Report to Congress: 

Specialty Crop Report

Delivered by the

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

as required by section 508(a)(6)(B) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act

Submitted November 2010

(Data current through calendar year 2009)

United States Department of Agriculture 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Stop 0801 

Washington, DC 

20250-0801

The Risk Management Agency Administers 

And Oversees All Programs Authorized Under 

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

An Equal Opportunity Employer
1

Overall participation 

in specialty crops 

programs is quite 

good at 75%. This 

compares favorably to 

the participation 

levels for the major 

program crops of 83%. 

Important fruit, nut 

and vegetable states 

California (71%),

Florida (91%), and

Washington (68%) 

each score well.

Executive Summary

The 2009 Specialty Crop Report is submitted in response to Section 508 (a)(6)(B) of the Federal 

Crop Insurance Act (Act), as amended, requiring that the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

(FCIC) report to Congress on the progress and expected timetable for expanding crop insurance 

coverage under the Act to new and specialty crops. As indicated by the requirements of the law, 

the report is a useful way to obtain a quick overview of the processes and timelines the Risk 

Management Agency (RMA) must follow in order to make new and specialty crop insurance 

products available to producers.

This report complements Participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program (Participation 

Report) submitted in accordance with Section 508(a)(7) of the Act. The Participation Report 

was prepared to assist the FCIC Board of Directors (Board) in establishing development 

priorities for the future. The Participation Report also outlined the progress that the FCIC has 

made since a comprehensive analysis was completed of the crop insurance market. As detailed 

in the Participation Report, the Board questioned whether FCIC may be nearing a saturation 

point where the potential for cost effectively adding new crop programs is limited. However, as 

new industries emerge as legitimate agricultural enterprises, RMA continually monitors the need 

for additional coverage options for these developing industries.

The growth of specialty crop programs can be measured by the frequency with which new and/or 

revised product offerings for specialty crops are considered by the Board. During calendar year 

2009 alone, the Board was presented with new or modified products for the following specialty 

commodities: apiculture, avocados, citrus, dry peas &

lentils, fresh market beans, strawberries, sugar beets, 

sugarcane, and tobacco.

Each year RMA responds to a number of commodity 

organizations and industry representatives who either 

desire a new Federal crop insurance product or an 

enhancement to the existing coverage options.

Enhancement requests often focus on revenue coverage, 

which was first made available to the major commodities 

(e.g., corn, soybeans) beginning in the mid-1990’s and 

bases coverage on values obtained from commodity 

futures exchanges. These major commodities have since 

experienced a rapid shift from yield based to revenue 

coverage over the past decade which is evidence of the 

demand for revenue coverage among agricultural 

producers. However, there is no such comparable price 

discovery mechanism for specialty crops, and therefore 

development of a viable revenue insurance product is 

much more difficult. Nevertheless, RMA remains 

committed to exploring all options for possibly providing 

revenue coverage to specialty crops.
2

For example, the Board recently approved a new revenue coverage product, Actual Revenue 

History (ARH), for cherries, navel oranges and strawberries. Given its design, the ARH product 

is most appropriate for fresh fruit and perishable commodities. Conversely, the applicability of 

ARH beyond this niche can be problematic because basic assumptions of the ARH design are 

violated.

In considering new crop programs designed to benefit specialty crop producers, RMA and the 

Board are faced with the challenge of allocating limited resources across competing interests. 

This task has become more challenging given the requirements of Office of Management and 

Budget Memorandum, “Budget Discipline for Agency Administrative Actions”, dated May 23, 

2005, commonly known as PAYGO requirements, and RMA’s relatively static operational 

budget. Further, expanding existing specialty crop programs to additional growing areas also 

requires meeting PAYGO requirements because these expansions are discretionary actions.

Thus, without a corresponding reduction, or savings, in another part of the crop insurance 

program or in another USDA program, new and/or expanded programs cannot be implemented 

because funding is not available.

Low participation, high loss ratios, and program design limitations learned through the pilot 

program process have resulted in the Board terminating several crop insurance programs.

Program terminations over the past several years include: crambe, processing cucumbers, fresh 

market beans, raspberries, blackberries, sweet potatoes, and winter squash.

Specialty Crop Definition

The term “specialty crops” is a broad term that is defined differently throughout government. 

Historically, RMA has reported program participation levels based on the following ten major 

crops: barley, corn, grain sorghum, peanuts, potatoes, rice, soybeans, tobacco, upland cotton, and 

wheat. All other crops have often been referred to

as specialty crops; however, this classification is no 

longer consistent with legislation.

The Agricultural Economic Assistance Act of 2001 

defined specialty crops as “any agricultural crop, 

except wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, 

peanuts and tobacco.” This broad definition led to 

various interpretations by Federal agencies and 

state governments. The definition of specialty 

crops was refined in the Specialty Crops

Competitiveness Act of 2004 (SCCA) as “fruits 

and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery 

crops (including floriculture)”. This definition was 

further refined in the Food, Conservation and 

Energy Act of 2008 by the inclusion of 

“horticulture and” in front of the word “nursery” in 

the SCCA definition.
3

For the purpose of this report, the more narrow definition from the Food, Conservation and 

Energy Act of 2008 is used. The Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) and AGR-Lite plans of 

insurance also provide specialty crop coverage. Although it is possible to insure virtually any 

crop under these two insurance products, the target niche of the AGR portfolio, as well as the 

bulk of current participation, is within the specialty crop segment.

Appendix A Tables 1 and 2 contain a listing of specialty crops as provided by USDA. These 

tables also depict each crop’s status within the Federal crop insurance program and denote

individual crop coverage separately from whole farm AGR coverage. This list is not intended to 

be all-inclusive, but rather is intended to give examples of the most common crops.

