sustainability – Page 4 – Texas A&M AgriLife Organic

Breeding Better Organic Wheat: Traits That Matter for Organic and Regenerative Farms

As organic acreage grows across Texas and the U.S., it’s time we ask an important question: What traits do organic and regenerative wheat producers actually need in a variety?

The answer isn’t just about yield—it’s about resilience, efficiency, and the ability to thrive without synthetic inputs. Whether you’re an organic farmer relying on compost and cover crops or a regenerative grower working to build soil carbon and ecological health, wheat varieties bred for conventional systems often fall short. Here’s a breakdown of some critical traits we should prioritize in organic wheat variety development—and why they matter.

1. Strong Coleoptile and Deep Emergence

In dryland and low-input systems, farmers often plant deeper to chase moisture and to enable mechanical weed control like a rotary hoe. That practice demands wheat with a longer, stronger coleoptile—the protective sheath that helps the shoot push through soil. Many modern semi-dwarf wheats can’t make that journey from 2 to 3 inches deep. Instead, we need varieties with alternative dwarfing genes (like Rht8) or taller, lodging-resistant lines that emerge powerfully and uniformly even under crusted or variable moisture conditions.

Why it matters: Deep emergence helps ensure a strong start under tough conditions—especially important in organic systems where chemical seed treatments and quick-acting herbicides aren’t an option.

2. Broad-Spectrum Disease Resistance

Organic growers don’t have many options to clean up a bad wheat infection. That’s why durable, multi-pathogen resistance is a non-negotiable trait in organic wheat breeding. We need lines that can hold up against stripe rust, leaf rust, stem rust, Fusarium head blight, and barley yellow dwarf virus—especially in diverse rotations that include organic corn or sorghum.

Why it matters: Disease pressure isn’t just about yield—it also affects food safety (mycotoxins) and grain marketability. Genetic resistance is the organic grower’s best line of defense.

3. Microbiome-Friendly Roots and Efficient Nutrient Use

One of the quiet revolutions in organic systems is how we manage fertility through biology—not bags of synthetic nitrogen. The root-microbe relationship is central to that. We need wheat that partners well with beneficial microbes like mycorrhizal fungi and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), especially for phosphorus and nitrogen uptake.

Traits like deep, fibrous root systems, high root exudation of sugars, enhanced nitrate transporter activity, and better nitrogen remobilization during grain fill could help wheat thrive in compost- and cover crop-based fertility systems.

Why it matters: Better nutrient use efficiency means stronger growth, better yields, and lower costs—without synthetic inputs.

4. Early Vigor and Weed Suppression

Weeds remain one of the most stubborn and expensive challenges in organic wheat production. Varieties that germinate quickly, tiller early, and develop dense leaf canopies can choke out weeds before they become a problem. Even row spacing and planting patterns can influence early shading and weed pressure.

Why it matters: A wheat variety that can suppress weeds is like adding a layer of insurance to your management strategy. It’s also a cornerstone of regenerative systems that seek to reduce tillage and maintain ground cover.

5. Grain Quality That Meets Market Needs

Organic grain buyers are looking for more than just “certified organic” on the label. They want wheat that meets or exceeds conventional food-grade quality benchmarks: high protein, strong gluten, low DON (vomitoxin) levels, and even enhanced nutritional traits like zinc, selenium, or antioxidant levels.

There’s also room to breed for emerging markets—heritage wheats, lower-gluten lines for sensitive consumers, or varieties with higher polyphenol and mineral content.

Why it matters: Organic wheat that delivers consistent quality keeps buyers coming back—and supports a fair price for growers.

Building a Breeding Program That Serves Organic and Regenerative Agriculture

Organic and regenerative agriculture aren’t “alternative” anymore—they’re growing sectors with distinct needs. Yet most wheat breeding is still tailored to high-input systems. It’s time to run trials under organic conditions, invite organic advisors into the selection process, and actively pursue traits that benefit biologically based systems.

Breeding for organic systems isn’t just good for organic farmers. It’s good for all farmers looking to reduce inputs, build resilient cropping systems, and respond to environmental and consumer demands.

