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. At our Stephenville center we are working hard to develop and release some possible organic Sunn Hemp cover crop varieties and are working on faba bean – 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.
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.
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
The article below appears in the Fall 2025, “OMRI Materials Review” newsletter sent out by OMRI to subscribers. I thought this article was interesting since it concerns pesticide residues – a hot topic in Texas Organic Agriculture! It is reprinted with permission by OMRI.
By Doug Currier
The work to modernize residue testing in USDA organic production could impact input material review.
Residue Testing for a Global Supply Chain (RTGSC) is an ongoing discussion being led by National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) with input from public stakeholders and the National Organic Program (NOP). It is well established that organic production is based on organic system plans that, if followed, ensure adherence to the organic standards. Testing to detect residues of both prohibited substances and excluded methods is seen as an important measure of the success of those system plans, or whether those plans were followed at all. This type of testing is required within the USDA organic standard1, but for the testing to remain “relevant” and “impactful,” changes to the USDA standard and guidance documents are being considered. This is the aim of RTGSC.
Before we consider some of these changes, it is helpful to become clear on the sources of these residues and the possible reasons they may appear in organic systems. The 2013 “Pesticide Rule”23 established the current residue testing requirements to ensure that organic system plans prevent commingling and contamination with prohibited substances. Testing has long focused on detecting genetically modified crops to address the commingling issue.
Because of how the “Pesticide Rule” is written, there is a focus on detecting prohibited pesticides as a way to address the contamination issue. Both GMO and pesticide residues can come from neighboring non‑organic farms through “drift” or can occur when cleanout procedures used between processing non‑organic and organic commodities are ineffective. These two examples can be referred to as “organic control points” in a production system where the risk of contamination is high. There are many facets to the strategies used to detect contamination in organic production systems—far too many to examine in this article.
The NOSB Spring 2025 meeting materials call for an in-depth description of these issues. Before we move on to the changes being discussed to modernize the current approach to testing and detection, it can be helpful to acknowledge that the “Pesticide Rule” was not necessarily written with fraud detection in mind. Also, input materials themselves can be a source of contaminant residue that are actionable from the perspective of accredited certification bodies (“certifiers”).
Positive results from residue testing impact organic growers in several ways, with perhaps the most significant being the inability to sell produce as organic. In our work, we have seen growers lose their ability to sell produce as organic because of positive test results that were traced back not to their farm, but to the input materials, just like with other sources of residues—whether due to unintentional contamination or intentional adulteration. It is therefore promising to see that within the RTGSC conversation is a proposal to redefine the definition of Unavoidable Residual Environmental Contamination (UREC) to one that acknowledges that sometimes no matter how strong the system plan, contamination can occur. This is not to say that the contamination can go unaddressed. But relieving the grower of some responsibility seems to be a step in the right direction. How that contamination is ultimately addressed, and how often, is a separate matter.
A significant focus of RTGSC is to modernize the strategies for testing for contamination in a way that more meaningfully centers on pesticides and GMOs. A “Target List” or consumer‑focused list does good work to identify materials and input materials where extraordinary high levels of heavy metals and harmful organic contaminants may exist.
With that said, the advancements in test methodologies, test sensitivities, and the realization that detection strategies—especially those used to detect fraud—are more sensitive now than ever, suggest that the RTGSC ideas coming from the NOSB for the NOP to consider could change the nature of input material review work: (1) development and adoption of accredited methods for Organic Authenticity Testing as it relates to detecting whether inorganic nitrogen is manufactured from allowed or prohibited sources, and (2) broadening the list of substances for which there is regular testing.
Regarding the former, we are supportive of this long‑needed move towards methods and accreditation. As for the latter, we are mindful that widening the net, through expansion of the substances list and more sensitive testing, could mean for us and the manufacturers with which we work.
There is still much to consider and absorb before changes that move our industry beyond the 2013 “Pesticide Rule.” Achieving RTGSC’s goal of keeping testing relevant and impactful will affect nearly everyone. OMRI will continue to monitor these developments closely and share updates as the RTGSC process moves forward.
