Tag: food

Where Organic Growth Is Coming From—and What It Means for Texas

Organic Growth vs. Conventional

The organic market continues to show steady growth, even under the same economic pressures affecting all of agriculture.

According to a recent report by the Organic Trade Association 1, U.S. organic sales reached $76.6 billion in 2025, increasing by 6.8%, while the overall food market grew at approximately 3.4% . Organic food alone grew even faster, at 6.9% compared to 2.3% for total food sales . This marks another year in which organic has outperformed the broader marketplace.

This pattern is important. Organic growth is not limited to a single year or driven by short-term factors. It reflects a sustained trend of consumer demand that has continued through inflationary periods, supply chain disruptions, and broader uncertainty in food markets.

At the same time, organic has reached a level of maturity within the food system. With more than 6% penetration into total U.S. food sales, organic products are no longer confined to specialty markets. They are now part of routine purchasing behavior for a significant portion of consumers.

This combination—continued growth alongside market maturity—creates a different type of market environment than in earlier years of organic expansion. Growth is still occurring, but it is not evenly distributed. Demand is increasing at the consumer level, while returns at the farm level do not always reflect that increase.

This disconnect suggests that the primary constraint is not whether consumers are purchasing organic products, but how effectively production is aligned with growing categories, functional supply chains, and market channels that return value to the producer.

Another important consideration is that organic products now compete directly with conventional products within the same retail space. Despite this competition—and despite typically higher prices—organic continues to grow at a faster rate. This indicates that consumer purchasing decisions are being driven by factors beyond price alone, including perceived health benefits, ingredient transparency, and trust in certification.

Consumers Are Buying “Health”—Not Just “Organic”

One of the clearest shifts in the organic market is not just how much consumers are buying, but why they are buying it. Organic is no longer functioning only as a production label. It is increasingly being interpreted by consumers as a health-related choice 2. Across recent data, consumers consistently prioritize attributes such as absence of synthetic chemicals, no added hormones or antibiotics, fewer additives and more recognizable ingredients. These are often referred to as “free-from” characteristics. While these attributes are not unique to organic certification, organic is still the most comprehensive and trusted system that delivers all of them under one standard.

At the same time, consumers continue to demonstrate a willingness to pay a premium for organic products, particularly in the United States. That willingness is not being driven simply by branding or marketing. It is tied to a broader shift in how food is viewed. The concept of “food as medicine” has moved from niche discussion into mainstream thinking. Consumers are increasingly making purchasing decisions based on perceived impacts to personal health, long-term wellness, and dietary quality. Organic is no longer competing solely as a production system. It is competing within a broader set of health-related claims, including non-GMO, antibiotic-free, hormone-free, natural, and regenerative.

In this environment, organic retains an advantage because it encompasses many of these attributes within a single certification. However, it also faces increased competition from more narrowly defined claims that may be easier for consumers to interpret. As a result, organic’s value is increasingly tied to how well it is understood and communicated as a complete system, rather than just one attribute among many.

Protein and Nutrient Density Are Driving Growth

One of the more consistent signals in the organic market right now is where growth is actually occurring. It is not evenly spread across all categories. Instead, it is concentrated in products that are closely tied to protein and nutrient density.

Several of the fastest-growing categories reflect this clearly:

  • Eggs increased by 22.4%
  • Meat, poultry, and seafood increased by 22.5%
  • Yogurt increased by 16.6%

These are not minor categories. These are core food groups, and their growth suggests a shift in how consumers are thinking about food overall.

What Is Driving This Shift: This trend aligns with broader changes in consumer behavior. There is increasing emphasis on:

  • foods that are nutrient-dense rather than calorie-dense
  • adequate protein intake
  • satiety and sustained energy

Functional Foods and the Broader Trend

This shift also connects to the growth of what are often called functional foods—products that offer added benefits beyond basic nutrition.