Launching a New Chapter in Alfalfa Water Research

Yme Bosma 55-acre alfalfa field near Rising Star, Texas

In the heart of Central Texas, just outside May, we’ve begun an exciting research collaboration with Yme Bosma Dairy—a family-run dairy that relies on homegrown forage to feed their high-producing herd. This project centers on a 55-acre alfalfa field managed under a center pivot irrigation system, and our goal is straightforward but critical: improve the way we grow and water alfalfa in drought-prone environments like ours.

Why Focus on Alfalfa and Water?

Alfalfa is a high-value, nutrient-rich forage crop widely used in dairy systems, especially organic dairies. But it’s also water-intensive, and in regions like Central Texas or even Texas in general, where every drop counts, managing water wisely isn’t optional—it’s essential.

We’re not just asking “How much water is used?”—we’re digging deeper:

Can we grow more forage with less water?
Can we use in-field sensors and aerial data to guide irrigation decisions?
Can we improve the crop coefficient (Kc) used in scheduling tools, making them more accurate for this region?

Field Setup: A Unique Design for Real-World Impact

Pierce Center Pivot with app-based control

The project field is irrigated by a Pierce center pivot, managed by Dyson Irrigation using app-based controls. What makes this setup unique is how we’ve divided the field. Rather than square or rectangular plots, we’ve created 10-degree radial swaths that fan out from the center of the pivot pad—like slices of a pie. Each wedge can be irrigated differently by adjusting the pivot’s speed, allowing us to simulate a range of water conditions all within one field.

These swaths have been geolocated precisely, so we know exactly where each biosample or soil moisture sensor reading comes from. Though the field layout map is a great visual aid, our true experimental plots are mapped in GIS with accurate GPS coordinates for each treatment zone.

This project includes a lot of folks but is coordinated by the Digital Agriculture Group out of the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center in Corpus Christi – Digital Agriculture. The group is led by Dr. Mahendra Bhandari and his team of researchers and students, all very hard workers!

Tools and Technology: Ground to Sky

What makes this project especially powerful is the technology behind it. We’ve installed three-foot-long soil moisture sensors (Goanna Ag) in each plot to monitor how deeply water penetrates and how long it stays available to the plant. These in-situ sensors give us real-time feedback at the root zone—a critical layer for alfalfa, especially in hot summer months.

In addition to ground sensors, we’re collecting UAS (drone) imagery every 15–20 days, paired with high-resolution satellite imagery. These tools will help us develop:

A GPS receiver to geolocate the different areas for monitoring.

Evapotranspiration maps showing water use across the field
Biomass prediction models based on imagery
Real-time irrigation scheduling tools using soil moisture and crop stage

All of this data funnels into decision-support models like SEBAL (Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land) and artificial neural networks, which help us simulate and optimize irrigation in silage alfalfa production.

Yme Bosma alfalfa ready to cut. The field is cut, wilted for a few hours and then chopped for silage.

What We Hope to Deliver

This is just the beginning. Over the next growing seasons, we aim to provide:

A better understanding of alfalfa water use and crop coefficients in Central Texas
New irrigation scheduling recommendations tailored for silage production
Biomass yield maps and stress indicators derived from aerial data
Practical insights for dairies and forage growers seeking to optimize yield while conserving water

This project is part of a broader effort to make alfalfa a more drought-resilient crop, and we’re excited to share what we learn with farmers, agronomists, and researchers across Texas and beyond.

This research is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture award number 2023-70005-41080 (Drought Resilient Alfalfa Production (D-RAP) Using Digital Agriculture and Machine Learning) with a joint collaboration between Kansas State University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension.

Stay tuned—we’ll be posting updates after each harvest, including images, early data trends, and insights from the field.

Texas Organic Agriculture Surges Forward with National Recognition

TOPP Impact Report Underscores Texas Leadership in Organic Milk, Cotton, and Peanuts

As national organic food sales soar past $71 billion, Texas is emerging as a dominant force in organic agriculture, bolstered by strategic investment from the USDA’s Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP). According to TOPP’s newly released 2024 Impact Report, over 3,800 new operations have been certified nationwide, and Texas producers are taking the lead in organic innovation, acreage growth, and market share.

