sustainability – Texas A&M AgriLife Organic

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

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

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

Organic is a Production Standard, not a Farm Size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technology is Not Anti-Organic: It Can Improve Stewardship

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

1) Sensors and irrigation efficiency

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

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

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

2) Nutrient management and nitrogen efficiency

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

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

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

3) Weed and pest monitoring systems

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

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

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

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

Here is the contradiction I see repeatedly:

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

Those two goals cannot fully coexist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A “Both/And” Vision for Organic

Organic agriculture needs both:

The ecological heart of organic

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

The infrastructure and tools to function at scale

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

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

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

Closing Thought

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

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

References (U.S. Organic Standards)

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

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

How Soil Can Develop in Just Decades

Most of us grew up hearing that “soil takes thousands of years to form.” That statement is still true for deep, fully developed soils with strong horizon development. But what I’ve come to appreciate more and more—especially when working with organic and regenerative growers—is that the early stages of soil formation can move much faster than we were taught.

In the right conditions, soil can develop measurable structure and function on a decadal timeline (2-3 decades). The key reason is simple: biology accelerates soil formation.

Soil Formation Starts When Life Colonizes Minerals

Pedogenesis (soil formation) begins when organisms colonize bare mineral material—rock, ash, subsoil, or exposed parent material. The first colonizers are “pioneer organisms” that can survive with very little water and almost no nutrients. These include:

Lichens (fungus + algae/cyanobacteria partnerships)
Cyanobacteria and algae
Fungi
Mineral-weathering bacteria

These organisms don’t just “live on rock.” They actively change it. They attach to mineral surfaces, grow into microcracks, and begin chemically and physically transforming the material into something more soil-like.¹

Biological Weathering Is Faster Than Purely Geological Weathering

Once microbes and fungi are present, weathering becomes a biological–geochemical process.

Chemical weathering

Organisms produce compounds such as organic acids and chelators that dissolve minerals and release nutrients like:

calcium (Ca²⁺)
magnesium (Mg²⁺)
potassium (K⁺)
phosphorus (PO₄³⁻)

Carbon dioxide from respiration also forms carbonic acid in water, which further increases mineral dissolution. These acids powerfully dissolve parent material.

Physical weathering

Fungal hyphae and plant roots widen cracks. Wet–dry cycles and freeze–thaw cycles fracture material. Windblown dust can add fine mineral particles. The result is more surface area and faster breakdown.

In short, biology makes the parent material more reactive and easier to transform.

Organic Matter and Clay Create Nutrient-Holding Capacity

As the pioneer organisms mentioned above die and recycle, organic residues accumulate. Even small organic inputs matter (adding compost/grow cover crop) because they start forming organo-mineral associations—the foundation of stable soil.

At the same time, primary minerals weather into secondary minerals (including clays and short-range-order minerals, depending on parent material). Both clays and humified organic matter carry negative charge, which contributes to:

CEC (cation exchange capacity) — the soil’s ability to hold and supply nutrient cations like Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, and NH₄⁺.

This is a major transition point: the soil begins to function as a nutrient reservoir rather than a leaching-prone mineral surface.

A good example of rapid stabilization and soil development occurs in volcanic ash materials, which are highly reactive and can form strong mineral–organic associations relatively quickly.²

Aggregation: The “Soil Structure” Breakthrough

One of the clearest signs that soil is forming rapidly is the development of aggregation—stable crumbs and clods that resist slaking and erosion.

Aggregation is built biologically through:

fungal hyphae physically binding particles
microbial extracellular polymers (EPS) acting as glue
root exudates stimulating microbial activity

As aggregation increases, the soil improves in:

water infiltration
pore space and aeration
erosion resistance
root penetration
drought resilience

This is why many growers can “feel” soil improvement within a few years when biological activity is high.

Why Decadal Soil Development Is Plausible

Traditional statements about soil taking thousands of years usually refer to fully developed soil profiles under slow geologic weathering. But modern evidence supports that early soil formation can proceed rapidly when:

biological activity is high
parent material is reactive
vegetation establishes quickly
erosion is controlled
carbon inputs are consistent

So, time matters, but biology often controls the rate—especially in early pedogenesis.³

Picture: Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research 2020. The New Zealand Soils Portal. https://doi.org/10.26060/3nyh-mh28

What This Means for Organic and Regenerative Production

Organic and regenerative systems often accelerate soil development because they intentionally support the same drivers that build soil in nature:

living roots longer during the year (cover crops, perennials)
high biomass carbon inputs (residue retention, mulches)
reduced disturbance where possible
organic amendments that stimulate microbial activity

When we manage for biology, we aren’t “creating soil out of thin air.” But we are increasing the processes that build soil structure, nutrient retention, and resilience faster than many people expect.

Bottom Line

Soil formation is not just slow geology. It is an active biological process. Under the right conditions, the early stages of pedogenesis—weathering, organic matter accumulation, clay development, and aggregation—can produce measurable improvements in soil function within decades, and sometimes even sooner.