From Farm to Consumer: Why Organic Markets Need Transparency and Storytelling to Grow
In our recent “Texas Organic News” newsletter, I conducted a single question survey and the question was: “What’s standing in the way of producing and/or selling more organic products?” Here are the results from the 1,360 newsletters sent out – only 32 responses! In this survey you could only pick one answer for the question and here are the results so far.
Lack of grower contracts or reliable customers for organic products — 13 responses (40.6%) This is a question about demand for organic production or products, which ever segment you are involved in. If we don’t get customers, we don’t get paid!
Paperwork and certification take too much time or effort — 8 responses (25%) Of course everyone in organic says this is a problem but it ranks second behind selling more organic products.
Competition from imported organic products that reduce grower contracts or retailer profitability — 5 responses (15.6%) I thought this might be more of an issue and it is for some commodities but right now it ranks third.
Not enough profit margin in organic production or sales — 2 responses (6.3%)
Growers: Not enough organic inputs or supplies to grow efficiently — 3 responses (9.4%)
Handlers: Not enough consistent organic product available to sell — 1 response (3.1%)
Although overall response numbers have been low, I think the pattern is clear: the two largest barriers identified by producers are market access (customers/contracts) and certification/time-burden. These aren’t simply agronomic issues—they point to deeper economic and institutional challenges in our organic systems. We need to do a better job attracting customers and we need to improve certification systems to make them easier and cheaper.
Transaction Costs and What the Survey is Telling Us
When I review your responses through the lens of transaction cost economics, I see how these barriers are really about the extra costs of doing business in organic—not just the cost of production. A cost is anything that takes up time or money both of which are scarce. Scarce means if you do this one thing you can’t be doing another thing. If you have to spend a lot (time and/or money) on certification or finding customers/contracts, you have to get it back from the products or you have to quit!
The largest barrier, lack of reliable customers, highlights search, matching, and information-costs. If you don’t know who will buy your product or what contract terms look like, you carry higher risk and uncertainty. Organic struggles with this every day of every month of every year!
The second barrier, certification and paperwork burden, is about compliance, monitoring and institutional costs. The farm work, the record-keeping, the audit visits—even before you sell—these costs eat into margins. USDA NOP has discussed some of this and even talked about some streamlining and simplifying proposals, but we are still a long way from it.
Lastly, weak contracts or imports or even hard to find markets point to market thinness and pricing transparency. When markets aren’t transparent, when contracts are hidden or inconsistent, the organic market players struggle to negotiate fairly or spend too much time struggling to be in the market.
In short: to expand organic production and meaningful sales in Texas, the US or the world, we must look beyond just “how do I grow it organically?” and ask: How do I connect reliably with a buyer, how do I keep my certification cost manageable, and how does the market signal value all the way through the chain?
Organic as a Credence Good
Here’s a key idea: organic products are credence goods (belief or acceptance that something is true or valid). That means consumers (a shopper in HEB) cannot easily verify for themselves many of the important attributes—crop rotation, chemical input avoidance, processing protocols, supply-chain segregation. Instead, they rely on trust signals: certifications, labels, audits, inspections.
Because
of this,
two things
matter:
Integrity of production and supply chain systems — the farm-to-shelf process must be robust and verifiable. Organic has built this into its system with legal force while most or all others do not come close. Non-GMO is a label that is highly trusted too, but they have experienced problems recently with this part of their label. Lost trust is almost impossible to get back.
Clear communication of value to the consumer — if consumers don’t understand the organic claim or don’t believe it has value, the premium disappears. Right now there are many, many stories about how “something” is better than organic. This tells me organic has set the standard all are trying to beat but this bombardment without a response also weakens organic’s message.