Texas is now home to more than 448 certified organic farms and over 611 organic handlers, producing across 580,000 acres in at least 88 counties. The Lone Star State ranks No. 1 nationally in organic milk, cotton, and peanut production — a testament to the state’s diversified and growing organic economy.

In 2019, Texas organic agriculture generated $424 million in sales and nearly $939 million in total economic output. By 2025, projections indicate the sector will contribute more than $1.4 billion in statewide economic output and support nearly 12,500 jobs, with a compound annual growth rate of 7% that mirrors national trends.

“Texas isn’t just keeping up—we’re leading,” said Bob Whitney, Organic Program Specialist with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. “From dairy and peanuts in the west to vegetables and rice in the south and east, organic producers across Texas are creating real jobs, feeding local communities, and demonstrating what’s possible when farmers get the support they need.”

TOPP, launched in 2022 as part of the USDA Organic Transition Initiative, has helped hundreds of producers nationwide navigate the complex path to organic certification through mentorship, technical assistance, and community networks. Texas producers have benefited through local TOPP training events, bilingual outreach, and one-on-one mentoring that is helping new farmers transition more successfully and more sustainably.

As part of the six-region national framework, TOPP’s Southwest region includes a coalition of regional organizations and universities—including Texas A&M AgriLife Extension—that provide tailored support to Texas producers. Nationally, more than 260,000 acres have been added to certified organic production through the program’s efforts.

Texas’s success stands out even as some regions of the U.S. experience flat or declining organic acreage. Experts credit the state’s focused approach—blending grassroots mentoring, university-led research, and Extension outreach—for enabling sustainable growth.

TOPP’s report also highlights growing consumer demand: 88% of Americans recognize the USDA Organic label, and nearly 60% believe it justifies higher prices, creating strong economic incentives for Texas farmers to meet that demand domestically.

“TOPP is about more than transitioning farms—it’s about building community, restoring soil, and securing food systems,” said Whitney. “And here in Texas, it’s working.”

To learn more:
Full report: https://organictransition.org/impact-report

Organic Beef Demand is on the rise!

Organic Beef is Booming: Why Texas Ranchers Should Take Notice

Organic beef is no longer a niche product—it’s a fast-growing category with powerful momentum. According to the Organic Trade Association’s 2024–2025 Organic Market Report, organic beef sales surged 36.7% last year. That’s the highest growth rate of any food category—and the most significant gain in the organic beef market in 20 years.

This demand is fueled by consumers looking for:

Clean, hormone- and antibiotic-free protein
Animal welfare
Environmental stewardship

However, much of this market is currently being supplied by imports—primarily from Australia and Uruguay. That’s where Texas ranchers come in.

Texas Has the Cattle—Now It Has more Processors

Texas leads the nation in cattle production, yet very few certified organic beef operations have emerged in the state. The reason? Lack of access to certified organic meat processing facilities.

That’s now changing.

Two Texas processors are leading the way:

All Hale Meats near Wolfforth, close to Lubbock
Huse’s Country Meats in Malone, TX (east of Hillsboro)

Huse’s, a long-standing family-owned processor known for quality smoked meats, has recently become certified organic, thanks in part to rancher Larry Widman of Leafy Creek Farm. Larry helped initiate and complete the certification process so he could market his own beef—and he continues to assist other ranchers with organic slaughter scheduling.

To schedule your organic cattle for processing:
📧 widman@leafycreekfarm.com
📱 325-330-2170

Modeling Success: Open Range Beef in Nebraska

Texas ranchers can look to Open Range Beef in Nebraska as a blueprint. Run by Tim Goodnight, this company processes and markets organic beef across multiple channels—from retail and foodservice to private label and club stores. Their success proves that domestic supply chains can work—when producers and processors are aligned.

