. The individual cores are combined into a single composite sample (the bucket), mixed thoroughly, and submitted to a forage testing laboratory.

The picture above is a clip I copied from a longer article in Hay and Forage Magazine, April 2025 edition. The article is just a good reminder of proper sampling, but the best part of the article is a list of all the places to order a hay probe. Just click on the picture or here Hay Probes to see the list!

How Much Can Hay Vary Within One Field?

When it comes to hay production, many farmers assume that bales harvested from the same field will contain similar nutrient levels. The differences across fields was evident in a recent article by Michael Reuter in Progressive Forage1. His article and data show us all, the significant differences even among bales from the same field. Understanding and managing these differences can make a big impact, especially for organic farmers who want to optimize livestock nutrition and maintain a consistent quality of forage.

The following table from the article1 presents the nutrient composition and analysis of 20 individual bales randomly sampled from an 86-acre hay field, which was managed as a unit and harvested all at the same time:

What the Bale Data Showed

The analysis of the 20 hay bales showed surprising variability in key nutrients such as Crude Protein (%CP), fiber content (measured as %ADF and %NDF), and essential minerals like Calcium (%CA) and Phosphorus (%P). Summary statistics of the nutrient composition are presented below:

Crude protein, for example, varied from 9.7% to 15.9%. This 6.2 percentage point difference could significantly influence the nutritional value of hay fed to livestock.

Fiber levels also differed substantially. The ranges in Acid Detergent Fiber (%ADF) and Neutral Detergent Fiber (%NDF) directly affect how digestible the hay is and how much livestock will eat. Calcium and phosphorus levels, which are critical for bone health and metabolic functions, also showed noteworthy differences between bales.

Why Does Hay Quality Vary?

Even within a field managed and harvested as one unit, soil fertility, plant maturity, species composition, moisture, weeds, topography and microclimate can vary enough to influence forage quality. In organic fields, uneven manure or compost distribution can add another potential source of spatial variability:

  1. Soil Fertility Differences: Organic amendments like compost or manure may not be evenly spread across the field. Variability in soil nutrients can cause different areas of the field to produce hay with varying nutrient levels.
  2. Crop Rotation and Plant Diversity: Rotating different crops or allowing natural diversity in the field is beneficial for soil health, but it can also lead to differences in how well each crop absorbs nutrients.
  3. Pest, Weed, and Microclimate Effects: Organic fields often have more variability in pest pressure, weed growth, and microclimates. These differences can lead to uneven growth, which in turn affects nutrient content.

Managing Hay Variability

To minimize these differences and provide more consistent forage quality, farmers can take several practical steps:

  • Soil Testing: Regularly test soil across different sections of the field. This helps identify nutrient deficiencies or hotspots, allowing targeted amendment application.
  • Even Amendment Application: When applying compost, manure, or other organic fertilizers, try to ensure even distribution across the field. Variability in amendment application is a key factor in nutrient inconsistency.
  • Use Cover Crops: Cover cropping can help improve soil structure and increase nutrient cycling, which leads to more uniform plant growth.
  • Monitor Harvest Stages: Harvesting at a consistent plant maturity stage across the field can help reduce variability. Plants harvested at different growth stages can differ significantly in nutrient content.
  • Matching Regular Soil and Forage Testing: Applying soil nutrients based on soil tests and then testing multiple hay bales gives a clearer picture of the overall nutrient profile from start to finish. Testing hay allows adjustments in livestock feeding to meet nutritional needs effectively and maybe even save money!

Why This Matters for Organic Livestock

In organic livestock systems, purchased feed supplements must meet USDA organic requirements, and compliant organic feed ingredients can be expensive. Maximizing the nutritional value and consistency of farm-produced forage can therefore reduce purchased-feed needs and improve ration management. Variable hay quality can significantly impact livestock health, as inconsistencies in nutrition may lead to reduced growth rates, lower milk production, or other health issues. Moreover, optimizing the quality of on-farm forage can reduce the need for expensive purchased supplements and any organic supplements are not cheap.

Maintaining consistent forage quality also supports animal welfare, which is a core value of organic and sustainable farming. Healthy, well-fed animals are more resistant to disease, aligning with the organic principle of promoting natural immunity and reducing intervention.