The newsletter survey results align exactly with this: producers are facing market access problems (demand side) and compliance burdens (supply side). Both sides are inherent to credence-good systems. You’re not just farming or manufacturing differently—you’re participating in a system of trust. Right now, organic agriculture has the highest rated system of trust according to survey after survey. Unfortunately, our customers are not valuing that “trust” as much as they used to do simply because they are being bombarded with so many choices that look similar but are not at all similar to Certified Organic!Step up and reinforce that message now, before we lose it!
Every Part of the Value Chain Must Be a Promoter
In a business built on trust (credence goods), production alone isn’t enough. The value behind the organic label depends on every actor in the chain actively understanding and communicating that value.
Farmers need to ask: What story am I giving my buyer about how I grew this crop and why it matters? Have you ever given your buyer a letter with your crop that tells your story? You send a certificate but why not more?
Handlers must ask: How am I representing the farms I source from, and how am I passing that value and the value I add to retailers or final buyers?
Retailers and brands should ask: Am I explaining to consumers why this product commands a premium, beyond just placing it on the shelf? FYI – Retailers usually make more off organic products than conventional!
Certifiers and institutions must ensure: I maintain the trust-signal, yes—but do I also support the chain in telling the story in a credible, consistent way? Is your certifier making sure “you,” their customer is promoted?
If any link fails to actively promote the value, the trust signal weakens. Here’s what it means in practice:
Transparency up and down the chain: Farms must provide clear information to handlers; handlers must pass that to retailers; retailers must convey the value to consumers—and that consumer feedback should circle back into production and market planning. You may be paid for a product in organic, but your “name” goes with that product all the way to the consumer!
Active marketing of integrity: The organic label is a trust-signal. If it isn’t actively promoted, consumers may forget what it stands for or assume it doesn’t matter. This is especially true in an age of so much label confusion.
Shared responsibility: It’s not enough for a farmer to get certified and think the rest of the chain will carry the message. Every actor must see themselves as part-of the collective promoter of the label’s meaning and the products value.
Feedback loops: The final customer’s expectations shape what comes back up the chain. Growers should listen to what consumers care about, and that should influence how they position their production and communicate with buyers.
Value-chain transparency equals value creation: The more visible the chain, the more confident the consumer, the stronger the premium, the more stable the market. Hidden trade, opaque pricing, and weak storytelling all erode trust and hinder growth.
Final Thought
The very simple and easy survey I sent in a newsletter has highlighted what many of us already sense: participating in organic isn’t simply about adopting different growing practices. It’s about being part of a system built on trust, communication, and shared value. Certification and production matter—but they are only half the story. The lack of participation (only 30 out of 1360) in this simple, one question survey is telling me that certified organic entities (farms, handlers, retailers, certifiers) have not figured out everyone has a part to play in this “credence good” or it becomes just another “good” to purchase.
If you choose to farm organic, you’re not just choosing a way to grow. You’re choosing to be part of a movement built on trust, and you’re signing up to help tell the story. You are paying a lot to be part of this movement.
When we, as farmers, handlers, retailers—and even consumers—understand this and act on it, we reduce hidden costs, build stronger markets, and make organic not just viable, but sustainable and profitable.
On Thursday, July 31, 2025, the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Halfway Station hosted a Hi-A Corn Breeding and Genetics Field Tour and Research Forum that brought together around 30 participants, including farmers, researchers, seed companies, and agricultural lenders. The event highlighted the exciting potential of Hi-A (high anthocyanin) corn varieties in both production and food markets.
Hi-A Corn Variety Plots at the Halfway Research Station
Field Tours and Research Highlights
The day began with a welcome from Dr. Todd Baughman, followed by an introduction from Dr. Wenwei Xu, Regents Fellow and corn breeder at Texas A&M AgriLife Research in Lubbock.
Dr. Xu has led the development of Hi-A corn varieties, including TAMZ 102, which is known for its deep purple kernels and high anthocyanin content. His work has focused on combining yield performance with enhanced nutritional traits, creating hybrids that perform well in the field while offering health-promoting properties. The Hi-A program under Dr. Xu’s leadership has become a cornerstone of innovation for Texas A&M AgriLife, linking plant breeding with food and health research.