New Product Development Process

The Act has established two pathways for the development of new crop insurance programs; 

internal products developed under contract and external products submitted through the 

procedures in section 508(h) of the Act. Once the program materials are developed, both the 

internal and external products undergo the same approval process. The approval process 

includes a great deal of oversight, is intensive and can take up to a year to complete.

Section 522(e)(4) of the Act prohibits new product research and development by the FCIC 

stating: “...on and after October 1, 2000, the Corporation shall not conduct research and 

development for any new policy for an agricultural commodity offered under this subtitle.” 

Instead Section 522(c) of the Act provides contracting authority stating: “the Corporation may 

enter into contracts to carry out research and development.”

Section 508(h) of the Act provides a mechanism whereby a private sector entity can propose an 

insurance plan to be added to the FCIC portfolio of products stating: “...a person (including an 

approved insurance provider, a college or university, a cooperative or trade association, or any 

other person) may prepare for submission or propose to the Board other crop insurance policies 

and provisions of policies; and rates of premiums for multiple peril crop insurance...”

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provided for an enhancement to the 508(h) 

process whereby the Board can choose to approve an advance partial payment for the 

development of a new product. Section 522(b)(2)(A) states “...the Board may approve the 

request of an applicant for advance payment of a portion of reasonable research and development 

costs prior to submission and approval of the policy by the Board under section 508(h).”

508(h) products approved by the Board are generally eligible for federal subsidies; and the 

private submitter is eligible for reimbursement of the development cost. If the private submitter 

continues to provide support for the product, they are eligible to bill for maintenance costs during 

an initial four year period. They can, at any point, relinquish support of the product thus 

surrendering any additional year’s maintenance fees.

All new products must be approved by the Board through a rigorous set of procedures. The 

initial step in the approval process is to submit complete program materials – policies, actuarial

materials, etc. – to the Board. The Board then must choose whether or not to move the product
4

forward for an independent external review. The external reviewers are selected by the Board 

from a pre-approved pool of applicants with professional knowledge and experience in crop 

insurance principles and actuarial science. Generally, five reviewers are selected for each 

proposed product.

Each reviewer will typically highlight areas of potential weakness or suggested improvement 

within the product. It is incumbent upon RMA or the private submitter to address the issues 

identified by the external reviews. Once these issues have been addressed, the product is eligible 

to return before the Board for approval. In certain instances the issues raised by the external 

reviewers may require substantial program changes, in which case the product must be reviewed 

for a second time.

The speed at which a product progresses through the approval and implementation process is 

contingent upon many factors. The most critical factor, however, is the quality and thoroughness 

of the submission package presented to the Board, and the responsiveness of the submitter to 

issues raised by the Board and the reviewers.

Approved products are generally implemented as pilot programs and are not published in the 

Federal Register. The Act provides pilot authority as a mechanism to test either new insurance 

designs or to cover crops which were previously uninsurable in the program. Section 523(a)(1) 

of the Act states: “...the Corporation may conduct a pilot program submitted to and approved by 

the Board under section 508(h), or that is developed under subsection (b) or section 522, to 

evaluate whether a proposal or new risk management tool tested by the pilot program is suitable 

for the marketplace and addresses the needs of producers of agricultural commodities.”

Legislation also prohibits FCIC from offering a pilot program that would compete with coverage 

that is already generally available in the private sector. The Act states: ”...the Corporation shall 

not conduct any pilot program that provides insurance protection against a risk if insurance 

protection against the risk is generally available from private companies.”

Pilot programs are sometimes limited in scope so that during the pilot phase the program can be 

tested for effectiveness while limiting exposure. Pilot programs are more adaptable than 

permanent programs because changes can be made without going through the full regulatory 

process which involves a proposed and final rule. If proposed pilot changes are material in 

nature they require formal Board action.

Pilot programs generally operate for four years, but this period could be longer in order to allow 

maximum flexibly to test and enhance a new product. During this pilot period the program is 

monitored by RMA to assess whether the program is operating as intended and make 

adjustments as needed to assure program viability. At the conclusion of the pilot period the 

program is evaluated by an independent third party contractor. The review as well as RMA’s 

assessment is offered to the Board. At that time the Board has full latitude to: a) extend the pilot 

program for additional years; b) authorize conversion of the program to regulatory; or c) 

terminate the program.
5

Internal Development of Products for Specialty Crops

In recent years several notable specialty crop programs have been developed through the internal 

procedure and authority and approved by the Board for implementation.

Quarantine Endorsement Pilot Program

Beginning with crop year 2011, quarantine coverage is available to citrus and avocado growers 

in the state of California. This product originated from the concerns of various commodity 

organizations who have expressed interest in an insurance program to cover losses due to 

quarantines imposed by a duly authorized regulatory body, such as the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS).

The Act limits insurance coverage to loss of production attributable to natural perils or for 

revenue plans, adverse price movement. Under the statute, RMA has a narrow authority to cover 

production loss due to quarantine. Specifically, only quarantine coverage due to a natural pest or 

disease is eligible for consideration. The core quarantine area is defined as the area infected or 

having a high likelihood to become infected, compartmentalized by the authorized regulatory 

authority and supported through science.

Production losses attributed to pest infestation, disease, or a declared qualifying quarantine 

which limits or prohibits harvest, and the ability to transport the insured crop, embody the 

coverage offered under this endorsement. RMA cannot cover economic losses due to missed 

marketing opportunities caused by quarantine for crop production not damaged. Additionally, to 

be eligible for an indemnity a grower must follow best management practices to preserve the 

crop during the quarantine period. The coverage will not compensate the grower for these 

potential additional costs.

Actual Revenue History (ARH) Pilot

The ARH insurance design has many parallels to 

the widely available Actual Production History 

(APH) Plan of Insurance, with the primary 

difference being that instead of insuring historical 

yields, this plan insures historical revenues.

Beginning in crop year 2009 an ARH program for 

cherries was approved by the Board.

Subsequently, ARH programs for citrus (navel 

oranges) and strawberries were approved with 

coverage beginning in crop year 2011 and 2012, 

respectively.