The Take-Home Message

Variability is a natural part of farming, but with informed management, we can turn that variability into an opportunity for learning and improvement—ultimately providing better feed for our livestock and keeping our farms resilient.

Sources and Further Reading

1.Data Source: October 1, 2024 issue of Progressive Forage written by Michael Reuter, Analytical Services Technical Manager at Dairy One Cooperative Inc. and Equi-Analytical Labs.

Organic Agriculture, Markets, and Trust: Emerging Trends for Texas Producers

Organic Agriculture as a Long-Term Strategy

Organic agriculture is increasingly revealing itself as more than simply a production system built around prohibited substances. Over the long term, it may be better understood as a biological and economic strategy centered on trust, resilience, traceability, and system function. While conventional agriculture often optimized around maximum efficiency, scale, and external inputs, organic agriculture has gradually emphasized relationships between soil biology, nutrient cycling, biodiversity, food quality, and consumer confidence. The USDA National Organic Program helped create a framework where consumers can trust production methods they cannot personally observe, making organic agriculture as much a transparency system as a farming system. At the same time, many long-term organic farmers increasingly report that mature organic systems (greater than 5-7 years) often become less dependent on purchased inputs as soil health, rotations, and biological regulation improve over time.

I hear often from farmers, bakers, dairy processors, and food manufacturers who frequently report differences in flavor, functionality, storage, processing quality, and handling characteristics that go beyond simple yield measurements. Meanwhile, rising transportation costs, supply-chain complexity, and consumer interest in traceability may and do, increasingly favor organic systems. Also, we are seeing technologies such as digital traceability, AI-driven compliance systems, and integrated recordkeeping beginning to reduce some of the traditional burdens associated with organic certification.

These broader trends are also becoming increasingly visible within organic grain and dairy markets themselves, where pricing is often shaped less by simple commodity production and more by quality, traceability, transportation, end use, and long-term supply relationships. Current (Jan. to May 2026) USDA AMS reports and organic market activity continue to show that organic agriculture operates through highly differentiated markets where buyer confidence, dependable supply, and product identity can significantly influence value.

Organic Market Report for Texas Organic Farmers

Organic markets continue to show strong differentiation by quality, delivery structure, end use, and contract type rather than functioning as simple commodity markets. Across grains and dairy, USDA AMS reports continue to show active forward contracting, regional price variation, and premiums tied to quality, storage, transportation, and dependable supply relationships. While organic market reporting remains in “short supply” in some Southern regions, including Texas, the overall market signals suggest that buyers continue working to secure reliable supplies of organic feed grains, food-grade products, and dairy inputs well ahead of delivery.

Organic Wheat

Organic wheat prices remain highly differentiated by class, protein, buyer type, delivery terms, and contract structure. In recent AMS reports, Soft Red Winter values often fall in the high single digits to low teens, while Hard Red Spring commands a stronger premium, with some flour-mill forward contracts reaching $20/bu. The main takeaway is that organic wheat is priced less as a generic commodity and more as a set of niche markets defined by end use, quality, freight terms, and whether the transaction is spot, bid, or forward contracted.

For Texas organic wheat farmers, this means harvest is also a marketing decision. Growers who can protect test weight, maintain protein, and keep grain clean and dry are in the best position to capture milling premiums, while those selling quickly into generic feed or elevator channels may leave money on the table. Before cutting, it is worth comparing buyers, delivery terms, and contract options, because in this market the details can matter as much as the wheat itself.

Organic Corn

Organic corn markets continue to show relatively strong and stable pricing compared to many other organic commodities, with much of the AMS-reported activity clustering around the mid-$10 per bushel range (but I see it steadily increasing). Prices still vary by location, contract structure, and whether the grain is old crop or new crop, but the overall pattern suggests a market supported by steady feed demand, active forward contracting, and ongoing regional supply shortages. Unlike organic wheat, where protein and milling quality create wider price separation, organic corn remains heavily influenced by livestock feed demand, freight costs, and regional availability.