Participants then toured Hi-A corn plots at the Halfway Research Center before traveling to Helms Farms to view large field-scale strip trials. These demonstrations highlighted how Hi-A and short-season hybrids are performing under West Texas growing conditions. Mr. Ken Igo, Halfway Farm Chemicals discussed on-farm performance results at the Edmonson location.
Hi-A Corn Varieties at the Helms Farm. Dr Xu is discussing the variety performance.
The tour then returned to the Halfway Research Center where Dr. Tim Paape (USDA-ARS) provided updates on breeding, genetics, genomics, and metabolism research. Tim Paape is a Research Geneticist with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), who works in the areas of plant and crop genetics, genomics, and molecular biology. He is directly employed with the USDA-ARS Responsive Agriculture Food Systems Research Unit (RAFSRU) located on the Texas A&M College Station campus.
After Dr. Paape spoke, I was able to share about the opportunities for organic corn in Texas, focusing on how Hi-A varieties can align with organic markets where consumer demand for nutritionally dense and colorful grains continues to grow.
Dr. Tim Paape introducing Hi-A Corn to HHS Secretary Kennedy when the Secretary visited the TAMU Campus in early July.
Joe Longoria, president of CASA RICA Tortillas in Plainview, shared his experience using this corn in commercial tortilla production, noting its excellent qualities for both flavor and nutrition. Joe is committed to the healthy food movement and talked about his interest in continuing to showcase healthy grains in his products.
From Research to Food
One of the highlights of the day was the luncheon, where participants tasted enchiladas, chips, and tortillas all made with Hi-A corn. The deep color and flavor of these products come from naturally high anthocyanin content in TAMZ 102. A big thanks to Joe Longoria and Casa Rica for providing the Hi-A chips and tortillas. Amazingly there were no chips or tortillas left after lunch!!
This hands-on experience helped bridge the gap between the research plots and the food plate, showing how agricultural innovation can quickly translate into consumer products.
Building Toward the Future
The classroom event did conclude with an informal Research Forum, where scientists, producers, and industry leaders discussed strategies for integrating breeding, production, and commercialization of Hi-A corn. By combining genetics research with market development, this crop has potential not only in specialty food markets but also in animal nutrition.
A Shared Success
The Field Day was a success thanks to the collaboration of researchers, growers, and industry leaders. With Hi-A corn gaining momentum, it’s encouraging to see strong partnerships forming around this crop. The tortillas, chips, and fresh ears we shared at lunch gave everyone a taste of what the future of corn could look like—nutrient-rich, flavorful, and farmer-driven.
Big thanks and a great deal of appreciation to the Texas Corn Producers Board, Southern SARE, High Plains Underground Water Conservation District, and USDA-ARS. These outstanding groups not only helped fund this important work but attended the field day as well!
When organic wheat growers choose a variety, they aren’t just planting seed—they’re planting bread, tortillas, and the reputation of their crop in the marketplace. That’s why milling and baking quality matter as much as yield. Extension Specialists and Wheat Researchers have been digging into an important question for growers: how do milling quality and baking quality fit into variety choice, especially for organic systems? These traits, along with protein and yield, play a direct role in what millers want and what farmers get paid for.
Milling Quality vs. Baking Quality
Milling quality is about how efficiently a kernel turns into flour. Seed size, uniformity, and hardness all affect milling yield.
Baking quality is about what happens in the bakery—how dough handles, rises, and produces bread or tortillas that buyers want.
Testing happens at several levels. The Cereal Quality Lab at College Station does preliminary evaluations, while the USDA and Wheat Quality Council conduct full baking and milling trials with multiple mills and bakeries. Every TAM variety is rated, and those scores directly influence variety release decisions.
Variety Highlights for Organic Wheat Growers
TAM 114
Mid-season hard red winter wheat prized for excellent milling and baking quality, solid yield potential, and strong adaptability.