Providing revenue coverage to crops that lack a 

public, centralized price discovery mechanism 

such as a commodity futures exchange is 

exceedingly challenging. Current FCIC revenue

ARH-Cherry Participation

The ARH-Cherry pilot program was 

implemented for crop year 2009.

Participation in the first year program was 

strong with almost 1,750 polices sold; this 

represents a slight increase to the policy count 

from the 2008 crop year in the now 

terminated pilot dollar plan of insurance.

Over 50,000 acres of cherries were insured for 

crop year 2009. Washington leads the way 

with approximately 23, 000 acres insured 

followed by California at just over 20,000 

acres. These two largest cherry producing 

states had participation scores of 70% and 

75%, respectively.
6

coverages (Revenue Assurance (RA) and Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC)) use a futures price to 

provide intra-season price protection. A predetermined methodology is used to develop the 

projected harvest price prior to planting, based on the harvest futures contract (December corn 

futures on the Chicago Board of Trade). This same contract is later used to determine the actual 

harvest price for the commodity during the harvest period. These prices are used to calculate a 

grower guarantee and determine any potential grower indemnity.

ARH is different than this traditional FCIC revenue coverage in that it guarantees an average of 

historical grower revenues. Like other revenue coverage, the ARH plan does not intend to 

provide inter-season price protection because doing so will allow for adverse selection.

However, for perishable crops, stocks are not carried over across growing seasons so, absent 

significant supply or demand shocks, expected prices remain relatively stable across years. In 

this environment, an average of historical prices (or grower revenues) is a reasonable predictor of 

future prices (or grower revenues). The ARH plan provides for an adjustment mechanism in the 

event that a significant market change or “shock” is observed prior to the sales closing date. It is 

believed that this adjustment will be relatively rare for fresh market, perishable crops.

The ARH niche may be best determined by examining all available pricing information. In 

general the initial ARH commodities share common pricing traits:

 The overall availability of price information is thin, thus limiting a grower’s ability to 

select against the offer.

 Growers do not possess additional price information through a contracting arrangement 

or some other micro level outlet.

Regional Offices

Educational efforts are an 

important component to the 

delivery of crop insurance and are 

especially important for first year 

programs. From a grower 

perspective, the RMA Regional 

Offices are the face of the 

organization and play a critical

role in these efforts. During the 

ARH-Cherry pilot program 

implementation these offices 

sponsored grower training 

sessions to promote education and 

assist growers through this 

transition year.
7

 Grower harvest price will likely be a function of the overall production of the region, 

often inversely correlated.

The short term average of historical prices is a reasonable predictor for future prices.

For fresh market, perishable crops, an average of historical revenues can provide a reasonable 

estimate of expected future revenues, and therefore serve as the basis for the insurance guarantee. 

This is the conceptual basis for the ARH program design. However, for other crops (e.g., 

storable commodities, etc.) this assumption is less tenable.

Private Sector Initiatives for Specialty Crops

Section 508(h) of the Act authorizes the FCIC to reimburse private entities for research, 

development, and maintenance costs if they develop an insurance program that is approved by 

the Board. In recent years several new specialty crop programs have originated utilizing this 

developmental pathway.

Processing Pumpkins

Approved for the 2009 crop year with coverage available in 11 counties in Illinois. 

Provides APH based coverage for irrigated and non-irrigated processing pumpkins. 

Pumpkins must be grown under contract with a processor.

The program potentially covers 95 percent of all processing pumpkin production.

Apiculture

 Approved for the 2009 crop year with coverage available in Alabama, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

A group risk program that insures honey production.

 Uses the same indexes, technology, methodology, and rating methods that are currently

being used for the Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) Rainfall Index and Vegetation 

Index pilot programs.

o The Rainfall Index is based on weather data collected and maintained by National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center. 

The index reflects how much precipitation is received relative to the long-term 

average for a specified area and timeframe.

o The Vegetation Index is based on the U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Resources 

Observation and Science normalized difference vegetation index data derived 

from satellites observing long-term

changes in greenness of vegetation.

 Honey production was demonstrated to be 

directly dependent upon forage 

growth/productivity, which is the basis for 

the PRF pilot programs.
8

Plantain and Banana

 Approved for the 2009 crop year with coverage available in 

Puerto Rico only.

 Only covers losses due to damage from a tropical cyclone 

classified by the National Hurricane Center in Miami as a 

hurricane.

 The program potentially covers approximately 98 percent of 

plantain and banana producers.

Sugarcane

 Approved for the 2009 crop year with coverage available 

in Louisiana.

 Group risk crop insurance plan that does not rely on an individual's actual production to 

determine whether an indemnity is due.

 Designed to provide insurance benefits comparable to other group risk crop insurance 

programs administered by FCIC.

 Uses yield and price data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and 

planted acres data from the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

 Protects against reduction in sugarcane yields occurring resulting from unavoidable 

natural events.

Fresh Market Beans

 Approved for the 2011 crop year with coverage available in New York, North Carolina 

and Virginia.

Provides Actual Production History based coverage.

 Eligible producers must provide four years of fresh market bean production records.

Planned Specialty Crop Research and Development

The FCIC is required to enter into contracts for research and development rather than directly 

performing those duties. Prior to entering into a contract for these research and development 

initiatives, RMA must consult relevant commodity organizations. These organizations provide 

RMA information with regard to producer interest in crop insurance programs as well as 

comments on policy structure or other risk management options available. If sufficient interest is 

indicated, a contract may be awarded to begin research and development for a new commodity. 

The development may be preceded by a feasibility report.

In the upcoming year, RMA plans to assess the insurance potential for a number of crops. Most 

commodity organizations seeking a FCIC pilot program for the first time request the APH plan 

of insurance because this offers the grower individual yield based coverage. However, for a 

commodity to be insurable under this plan, certain basic characteristics must be demonstrated. 