Yogurt (16.6% increase) is a good example, where growth is tied not only to protein, but also to digestive health. Similar trends are showing up in beverages and snacks that are positioned around energy, recovery, or overall wellness.

Implications for Texas Agriculture:

This focus on protein and nutrition connects directly to several production systems in Texas. Organic sorghum plays a role through dairy feed, linking grain production to milk and yogurt markets. Organic peanuts and other legumes fit into plant-based protein demand, especially as consumers shift toward simpler, whole foods. At the same time, organic beef demand is growing rapidly, but a significant portion is being supplied through imports . This suggests strong demand, but limited domestic supply.

Plant-Based Is Changing (Important for Legumes)

Another shift worth noting is how the plant-based category itself is evolving.

Some of the earlier growth in plant-based foods was driven by highly processed alternatives. That segment is now slowing, with products like meat substitutes declining by about –5.5%. At the same time, simpler foods such as dried beans, fruits, and vegetables are increasing, with dried products growing by 13.6% .

This is a meaningful change. Consumers are not moving away from plant-based foods—they are moving toward foods that are less processed and more recognizable.

Implications for Texas: This aligns well with crops that are already adapted to Texas systems. Cowpeas, fava beans, dry beans, peanuts, and even some of the ancient grains fit naturally into this trend. These crops have traditionally been viewed as secondary or rotational options, but they may begin to carry more direct market value as demand shifts toward whole-food protein sources.

Imports Are Filling Key Gaps (Hidden but Critical Story)

One of the more important signals in the current organic market is not just what is growing, but where that growth is being supplied from. Organic beef, for example, showed very strong growth in 2025 3, but much of that increase is being supported by imports rather than domestic production . This points to a structural issue within organic and certainly within Texas organic. Demand is growing but domestic supply has not kept pace.

What This Suggests: When imports are filling a growing category, it typically means one or more of the following production is limited or slow to expand, processing or infrastructure is limited or non-existent, supply chains are better developed elsewhere in the world, or in this case, it is likely a combination of all three.

Implications for Texas: For Texas producers, this raises a practical question. If the market is growing, but imports are filling that growth, where is the opportunity being missed locally?

Texas has land resources, livestock systems, and experience in beef production. But capturing organic market share requires more than production alone. It depends on finishing systems, certified processing, and consistent market access. (There is work in progress, just click here to read what!)

The USDA Organic Seal Still Matters—A Lot

As more labels and claims enter the marketplace, one of the consistent findings is that organic certification remains one of the most trusted standards available. In the United States, about 74% of consumers report trust in the USDA Organic label . That level of trust is higher than most individual claims such as “natural,” “non-GMO,” or “antibiotic-free,” which tend to address only one aspect of production. At the same time, the number of competing claims has increased significantly. Consumers are now faced with a wide range of labels that emphasize single attributes (e.g., non-GMO) or specific practices (No Additives) or marketing-driven terms (Natural). This creates confusion!

This creates a situation where organic competes against simpler messages while offering a more comprehensive value. If that value is not clearly communicated, organic can be treated as just one option among many, rather than the most complete standard. Organic continues to hold the strongest position as a trusted standard, but its value depends on how clearly that standard is understood and communicated in the marketplace.

Millennials and Gen Z Are Driving the Market

Another consistent trend in the organic market is who is making the purchasing decisions. Millennials remain the primary drivers of organic purchases, with strong influence also coming from Gen Z consumers . These groups are not only buying organic—they are shaping how food is evaluated more broadly.

What This Suggests: These younger consumers tend to place higher value on sustainability, transparency in production (they might even like to know how you farm), and alignment with personal values. They are also more likely to seek out information, compare products, and respond to how a product is presented—not just what it is. This changes how products compete in the marketplace.

Conclusion:

These trends point to a consistent conclusion. Organic demand is present and continuing to grow, but that growth is becoming more selective. It is increasingly tied to health, nutrition, and clearly defined value in the marketplace.