Strengths: Excellent dough properties, solid straw strength, good grazing ability, drought tolerance, and winterhardiness. Moderately resistant to stripe, leaf, and stem rusts as well as Hessian fly; good acid soil tolerance.
Consistently appears on “Pick” lists for irrigated and limited irrigation systems thanks to its stable performance.
TAM 115
A dual-purpose variety offering both grain yield and grazing potential, with enhanced disease and insect resistance.
Strengths: Excellent milling and baking quality, large seed, high test weight, strong drought tolerance, and resilience against leaf, stripe, and stem rust, greenbug, and wheat curl mite (which contributes to Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus (WSMV) resistance).
Adapted across High Plains, Rolling Plains, Blacklands, and even Western Kansas/Eastern Colorado. Performs well under irrigation and good dryland conditions—but less reliable under severe dryland stress due to lower tillering capacity.
TAM 205
TAM 205 is a newer dual-purpose variety known for its strong milling and baking quality paired with unmatched disease resistance. It is highly adaptable across systems and is a strong option for both grain and forage. Strengths:
Exceptional milling and baking quality
Good forage potential
Broad resistance (leaf, stripe, stem rust; WSMV; Fusarium head blight)
High test weight and large seed
TAM 113
A reliable dryland performer with good grain and forage potential, especially under stress.
Strengths: Solid grain yield, decent milling quality, and forage use. Early maturing with strong emergence and tillering – valuable in challenging environments. Offers resistance to stripe, leaf, and stem rusts.
Remaining a steady Dryland “Pick” in High Plains trials thanks to its adaptability.
Reminder: Organic farmers need to make seed purchase arrangements early (well before planting season) to ensure they have an adequate supply of untreated seed.
Protein Content vs. Protein Functionality
Farmers often watch protein percent, but researchers emphasize that protein functionality—how protein behaves in dough—is more important. While there’s no easy field test for this, variety choice remains a strong predictor.
When evaluating economics, consider total protein yield (bushels × protein percent). Sometimes a lower-yielding but higher-protein field can be more profitable than a high-yield, low-protein one.
Of course, protein levels don’t appear out of thin air. They’re the result of fertility, management, and soil health—areas where organic systems work a little differently than conventional.
Nitrogen and Organic Systems
One point of clarification: organic wheat does not suffer from a “late-season nitrogen challenge” so much as it requires planning ahead for higher yields. Excellent varieties and management can unlock yield potential, but only if soil fertility is built to support them.
Cover crops can provide up to 100 lbs of nitrogen per acre.
Manure composts from chicken or dairy sources can supply around 40 lbs of nitrogen per 1,000 lbs applied.
These are slow-release, biologically active forms of nitrogen. They need to be managed in advance so nutrients are available as the wheat grows.
Liquid organic N sources exist, but they are generally too expensive to justify based on the modest yield increases in wheat.
This means success in organic wheat fertility comes from building the soil and feeding the crop over the long term, not chasing protein with late-season nitrogen shots. The key takeaway is that organic fertility is a long game—cover crops and compost must be planned well in advance to match the yield potential of high-quality varieties like TAM 114 and TAM 205.
TAM Varieties and Seed Saving
Beyond fertility, seed access and seed-saving rights also matter to organic growers when planning for the future. All TAM varieties are public releases and not under Plant Variety Protection. Farmers can legally save and replant TAM seed for their own use. This is especially valuable in organic systems where untreated seed availability can be limited.
Why This Matters
In conventional systems, buyers reward bushels. In organic systems, millers and bakers want quality along with yield. Understanding both milling and baking traits—and managing fertility to match variety potential—helps organic growers capture more value.
As we look ahead, TAM 114 remains a cornerstone for organic production, but TAM 205 is quickly emerging as a variety that combines yield, quality, and resilience. With the right fertility planning and variety choice, Texas organic wheat can continue to meet both market demand and farmer profitability.
By combining resilient TAM varieties with thoughtful organic fertility planning, Texas wheat growers can continue to deliver grain that is profitable on the farm and dependable in the marketplace.
Texas A&M AgriLife Organic 