The commodity must have established cultivars, reasonably well defined farming practices,
9

developed markets and known perils. Establishing a commodity risk profile involves research 

and data collection in these areas. Typically USDA agencies, universities, commodity 

organizations and private companies provide this type of information and research.

Biofuel Crops

RMA will explore several underdeveloped crop industries that hold some potential for future 

development, especially in the biofuel arena. Insurance coverage availability may be an 

important factor to assist in the development of these industries. RMA continues to monitor the 

emergence of industries related to cellulosic ethanol production and will commission a research 

report in the near future to examine these industries.

Pistachio Nuts

RMA has initiated development of an APH program to insure pistachio nuts. A feasibility study 

on developing crop insurance for pistachios conducted in 1995 concluded that pistachios growers 

had little interest in crop insurance. While a privately available insurance product was available 

at one time, participation in the program had greatly declined. Instead, pistachio growers 

recently indicated a strong interest in a FCIC multiple peril crop insurance program. Many 

pistachios growers are diversified nuts growers who use FCIC products for other commodities.

RMA conducted a Notice of Intent to Research Feasibility/Develop Insurance for Pistachios 

during calendar year 2009 and received

several favorable comments from the 

industry.

Pistachio nuts, unlike some specialty 

commodities, do not lack for a market. 

In 2008, there were 118,000 bearing 

acres of pistachios, production was 

139,000 tons, and the pistachio utilized 

crop value was 550 million dollars. The 

majority of production occurs in 

California where pistachio nuts rank as 

the 16th largest cash value crop for the 

state and the fifth largest fruit/nut crop.

Revenue Coverage

Research and development of revenue coverage remains a high priority for RMA in the 

upcoming years. The ARH plan of insurance is the newest design to provide growers with 

revenue coverage.

RMA intends to fully utilize the pilot phase of the current ARH programs to monitor 

performance. The pilot phase is a valuable period where RMA has the opportunity to evaluate 

new program functionality and ensure that the program is operating as intended. Part of the 

process allows for an assessment of whether grower needs are being met in a fair and appropriate
10

manner. This evaluation process allows for RMA to make minor program adjustments while the 

scope is still relatively minor and the policy is not yet codified.

RMA is aware of several commodity groups that have interest in the ARH design beyond the 

crop segment where the program is currently targeted--fresh market, perishable crops. For these 

targeted perishable crops it is believed that an average of historical revenues can provide a 

reasonable estimate of expected future revenues, and therefore is the basis for the insurance 

guarantee. This is the conceptual basis for the ARH program design. However, for other crops 

(e.g., storable commodities, etc.) this assumption is less tenable. If the price is reasonably 

predictable and this projected price does not track well with a short term moving average, then 

the ARH plan is likely a poor fit.

RMA is evaluating several of these crops on an individual basis to best determine the most 

appropriate crop list for the ARH niche.

Named Peril Weather Insurance

RMA recently developed 

a new insurance design 

called Named Peril 

Weather Insurance 

(NPWI), which offers 

growers an innovative 

and unique form of 

coverage based on 

specific weather events. 

This product would 

allow individual 

producers to “select” up 

to five weather perils 

and perilous windows 

(or periods). Both the 

suite of weather perils 

insured and the 

monitoring location 

(weather stations) are 

elected by individual

producers. At sign-up, the insured defines critical time periods (start and end dates) and weather 

conditions (amounts of precipitation, temperatures, or degree-days) to be insured. Input about 

the potential extent of losses from each peril (i.e., a loss function) is also supplied by the 

producer.

This design has many attractive features, one being that many different crops could potentially 

be covered under the same design. This is an important factor in terms of development and 

maintenance costs relative to the total number of growers and crops potentially impacted. Each 

crop initially considered under this design individually comprises a small percentage of total
11

farm receipts nationally. However, collectively these twenty plus crops could impact up to onehalf billion in total farm receipts.

During the final stages of development, RMA became aware that several private sector 

companies were offering similar coverage. Under Section 523 (a) (2) of the Act “...the 

Corporation shall not conduct any pilot program that provides insurance protection against a risk 

if insurance protection against the risk is generally available from private companies.” This 

prohibition is applicable only to products developed by RMA.

These private sector companies, which traditionally offer weather based coverage options for 

other industries and/or events, are still adapting their products to meet the needs of agricultural 

producers; nonetheless this coverage was determined to be generally available. At the request of 

several private companies and in compliance with the statute, NPWI was tabled until such a time 

that it can be determined whether the private products are meeting the needs of specialty crop 

growers. RMA will continue to monitor the status of the privately available products to assess 

whether the NPWI product development can continue.

Crop Program Expansion

Federal crop insurance is administered at the county level. In some cases a regulatory crop 

insurance program may already exist, however coverage may not be available in a particular 

county. The expansion of crop programs to additional counties may become necessary, for 

example, when acreage shifts to a new growing region. Generally, crop program expansion is an 

annual event that takes place before the contract change date for the particular crop. For most 

crops, specialty crops included, the key factors in determining whether a crop program will be 

established in the county are:

significant grower interest in having insurance protection; 

the economic significance of the crop;

sufficient data on which to establish a program; 

acceptable risk assessment; and

available offsets to satisfy the PAYGO requirements.

Program expansion requests are most normally initiated by producers at the local level and 

channeled through RMA’s Regional Offices. RMA gathers production data and information to 

evaluate the requirement for actuarial sufficiency. Additional cost estimates are prepared and all

information is presented to the RMA Administrator who has authority to determine county crop 

program expansions.

While crop insurance provides producers the option to obtain more protection than through the 

Non-insured crop disaster Assistance Program (NAP), and reduces their reliance on ad hoc 

disaster assistance, expansion also increases FCIC’s discretionary and mandatory spending.