For Texas producers, the opportunity remains strong, but capturing that opportunity will depend on how production aligns with these shifting demands and how effectively products move through the system from field to consumer.

References

  1. Organic Trade Association (OTA). 2026. Organic Market Report 2026. Organic Trade Association, Washington, DC.
  2. Organic Trade Association (OTA). 2026. Consumer Perception of USDA Organic and Competing Label Claims in North America. Organic Trade Association, Washington, DC.
  3. Organic Trade Association. 2025. U.S. Organic Marketplace Achieved Significant Growth in 2025 (Press Release).
    https://ota.com/news/press-releases

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.

Developing Organic Varieties for Texas: Why It Matters

Texas organic agriculture is dominated by field crops, yet the number of certified organic varieties available to our growers remains very small (probably easier to say none!). Even when varieties are not genetically engineered (GE) and could theoretically fit organic systems, many are simply not adapted to Texas conditions—our heat, drought cycles, variable rainfall, soils, and intense pest pressure. I see this every year: organic producers are forced to choose between varieties bred for very different regions or varieties developed with conventional systems in mind. That gap limits yield stability, increases risk, and ultimately slows the growth of organic acreage in Texas.

What We Are Actively Developing

To address this, we are intentionally investing (money, time, resources) in organic-first variety development within Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension. A runner peanut, TAMRun OL 11, is currently in development under organic management and will be available, with the possibility of releasing two additional hybrid Spanish peanut varieties by the end of next year. We are also working on an organic barley that is moving toward release through the Texas Foundation Seed Service. In corn, we have two organic-adapted lines on track for potential release by the end of 2026. We are testing right now conventional wheat varieties for their development in organic systems with the hopes of licensing at least two outstanding performers. In addition, we are beginning an organic sorghum breeding program, expanding into a crop that is critically important for Texas organic grain systems. Beyond grains and oilseeds, we now have two new organic guar varieties and one new cowpea variety developed through Dr. Waltram Ravelombola’s organic breeding program at Texas A&M AgriLife Research in Vernon. For cotton Dr. Dever and Dr. Kelly both worked to develop a very adaptable and high-quality fiber cotton variety, CA4019, that is under organic development with hopes to be available in a few years. At our Stephenville center we are working hard to develop and release some possible organic Sunn Hemp cover crop varieties and are working on organic faba bean variety development – a winter high protein legume that can be used for the developing protein market and as a winter cover crop. Organic faba bean is in high demand!

Preparing for the Future of Organic Seed

One reason this work matters is forward-looking. There is growing discussion within organic agriculture—and at USDA NOP—around whether organic varieties may eventually be required (no longer strongly encouraged) in Organic System Plans (OSPs). At the same time, many working in the organic program are increasingly concerned about GE technologies embedded upstream in conventional variety development, so that GE could be hard to detect except in the final product which can mean loss of value. Developing varieties entirely within organic systems helps address both issues. It gives producers confidence in the integrity of their seed and positions Texas organic agriculture to respond proactively rather than reactively to future regulatory or market changes.

Dr. Wenwei Xu, Texas A&M AgriLife Corn Breeder. Dr. Xu is a great friend and colleague working on variety development without gene editing. These are high yielding, very resilient, disease and insect tolerant, and developed in Texas! Wenwei and other Texas A&M AgriLife Breeders are committed to organic variety development.

Why This Is a Long-Term Investment

Breeding organic varieties can be slower, expensive (costs are going down fortunately), and demanding—but it is foundational. A good organic variety reduces the need for inputs, tolerates stress, competes better with weeds, and works with biological systems rather than against them. My goal is simple: when a Texas organic grower asks, “What variety should I plant?” I want the answer to be locally adapted, organically developed, and readily available. We are not there yet—but these efforts are a big step in that direction. And yes, this approach makes sense if we are serious about the long-term resilience, integrity, and growth of organic agriculture in Texas.

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 ↩︎