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

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

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

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

Use Only Products Approved by Your Certifier

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

There are several reasons for this:

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

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

Why Are Organic Farms Tested?

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

The certifier may select farms:

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

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

What Happens When Nothing Is Detected?

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

What Happens When a Pesticide Is Detected?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is an EPA Pesticide Tolerance?

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

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

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

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

Below 5 Percent of the EPA Tolerance

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

However, the certifier may still investigate:

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

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

Above 5 Percent of the EPA Tolerance

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

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

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

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

What if There Is No EPA Tolerance?

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

What if the Farmer Applied the Pesticide?

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

The certifier may consider:

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

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

What Should a Farmer Do After Receiving a Positive Result?

First, do not panic—but do respond promptly.

I would recommend that the farmer:

  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

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.

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

  1. Organic Agriculture as a Long-Term Strategy
  2. Organic Market Report for Texas Organic Farmers
  3. Organic Wheat
  4. Organic Corn
  5. Organic Dairy
  6. Organic Soybeans
  7. Organic Integrity and Import Oversight Expand Under USDA SOE Rule
  8. Sources and Market References

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.

Building Local Hybrid Seed for Organic Farms (A Project to Watch)

One of the biggest limitations I continue to see in organic grain and dairy systems—especially here in Texas and across the southern region—is not just fertility or weed control. It is genetics. We simply do not have corn hybrids that are truly adapted to our heat, drought, and water-limited environments.

A new on-farm project as part of a Southern SARE grant is being led by Seth Fortenberry (New Deal Grain) is working directly on that problem. This work is supported through the Southern SARE program, which is designed to fund practical, on-farm research that can be quickly adopted by other farmers—making it a strong fit for advancing organic systems in our region.

What This Project Is About

This on-farm project is focused on building local hybrid corn seed production for organic systems. Instead of relying on seed developed and produced in the Midwest, the goal is to produce non-GMO hybrid seed right here in the South, under the same conditions farmers actually face.

A key part of this project—and one I think is worth highlighting—is the direct connection to public plant breeding. The hybrids being used in this work, including TAMZ106 and TAMZ107, were developed by Dr. Wenwei Xu, Texas A&M AgriLife Research corn breeder in Lubbock. His program has focused heavily on stress tolerance—heat, drought, and disease—which is exactly what our organic systems require in this region.

Why This Matters to Organic Farmers

From my perspective, this is where things get interesting.

  • Better adaptation – Hybrids developed by Dr. Xu are bred under Texas High Plains conditions, not Midwest environments
  • Improved water use – Critical for anyone pulling from the Ogallala
  • Stronger performance under stress – Organic systems don’t have “rescue tools,” so genetics matter more
  • Public breeding impact – This project creates a direct pathway for AgriLife-developed genetics to reach organic farmers
  • Local seed supply – Keeps value in our region and reduces dependence on outside companies

In simple terms, this project is trying to align genetics (G) with management (M) and environment (E)—something we know makes a big difference in organic systems.

What to Expect Moving Forward

This project is just getting started, but over the next two years we will be:

  • Producing parent lines and hybrid seed under organic conditions
  • Testing hybrids on working organic farms
  • Hosting field days and sharing results
  • Building toward a reliable regional seed supply

I will be involved on the Extension side—helping get information out, organizing field days, and making sure growers can see and evaluate this work in real conditions.

Final Thought

If we are serious about growing organic production in Texas and the southern region, we have to address seed. This project is a practical step in that direction—connecting public breeding with real-world organic production.

And I would add this—projects like this only work because of long-term investment in breeding programs like Dr. Xu’s. Without that foundation, we would not have the genetics to even begin this conversation.

More to come as we get into the field this season.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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