Expansions are only approved after the appropriate offsets have been determined in compliance 

with PAYGO requirements. Until a county expansion is approved, growers also have the option 

of applying for a written agreement on most regulatory programs.
12

Improving Current Specialty Crop Programs

The Participation Report suggests that continued refinement of current FCIC programs to address 

producer needs is a sound use of RMA resources and may well increase market penetration for 

these crops that already have crop insurance coverage. These refinements occur both as part of 

the product development process as well as within the regulatory process. RMA converted the 

California Avocado Program to an APH program for crop year 2010 and is in the process of 

converting the Chile Pepper Dollar Plan of Insurance to an APH program. Both conversions 

occurred as the result of a pilot program evaluation and subsequent Board action.

The regulatory process allows for program 

refinement and improvement for all crop 

programs, including specialty crops. Two 

high profile specialty crops, wine grapes and 

table grapes, were recently revised through 

the regulatory process with new policies 

going final rule for crop year 2010. Wine 

grape production has increased throughout 

the country in recent years and many varietals 

previously grown only in California are now 

produced around the country. A key feature 

of the new policy is to offer varietal coverage 

in other states similar to what was available 

in California under the previous policy.

Nursery

Nursery, by the definition in the Act is a specialty crop, and is currently entering the regulatory 

refinement process. Nursery is a far-ranging and diverse industry which challenges traditional 

crop insurance designs. Thus, the Federal crop insurance nursery program utilizes a unique 

product design. Instead of insuring a percentage of average historical production or a percentage 

of average historical revenue, typical of most FCIC products, the nursery program is an assetbased form of insurance coverage. This coverage does not include protection due to plant price 

fluctuation. Nursery crop insurance is available in all States to all persons operating nurseries 

that meet certain criteria. In crop year 2008, nationwide coverage was approximately 4 billion 

dollars with Florida as the number one state at just over 1.25 billion dollars in liability.

Nursery crop insurance is available in all States to all persons operating nurseries that meet 

certain criteria. Field grown and container grown plants are provided coverage against damage 

resulting from insurable causes of loss occurring during the insurance period. The insurable 

causes of loss are similar to those covered under multiple peril crop insurance policies which are 

most generally adverse weather events such as freeze and hurricane.

The underwriting process for nursery is intensive and detail oriented. For the 2010 crop year, 

there are approximately 25,500 insurable plants as contained on the Eligible Plant List and Plant 

Price Schedule (EPLPPS) which is published by FCIC. At application, each insured nursery
13

grower must submit a Plant Inventory Value Report (PIVR), the nursery wholesale catalog or 

price list, and a Crop Inventory Value Report (CIVR) to the insurance provider. These reports 

are used in the guarantee determination process.

RMA is currently soliciting for proposals for an evaluation of the nursery program. The 

solicitation for proposals closes in early March, 2010.

Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR)

AGR first debuted in the FCIC portfolio of products back in crop year 1999. AGR is whole farm 

revenue coverage with the guarantee derived primarily from historical farm revenue reported on 

producer tax forms. The plan provides producers with protection against low revenue from 

natural causes (production loss) and also due to market fluctuations (price decline). AGR insures 

historical income from agricultural commodities, as well as income from animals, animal 

products, and aquaculture species reared in a controlled environment. In general AGR is 

targeted at specialty crops and/or small crops which do not have individual crop coverage 

options.

There was rapid expansion of the AGR program 

during the first half of the decade and considerable 

positive momentum surrounding the plan. In addition 

to the AGR pilot plan there was a 508(h) submissionAGR-Lite which began in crop year 2003. AGR-Lite 

is very closely modeled off the AGR plan, loosening 

only a few underwriting requirements, and lessening 

the maximum amount of coverage. Participation as 

measured in policy count peaked in crop year 2003 

with just over 1000 policies earning premium. In 

recent years interest in the program has diminished 

and participation has faded to approximately 850 

policies earning premium for crop year 2008 and 

slightly fewer than 800 for crop year 2009.

RMA commissioned an independent study to determine if there were reasonable improvements 

which would increase interest in the plan. There study concluded there were many challenges 

facing AGR which include:

Producer reservations to submit tax records for insurance; 

Complex and paperwork intensive;

AGR provides a relatively low level of coverage and is often viewed as catastrophic 

coverage;

Lack of interest in whole farm coverage; and

 Delay with potential indemnities.

Many of these suggestions were difficult to implement without initiating a fundamental change 

to the AGR methodology. While RMA continues to examine possible improvements to the
14

program; it is appropriate to acknowledge AGR as a niche product. As a niche product it is 

unfair to assume AGR can provide a solution to all crops currently lacking coverage. However, 

when properly understood AGR brings value to a minor segment of the current population of 

insureds.

Summary

Managing growth, expansion and refinements to specialty crop programs within a tight 

operational budget will be a growing challenge for the Board and the leadership of RMA in the 

coming years. However, RMA has positioned itself well by developing broad concepts such as 

ARH and NPWI that have the potential to impact multiple crops using the same general concept.

As a benchmark to establish current participation rates for specialty crops, please see the 

attached RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparisons Tables and Maps. RMA acres are calculated 

using both CAT and buy-up level participation. The NASS acres were used as the complete 

population of cropped acres. In rare instances, NASS data were not published for a particular 

crop/state combination and were filled with 2007 agricultural census data. In other rare instances 

RMA acres exceeded NASS acres and the participation rate was capped at 100%. At the 

aggregate level this is only an issue for the California raisin crop where acreage reporting is 

difficult because raisins are an end use of the larger grape crop.