Contact Tim Goodnight 🌐 openrangebeef.com

Why Texas Is Ideal for Organic Beef

Texas has a unique opportunity:

Abundant native rangeland well-suited to low-input, organic grazing
Proximity to two certified organic processors
A central location to serve local, regional, and statewide markets

With the infrastructure in place, ranchers can now tap into the fastest-growing sector in organic food.

One potential outlet is Pederson’s Natural Farms in Hamilton, TX, known for high-quality natural meats. As supply increases, retailers like Pederson’s—and others—can become key distribution points for Texas-grown organic beef.

Could Tariffs and Trade Changes Open the Door Further?

While Australia and Uruguay currently supply a large share of organic beef imports, this supply chain is vulnerable to:

Global trade shifts
Export restrictions
Increased transportation costs
Potential U.S. tariffs on imported meat

As U.S. policymakers and trade organizations review food security and prioritize resilient domestic supply chains, we may see fewer imports and greater opportunities for U.S.-based production. That’s good news for ranchers with the capacity to go organic—and for consumers looking for American-grown, organic, and ethically raised meat.

Next Steps for Ranchers

If you’re in Texas and run a cow-calf, grass-fed, or finished beef operation, now is the time to:

Explore organic certification of your pastures and practices.
Connect with a certified processor like Huse’s or All Hale Meats.
Develop local markets—co-ops, farm stores, health food outlets, and online direct-to-consumer sales.

This isn’t just about beef—it’s about building a more local, more ethical, and more profitable Texas-based food system.

What the Haney Test Revealed: Biological Benefits of Cover Crops in Action

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about what cover crops like Sunn Hemp, Tepary Bean, and Cowpea leave behind in the soil and how their nutrient contributions stack up in standard soil tests. But it wasn’t until we looked at the Haney Soil Test results from March 2025 that we could truly see the biological influence each of these summer cover crops had on the soil. In this post, I’m sharing new insights drawn from those results and why I believe every grower should consider this test when evaluating cover crop performance.

Why the Haney Test?

Unlike standard chemical soil tests that only measure nutrient availability, the Haney Test adds a biological lens. It measures microbial respiration (CO₂-C), available organic nitrogen (Haney N), and gives an overall Soil Health Score. These indicators help us understand how biologically active the soil is and how much of the nutrients are likely to cycle into plant-available forms.

For organic and sustainable systems, this is vital. We’re not just feeding the crop—we’re feeding the soil.

All Plots Started Equal

Just to set the stage: all test plots had a rye cover crop terminated in early spring 2024 and were kept bare and weed-free through summer. The only difference among plots came when Sunn Hemp, Tepary Bean, or Cowpea was planted in August 2024. The check plot remained bare.

The Biological Winners and Stragglers

Here’s what the Haney Test results (click here to see reports) show:

Sunn Hemp had the highest CO₂-C (43.21 ppm), strong Haney N (74.74 lbs/ac), and the highest Soil Health Score (9.41). It fed the microbes and left behind a soil system ready to cycle nutrients. If you’re planting a high-demand crop like corn or grain sorghum, Sunn Hemp sets the table biologically.
Cowpea followed closely with a CO₂-C of 32.08 ppm, Haney N of 71.50 lbs/ac, and a Soil Health Score of 7.80. Reliable, balanced, and consistent—it’s a solid choice for improving soil function while conserving moisture and nutrients.
Tepary Bean, despite good forage quality and tissue N content (3.02%), showed low microbial activity (CO₂-C of 13.75 ppm) and the lowest Soil Health Score (6.43). It may decompose slower or produce compounds less favored by microbes. That’s not necessarily bad—it might serve longer-term fertility, but it’s not the best option for short-term nutrient release.
Check Plot (bare fallow) showed high mineral N (83.73 lbs/ac) and decent CO₂-C (37.14 ppm), but that’s misleading. There was no cover crop to feed soil life or cycle nutrients—just unutilized residuals from last year. Long term, this approach does not build soil health.
Click here to read a summary report – Summary of Soil Samples

What This Means for Growers

The biological boost from a cover crop can be measured and managed. Without the Haney Test, we’d only be guessing how much nitrogen or biological activity remains from cover cropping. We tell growers: don’t plant blind—use this test to make more informed fertility and management decisions.