That’s encouraging science for anyone trying to rebuild soil health on real farms in real time.

References

Soil formation overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_formation ↩︎
Volcanic ash soils and rapid stabilization: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3072 ↩︎
Soil formation factors (Landcare Research NZ): https://soils.landcareresearch.co.nz/topics/understanding-soils/how-do-soils-form ↩︎

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!

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

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

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 ↩︎

From the Field: Choosing Wheat for Organic Systems

On Thursday, November 13th, Dr. Brandon Gerrish, State Extension Small Grain Specialist planted our first Texas Organic Wheat Variety Trial at Todd Vranac’s certified organic farm in Rule, Texas. This test is an opportunity to evaluate wheat lines under authentic organic production conditions. This irrigated farm, managed organically over many seasons, offers an environment that conventional research plots often cannot replicate.

Wheat trials help us look at agronomic traits of wheat as well as evaluate our production systems in organic!

Each variety in the trial allows us to observe how wheat responds when relying on soil biology for nutrient cycling, competing with weeds without herbicides, and performing under the constraints of organic fertility sources. As organic wheat acreage expands in Texas, field-based evaluations like this are essential for identifying varieties that align with the agronomic realities of organic systems and for improving the recommendations available to growers.

Why Organic Variety Testing Isn’t Optional

One of the most important conversations I’ve had this year was with Dr. Jackie Rudd, Dr. Gerrish and the TAMU wheat breeding team this past August at the Small Grain Breeding Group meeting. We talked about the gap that still exists between conventional breeding and organic production, and why organic growers need data generated in organic fields.

The traits that matter most in organic systems differ from what many conventional trials measure. Organic producers need wheat that can do things like:

1. Emerge from deeper planting depths

Organic growers often plant deeper to reach moisture and to make mechanical weed control possible. With deeper rooting we can use rotary hoes or tine weeders to take our early season weeds and start cleaner. But many modern semi-dwarfs simply don’t have the coleoptile length to handle that depth. Lines with longer coleoptiles or alternative dwarfing genes (like Rht8) stand a better chance of thriving in these conditions.

2. Fight disease with genetics, not chemistry

Stripe rust, leaf rust, stem rust, Fusarium head blight, BYDV—these aren’t just occasional threats in organic wheat. Without fungicides, genetic resistance to disease becomes the primary protection for diseases. Multi-gene and adult-plant resistance are particularly valuable.

3. Use nutrients efficiently through the soil microbiome

Organic wheat depends on soil biology to help acquire nutrients. Varieties with strong root systems, mycorrhizal associations, and efficient nutrient uptake consistently do better in slow-release, biological systems. Traits like enhanced nitrate transporter activity or strong remobilization of nutrients during grain fill make a visible difference in yield.

4. Outcompete weeds

Early vigor, aggressive tillering, and a fast-closing canopy are necessary to yield production. These are the traits that help organic wheat shade out early warm season weeds and other winter annuals long before the weeds become yield-limiting.

5. Deliver high-quality grain for a premium market

Organic buyers want protein, strong gluten, good milling quality, low DON (a mycotoxin), and consistency. They also increasingly look for functional food traits like higher mineral content (iron, zinc, even selenium). The right variety can put an organic grower into a higher-value market.

This Year’s Trial

The trial this year includes a mix of public and private genetics—everything from long-standing varieties like TAM 114 and Smith’s Gold to experimental Oklahoma and Texas lines, plus new materials such as Green Hammer, Paradox, High Cotton, and Guardian. Click the link below to see the trial information.

Wheat Variety Trial in Excel

Organic tests like this will help answer important questions about how “conventional varieties” preform growing under organic conditions:

Which varieties take off fast enough to hold back early weeds?
Which can take advantage of irrigation while still operating under organic nutrient constraints?
Which lines show strong fall vigor and winter hardiness?
Which have the disease packages organic growers rely on?
Which varieties convert organic fertility into grain yield the most efficiently?

Organic Grower Research is Very Important!

Hosting a trial like this requires commitment, and I’m grateful for Todd Vranac’s willingness to put research into his organic acres. Organic agriculture depends on exactly this kind of farmer-researcher collaboration because:

It takes place under the conditions organic growers actually face.
Weather, weeds, fertility, and soil biology are real—not simulated.
It gives producers confidence that variety recommendations apply to their own operations.
It builds a shared knowledge base across the organic community.

As we go through the season I hope to share updates from the trial, including stand counts, disease observations, and eventually yield and quality results. Organic growers across Texas need these answers, and trials like this give us the data to make better variety recommendations year after year.

Testing varieties in organic fields doesn’t just improve one season’s crop. It strengthens the long-term resilience of organic grain production in the Southern Plains. And it helps breeders refine the traits that matter most for growers working in biologically driven systems.

Other Resources:

Organic Isn’t Just a Production System—It’s a Promise!

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.