The first two pages display tables with aggregate information by crop and by state. The pages 

following contain a series of national maps for each crop which display state level participation 

percentages. The final pages detail the acreage amounts on a crop/state basis. Overall 

participation in specialty crops programs is quite good at 75%. This compares favorably to the 

participation levels for the major program crops of 83%. Important fruit, nut and vegetable 

states California (71%), Florida (91%), and Washington (68%) each score well. In addition, the 

north central region of the country where many of the pulse crops are grown; Minnesota (84%), 

Montana (83%), North Dakota (96%) and South Dakota (79%) all boast high participation rates.
FCIC PROGRAM GROWTH FOR SPECIALTY CROPS

Liability in Billions of Dollars by Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AGR 0.009 0.189 0.245 0.322 0.307 0.308 0.354 0.326 0.325 0.400

Vegetables 1.611 1.621 1.866 1.904 1.953 1.969 2.048 2.048 2.430 2.819

Nursery 2.357 2.599 3.006 3.283 3.598 3.888 3.674 4.010 4.037 3.187

Fruits/Trees/Nuts 3.452 3.642 3.952 3.924 4.052 4.528 5.130 5.067 5.337 6.256

Summary 7.429 8.052 9.069 9.433 9.910 10.693 11.206 11.451 12.129 12.662

Fruits/Trees/Nuts Nursery Vegetables AGR

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

FCIC Program Growth for Specialty Crops

Liability in Billions of Dollars
16

Appendix A, Table 1 – List of Plants Commonly Considered Fruits and Tree Nuts

Almond* Grape (including raisin)*

Apple* Guava**

Apricot* Kiwi**

Avocado* Litchi**

Banana* Macadamia*

Blackberry** Mango**

Blueberry* Nectarine*

Breadfruit Olive**

Cacao Papaya*

Cashew Passion fruit**

Citrus* Peach*

Cherimoya** Pear**

Cherry* Pecan*

Chestnut (for nuts)** Persimmon**

Coconut Pineapple

Coffee* Pistachio**

Cranberry* Plum (including prune)*

Currant Pomegranate**

Date** Quince**

Feijou Raspberry**

Fig* Strawberry***

Filbert (hazelnut)** Suriname cherry

Gooseberry** Walnut*

* Individual Crop Insurance Plan

** AGR Crop Insurance Plan

*** Individual Crop Insurance Plan Pending Implementation
17

Appendix A, Table 2 – A List of Plants Commonly Considered Vegetables

Artichoke** Mustard and other greens**

Asparagus** Okra**

Bean*

Snap or green 

Lima

Dry, edible

Pea*

Garden, English or edible pod

Beet, table** Onion*

Broccoli (including broccoli raab)** Opuntia

Brussels sprouts** Parsley**

Cabbage (including Chinese)** Parsnip**

Carrot** Pepper*

Cauliflower** Potato*

Celeriac** Pumpkin*

Celery** Radish (all types)**

Chive Rhubarb**

Collards (including kale)** Rutabaga**

Cucumber** Salsify

Eggplant** Spinach**

Endive** Squash (summer and winter)**

Garlic** Sweet corn*

Horseradish** Sweet potato**

Kohlrabi** Swiss chard**

Leek** Taro

Lettuce** Tomato (including tomatillo)*

Melon (all types)** Turnip**

Mushroom (cultivated)** Watermelon**

* Individual Crop Insurance Plan

** AGR Crop Insurance Plan
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Obs Crop RMA NASS Percent

30 Sweet Corn 319,746 577,795 55%

31 Table Grapes 84,691 97,000 87%

32 Tomatoes 326,893 409,250 80%

33 Tropical Fruit 3,784 8,780 43%

34 Walnuts 110,071 223,000 49%

All Crops 7,252,820 9,661,557 75%

Obs Crop RMA NASS Percent

1 Almonds 478,380 680,000 70%

2 Apples 236,756 348,200 68%

3 Apricots 7,141 12,380 58%

4 Avocados 37,781 72,500 52%

5 Blueberries 44,055 81,536 54%

6 Cabbage 13,681 70,200 19%

7 Cherries 49,384 81,910 60%

8 Chile Peppers 3,771 15,800 24%

9 Citrus Fruit 786,286 857,041 92%

10 Citrus Trees 21,144 27,300 77%

11 Cranberries 31,616 38,500 82%

12 Dry Beans 1,276,208 1,501,511 85%

13 Dry Peas 999,132 1,171,000 85%

14 Figs 6,002 9,400 64%

15 Grapes 567,492 838,310 68%

16 Green Peas 172,786 224,380 77%

17 Macadamia Nuts 11,837 15,000 79%

18 Nectarines 23,009 32,300 71%

19 Onions 80,040 160,971 50%

20 Peaches 84,354 122,609 69%

21 Pears 35,104 56,000 63%

22 Pecans 156,973 279,450 56%

23 Peppers 9,204 19,000 48%

24 Plums 21,795 29,500 74%

25 Potatoes 834,062 1,065,350 78%

26 Processing Beans 102,542 209,324 49%

27 Prunes 61,752 64,000 96%

28 Pumpkins 6,188 13,100 47%

29 Raisins 249,160 249,160 100%

--------------------------------------------

RMA acres were obtained from crop_pol_sum if 

alsofoundin the ins_product table. NASS acres were 

obtained from 2008 NASS and 2007 Census 

data sources. RMA entries with < 100 acres and 

NASS acres = 0 were removed. If RMA > NASS 

acres then NASS = RMA.
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

State RMA NASS Percent

New Jersey 15,386 33,650 46%

New Mexico 39,239 74,602 53%

New York 145,035 206,176 70%

North Carolina 25,253 47,866 53%

North Dakota 1,297,512 1,357,000 96%

Ohio 6,295 39,700 16%

Oklahoma 5,325 22,700 23%

Oregon 95,514 184,350 52%

Pennsylvania 43,420 79,300 55%

Rhode Island 520 1,600 33%

South Carolina 14,152 17,100 83%