Sunn Hemp again proved why it’s a leading summer cover crop for southern systems. Cowpea is a great second choice when water is limited or biological stimulation is still desired. Tepary Bean may have a role in longer rotations but isn’t the best for quick turnover systems.

Final Thought

We use cover crops for more than just erosion control. They’re engines of soil biology, nutrient cycling, and resilience. The Haney Test gives us a dashboard to read those engines.

If you’re not already using it, this is your sign: test for biology, not just chemistry.

Biopesticides and Biostimulants: Innovation, Challenges, and Growth

Introduction

Biopesticides and biostimulants are at the forefront of organic agriculture, offering natural solutions for pest control and plant health. While these products have gained popularity, the industry faces both opportunities and challenges as it evolves. This post explores the similarities and differences between biopesticides and biostimulants, their regulatory landscape, and what the future holds for these technologies.

Defining Biopesticides and Biostimulants

First let’s look at Biopesticides

Biopesticides are derived from natural materials, including microorganisms, plants, and minerals, to control pests and diseases. They function through competition, antibiosis, or physiological disruption of target organisms. Biopesticides as a category are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as is detailed below!

Types of Biopesticides:

Microbial Biopesticides: Contain beneficial bacteria, fungi, viruses, or protozoa that suppress pests (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis Bt for caterpillar control).
Biochemical Biopesticides: Utilize plant extracts, pheromones, and essential oils to affect pest behavior or physiology. For example, Thyme oil or Neem oil would fit this category.
Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs): Genetic material introduced into plants, such as Bt proteins in genetically modified (GMO) crops. These are not to be used in organic production but are considered a biopesticide.

This image above is from the EPA website for Biopesticides. Click on the image to go to the website and check on a biopesticides registration!

How a Company Determines the Need for EPA Approval for a Biopesticide

A company developing a new biopesticide must determine if its product falls under EPA regulation by assessing the active ingredient, intended use, and mode of action. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandates that any substance intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests must be registered as a pesticide with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A company should ask the following questions to assess if its product qualifies as a biopesticide requiring EPA registration:

Does the product actively control pests, pathogens, or weeds?
- If the product claims direct pest suppression, it is a pesticide and requires EPA approval.
- If it only enhances plant health without targeting pests directly, it may qualify as a biostimulant and not require EPA registration.
What is the mode of action?
- If the product kills, inhibits, or repels pests, it is considered a pesticide.
- If the product works by stimulating plant defenses or improving nutrient uptake, it may not require registration.
Is the active ingredient a known biopesticide or plant extract?
- If the active ingredient is a microorganism, plant extract, or biochemical compound known to suppress pests, it likely needs EPA registration.
- The EPA maintains a list of registered biopesticide active ingredients, and companies should check if similar compounds are already registered.
Are pesticidal claims being made on the label?
- If the product claims pest control properties (e.g., “kills fungi,” “controls insects”), it falls under FIFRA jurisdiction and requires EPA registration.
- If the product only states benefits like “enhances plant vigor” or “improves root growth,” it may avoid registration.

Biostimulants

Biostimulants enhance plant growth, stress tolerance, and nutrient efficiency without directly targeting pests or diseases. Unlike biopesticides, they do not require EPA registration, leading to a highly unregulated market.

That said as a disclaimer there are many biostimulants that do a good job at preventing, controlling or managing for pests in crops. They can have a dual function even though they don’t have an EPA registration – a definite grey area!

Key Categories of Biostimulants:

Microbial Biostimulants: Beneficial bacteria and fungi that improve nutrient uptake and plant stress resilience.
Seaweed and Plant Extracts: Natural compounds that stimulate plant metabolism and root development.
Amino Acids and Humic Substances: Organic molecules that enhance soil health and nutrient availability.
For a complete look at biostimulants check out this post and the many different types available. Biostimulants: The Next New Frontier

This chart above (just click on it for a larger image) shows how an ISR system works in the plant. Many biostimulants are classified as ISR’s because they are used to stimulate a plant’s defense mechanisms against many pest and environmental problems. This “primed” state may last the life of a plant or more than likely needs to be reinforced through multiple applications.