For Texas organic corn growers, the message is to stay flexible and market carefully checking regularly on prices. Producers who can store grain, preserve quality, and deliver into specialty feed, dairy, poultry, or food-grade channels may be able to capture better returns than those forced to sell at harvest. Transportation costs and local buyer demand can make a meaningful difference, particularly in regions where organic feed supplies remain limited. Forward contracts (some but not all!) also remain important because they help secure long-term supply relationships and reduce risk in a market that continues rewarding dependable volume and consistent quality.

Organic Dairy

The USDA Organic Dairy Market News Report for May 4–15 provides a snapshot of current organic dairy market conditions rather than a policy or technical standards document. The report shows that organic milk demand remained strong during spring 2026, with U.S. sales of total organic milk products up 5.6 percent for March and organic whole milk sales also showing strong year-over-year growth. Retail organic dairy products, especially milk and yogurt, continue maintaining noticeable price premiums, reflecting continued consumer demand for organic dairy products and broader interest in food products associated with transparency, animal welfare, and ingredient sourcing.

The report also demonstrates how closely the organic dairy sector remains tied to feed markets and broader supply conditions. Organic grain and feed markets remain active, with some forward contracts extending into 2027, indicating that buyers continue working to secure future supply. For producers, the overall signal is that organic dairy demand and premium pricing remain solid, but feed costs, export movement, and retail advertising trends continue shaping a competitive market that remains sensitive to supply and input conditions.

Organic Soybeans

I know we don’t produce many organic soybeans, but they do indicate some import protein trends. Organic soybean markets continue showing some of the strongest structural support among major organic grain commodities, with pricing being driven largely by protein demand, livestock feed markets, and food-grade specialty channels. Unlike organic wheat, where class and milling quality create major price separation, soybean values appear more closely tied to dependable supply, identity preservation, and end use. AMS-reported activity suggests that forward contracting remains active, indicating that buyers continue working to secure long-term supply in a market where domestic production remains limited and imported soybeans still influence overall availability and pricing.

For Texas organic producers, soybeans provide an important lesson even where acreage remains limited. Organic soybean markets demonstrate how protein quality, cleanliness, storage, and buyer relationships increasingly shape value in organic agriculture. Food-grade and identity-preserved soybeans can carry significant premiums over generic feed channels, reinforcing the idea that organic crops are often marketed less as bulk commodities and more as differentiated products tied to specific supply chains. The continued influence of imported soybeans also highlights the importance of dependable domestic production capable of meeting both feed and food-grade demand.

As Texas organic markets continue developing, similar trends may increasingly influence corn, sorghum, wheat, peanuts, and other crops where end use, traceability, and dependable supply relationships become more important than simple yield alone.

Organic Integrity and Import Oversight Expand Under USDA SOE Rule

The USDA National Organic Program continues expanding oversight of imported organic products through the Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) rule. New Organic Insider reports highlight how USDA is now using import certificate data, shipment tracking, and compliance analytics to identify irregular trade patterns and investigate potential fraud before products reach the marketplace. Several recent investigations involved imported organic products lacking valid import certificates, while another case involving raspberries from Mexico demonstrated how residue testing and traceability systems prevented contaminated products from entering U.S. commerce. The increased emphasis on farm-to-market traceability reflects USDA’s growing focus on maintaining consumer confidence and strengthening enforcement throughout global organic supply chains.

The newly released 2025 organic import data also provide a revealing picture of the modern organic marketplace. Total U.S. organic imports approached $12 billion in 2025 (total organic sales in the US are $76 billion), with Mexico representing more than 20% of total import value. Organic beef, coffee, bananas, blueberries, avocados, olive oil, and processed soybean products ranked among the largest import categories. The data reinforce that organic agriculture has become deeply connected to international supply chains and value-added food manufacturing systems rather than operating solely as a domestic farm commodity market.

For U.S. organic producers, these trends highlight both continued strong consumer demand for organic products and the increasing importance of traceability, market relationships, and maintaining trust in the organic label. For Texas organic farmers specifically, future competitiveness may depend less on maximizing volume alone and more on building dependable supply relationships, preserving quality, improving traceability, and positioning farms within regional food systems that value identity preservation, biological function, and long-term resilience.

Sources and Market References

This market analysis and commentary were developed using information from the following USDA and industry reports:

Additional market interpretation and analysis were developed through ongoing observations of organic grain, dairy, and specialty crop markets relevant to Texas organic producers.