South Dakota 21,511 27,189 79%

Tennessee 2,181 5,600 39%

Texas 111,360 216,550 51%

Utah 3,455 6,722 51%

Vermont 1,251 3,900 32%

Virginia 17,294 30,251 57%

Washington 519,303 760,630 68%

West Virginia 2,538 5,950 43%

Wisconsin 170,503 316,800 54%

Wyoming 26,346 32,350 81%

United States 7,252,820 9,661,557 75%

State RMA NASS Percent

Alabama 6,294 18,320 34%

Alaska 18 800 2%

Arizona 27,087 47,950 56%

Arkansas 1,220 3,000 41%

California 2,163,773 3,033,460 71%

Colorado 101,957 132,270 77%

Connecticut 1,866 7,100 26%

Delaware 20,163 23,812 85%

Florida 628,734 694,041 91%

Georgia 126,298 163,750 77%

Hawaii 15,621 23,780 66%

Idaho 403,216 493,605 82%

Illinois 26,337 54,297 49%

Indiana 7,124 25,500 28%

Iowa 4,178 5,550 75%

Kansas 7,568 11,321 67%

Kentucky 56 380 15%

Louisiana 76 240 32%

Maine 69,426 84,100 83%

Maryland 10,002 24,855 40%

Massachusetts 16,139 26,130 62%

Michigan 263,749 363,050 73%

Minnesota 344,184 410,600 84%

Mississippi 562 13,850 4%

Missouri 8,376 12,300 68%

Montana 291,459 350,810 83%

Nebraska 137,502 154,500 89%

Nevada 5,075 8,400 60%

New Hampshire 1,367 3,800 36%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Almonds

percent 70-79.99%

Apples

percent 0.01-9.99% 10-19.99% 20-29.99%

30-39.99% 40-49.99% 50-59.99%

60-69.99% 70-79.99% 80-89.99%

Apricots

percent 50-59.99%

Avocados

percent 30-39.99% 50-59.99%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Blueberries

percent 0.01-9.99% 20-29.99% 30-39.99%

50-59.99% 60-69.99% 70-79.99%

90-100%

Cabbage

percent 0.01-9.99% 10-19.99% 20-29.99%

30-39.99% 40-49.99% 50-59.99%

60-69.99%

Cherries

percent 30-39.99% 40-49.99% 50-59.99%

60-69.99% 70-79.99%

Chile Peppers

percent 20-29.99%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Citrus Fruit

percent 60-69.99% 70-79.99% 90-100%

Citrus Trees

percent 70-79.99%

Cranberries

percent 40-49.99% 80-89.99% 90-100%

Dry Beans

percent 20-29.99% 30-39.99% 50-59.99%

60-69.99% 70-79.99% 80-89.99%

90-100%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Dry Peas

percent 30-39.99% 60-69.99% 70-79.99%

80-89.99% 90-100%

Figs

percent 60-69.99%

Grapes

percent 0.01-9.99% 10-19.99% 20-29.99%

30-39.99% 50-59.99% 60-69.99%

70-79.99% 80-89.99%

Green Peas

percent 40-49.99% 50-59.99% 60-69.99%

70-79.99% 80-89.99% 90-100%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Macadamia Nuts

percent 70-79.99%

Nectarines

percent 70-79.99% 90-100%

Onions

percent 0.01-9.99% 20-29.99% 30-39.99%

40-49.99% 50-59.99% 70-79.99%

90-100%

Peaches

percent 10-19.99% 20-29.99% 30-39.99%

40-49.99% 50-59.99% 60-69.99%

70-79.99% 80-89.99% 90-100%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Pears

percent 10-19.99% 60-69.99%

Pecans

percent 0.01-9.99% 10-19.99% 20-29.99%

30-39.99% 40-49.99% 50-59.99%

70-79.99% 80-89.99%

Peppers

percent 40-49.99%

Plums

percent 70-79.99%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Potatoes

percent 0.01-9.99% 10-19.99% 20-29.99%

40-49.99% 50-59.99% 60-69.99%

70-79.99% 80-89.99% 90-100%

Processing Beans

percent 10-19.99% 20-29.99% 40-49.99%

50-59.99% 60-69.99% 70-79.99%

80-89.99% 90-100%

Prunes

percent 90-100%

Pumpkins

percent 40-49.99%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Raisins

percent 90-100%

Sweet Corn

percent 0.01-9.99% 10-19.99% 20-29.99%

30-39.99% 40-49.99% 50-59.99%

60-69.99% 70-79.99% 80-89.99%

90-100%

Table Grapes

percent 80-89.99%

Tomatoes

percent 0.01-9.99% 20-29.99% 30-39.99%

40-49.99% 50-59.99% 60-69.99%

70-79.99% 80-89.99%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Tropical Fruit

percent 40-49.99%

Walnuts

percent 40-49.99%
NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

Selected Crops in Acres

Almonds Apples Apricots Avocados Blueberries Cabbage Cherries

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

Alabama 320

Alaska

Arizona 809 1,200 67% 2,800

Arkansas

California 478,380 680,000 70% 8,324 19,500 43% 6,406 11,100 58% 34,887 65,000 54% 203 2,500 8% 13,900 13,122 27,000 49%

Colorado 562 1,400 40% 2,400

Connecticut 885 2,200 40%

Delaware

Florida 2,894 7,500 39% 1,130 3,000 38% 2,354 10,400 23%

Georgia 163 600 27% 4,830 9,500 51% 2,035 6,600 31%

Hawaii

Idaho 2,198 2,600 85% 1,000

Illinois 592 2,500 24% 0 400 0%

Indiana 693 2,100 33%

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine 1,534 3,100 49% 13,741 23,000 60%

Maryland 920 1,900 48%

Massachusetts 1,793 4,000 45%

Michigan 27,756 36,500 76% 11,337 18,600 61% 156 2,500 6% 4,064 7,200 56%

Minnesota 408 3,000 14%

Mississippi 230 2,700 9%

Missouri 872 1,900 46%

Montana 227 710 32%

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire 1,158 2,100 55%

(Continued)

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Chile Peppers Citrus Fruit Citrus Trees Cranberries Dry Beans Dry Peas Figs

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona 879 3,500 25% 10,923 17,300 63% 2,066 5,800 36%