This chart above (just click on it for a larger image) shows how an SAR system works in the plant. In many cases an SAR developed biostimulant will also be labeled with EPA as a biopesticide simply because it does control specific pests in the plant while boosting the plants defense mechanisms.

Similarities Between Biopesticides and Biostimulants

Both are used in sustainable and organic agriculture to reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals.
Derived from natural sources, including microorganisms and plant extracts.
Improve overall plant health, either through disease suppression (biopesticides) or enhanced resilience (biostimulants).
Can be combined with conventional or organic inputs in integrated pest and crop management (IPM/ICM).

Feature	Biopesticides	Biostimulants
Primary Purpose	Control pests and diseases	Improve plant growth and resilience
Mechanism	Directly targets pests/pathogens	Enhances plant physiological processes
Regulation	Subject to pesticide regulations (EPA, OMRI)	Less regulatory oversight, often considered soil amendments
Mode of Action	Antibiosis, competition, parasitism	Hormonal stimulation, nutrient uptake efficiency
Examples	Bacillus subtilis for fungal disease control	Seaweed extracts for drought tolerance

Industry Challenges and Regulatory Considerations

One of the biggest challenges in the biostimulant industry is the lack of clear regulations. While biopesticides undergo rigorous EPA evaluation, biostimulants can be marketed with minimal oversight. This has led to the proliferation of products with unverified claims, making it difficult for growers to differentiate effective solutions from ineffective ones.

Government agencies are actively considering regulatory frameworks for biostimulants to ensure quality control without stifling innovation. The Biostimulant Industry Alliance and other trade organizations are working to establish scientific standards and promote best practices.

Market Trends and Future Outlook

Despite challenges, the biopesticide and biostimulant markets are poised for significant growth. Market research predicts a continued rise in demand due to increasing consumer preference for organic and residue-free crops. Additionally, advancements in microbial formulations and AI-driven precision agriculture will enhance the effectiveness of these products.

Data and Charts from Industry Sources

1. Projected Market Growth of Biopesticides and Biostimulants (2020-2030)

Data Source: Market research reports from MarketsandMarkets, Mordor Intelligence, and Research and Markets.
Methodology: Extrapolation of market size based on reported CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) values of 12-15% for biopesticides and 13-16% for biostimulants from recent industry reports.

References:

MarketsandMarkets (2023). Biopesticides Market – Global Forecast 2028.
Mordor Intelligence (2023). Biostimulants Market Analysis & Forecast 2028.
Research and Markets (2023). Trends in Agricultural Biologicals.

2. Investment Trends in Biostimulant Research and Development (2015-2025)

Data Source: Reports from AgFunder, FAO, and OECD on global agricultural input investments.
Methodology: Estimation based on reported investments in biologicals, venture capital funding for agri-tech startups, and projected R&D budgets from industry leaders.

References:

AgFunder (2023). Investment in AgTech and Biostimulants.
FAO (2023). Sustainable Agriculture and Innovation Trends.
OECD (2022). Trends in Agricultural R&D.

3. Adoption Rates of Biostimulants Across Different Crop Sectors

Data Source: Surveys and adoption studies from USDA, European Biostimulant Industry Council (EBIC), and International Biostimulants Forum.
Methodology: Aggregated adoption data from industry reports and regional case studies, indicating highest adoption in vegetable and fruit production, with lower adoption in ornamentals.

References:

USDA (2023). Adoption of Biostimulants in U.S. Crop Production.
EBIC (2023). European Biostimulants Market Report.
International Biostimulants Forum (2022). Global Trends in Biological Crop Inputs.

4. Regulatory Differences Between Biopesticides and Biostimulants

Data Source: Regulations from EPA, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and USDA Organic Program.
Methodology: Comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks governing product registration, scientific validation, and market oversight for biopesticides versus biostimulants.

References:

EPA (2023). Biopesticide Registration Guidelines.
EFSA (2023). Regulatory Framework for Biostimulants in the EU.
USDA (2023). Organic Input Standards and Market Oversight.