Arkansas

California 214,414 270,000 79% 20,453 52,000 39% 6,002 9,400 64%

Colorado 35,489 48,000 74%

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida 542,441 542,441 100%

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho 48,078 80,000 60% 53,067 75,000 71%

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas 4,054 6,000 68%

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts 10,842 13,500 80%

Michigan 168,275 200,000 84%

Minnesota 123,547 150,000 82%

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana 7,885 11,200 70% 280,299 328,000 85%

Nebraska 123,890 135,000 92%

Nevada

New Hampshire

(Continued)
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Grapes Green Peas Macadamia Nuts Nectarines Onions Peaches Pears

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

Alabama 1,465 2,500 59%

Alaska

Arizona 1,500

Arkansas 123 700 18% 232 1,300 18%

California 474,194 689,000 69% 21,711 31,000 70% 3,008 47,000 6% 43,039 56,000 77% 10,288 15,000 69%

Colorado 109 1,170 9% 6,104 8,000 76% 1,269 2,300 55%

Connecticut 50 400 13%

Delaware 3,935 5,600 70%

Florida

Georgia 11,305 12,000 94% 8,111 9,500 85%

Hawaii 11,837 15,000 79%

Idaho 827 1,490 56% 6,136 6,136 100% 3,413 8,800 39% 765 1,200 64%

Illinois 7,309 9,500 77% 841 1,600 53%

Indiana

Iowa 1,296 1,350 96%

Kansas 321 321 100%

Kentucky 56 380 15%

Louisiana 76 240 32%

Maine

Maryland 2,388 2,925 82% 315 580 54%

Massachusetts 139 430 32%

Michigan 11,622 14,200 82% 1,604 2,650 61% 2,289 4,000 57% 2,439 4,300 57%

Minnesota 68,902 74,800 92%

Mississippi 124 650 19%

Missouri 91 1,500 6% 637 1,700 37%

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada 2,600

New Hampshire

(Continued)
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Pecans Peppers Plums Potatoes Processing Beans Prunes Pumpkins

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

Alabama 4,118 11,000 37% 623 1,300 48%

Alaska 18 800 2%

Arizona 9,093 12,350 74% 3,317 3,500 95%

Arkansas

California 21,795 29,500 74% 22,898 38,400 60% 61,752 64,000 96%

Colorado 56,113 61,600 91%

Connecticut

Delaware 1,143 1,700 67% 11,273 12,700 89%

Florida 602 5,500 11% 9,204 19,000 48% 20,403 28,500 72%

Georgia 82,542 96,250 86%

Hawaii

Idaho 276,353 305,000 91%

Illinois 5,500 2,410 12,700 19% 6,188 13,100 47%

Indiana 549 2,300 24% 790 5,300 15%

Iowa 577 650 89%

Kansas 3,193 5,000 64%

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine 53,825 56,000 96%

Maryland 481 2,500 19% 3,136 5,100 61%

Massachusetts 2,149 2,800 77%

Michigan 28,780 43,000 67% 2,936 15,500 19%

Minnesota 40,861 50,000 82% 3,090 4,900 63%

Mississippi 208 10,500 2%

Missouri 6,776 7,200 94%

Montana 3,048 10,900 28%

Nebraska 13,612 19,500 70%

Nevada 5,075 5,800 88%

New Hampshire

(Continued)
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Raisins Sweet Corn Table Grapes Tomatoes Tropical Fruit Walnuts All

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

Alabama 0 1,900 0% 88 1,300 7% 6,294 18,320 34%

Alaska 18 800 2%

Arizona 27,087 47,950 56%

Arkansas 865 1,000 87% 1,220 3,000 41%

California 249,160 249,160 100% 25,000 84,691 97,000 87% 278,975 319,000 87% 110,071 223,000 49% 2,163,773 3,033,460 71%

Colorado 2,311 7,400 31% 101,957 132,270 77%

Connecticut 931 4,500 21% 1,866 7,100 26%

Delaware 3,812 3,812 100% 20,163 23,812 85%

Florida 24,612 45,300 54% 25,094 32,400 77% 628,734 694,041 91%

Georgia 14,984 25,000 60% 2,328 4,300 54% 126,298 163,750 77%

Hawaii 3,784 8,780 43% 15,621 23,780 66%

Idaho 12,379 12,379 100% 403,216 493,605 82%

Illinois 8,997 8,997 100% 26,337 54,297 49%

Indiana 5,800 5,092 10,000 51% 7,124 25,500 28%

Iowa 2,305 3,550 65% 4,178 5,550 75%

Kansas 7,568 11,321 67%

Kentucky 56 380 15%

Louisiana 76 240 32%

Maine 326 2,000 16% 69,426 84,100 83%

Maryland 2,608 11,100 23% 154 750 21% 10,002 24,855 40%

Massachusetts 1,216 5,400 23% 16,139 26,130 62%

Michigan 9,000 2,491 5,600 44% 263,749 363,050 73%

Minnesota 107,376 127,900 84% 344,184 410,600 84%

Mississippi 562 13,850 4%

Missouri 8,376 12,300 68%

Montana 291,459 350,810 83%

Nebraska 137,502 154,500 89%

Nevada 5,075 8,400 60%

New Hampshire 209 1,700 12% 1,367 3,800 36%

(Continued)
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Almonds Apples Apricots Avocados Blueberries Cabbage Cherries

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

New Jersey 392 2,000 20% 5,400 7,600 71% 1,600

New Mexico

New York 30,667 42,000 73% 4,231 10,100 42%

North Carolina 4,966 6,800 73% 5,016 5,016 100% 883 5,300 17%

North Dakota

Ohio 1,319 7,000 19% 721 1,200 60%

Oklahoma

Oregon 2,627 4,200 63% 1,134 5,200 22% 8,803 12,500 70%

Pennsylvania 14,193 21,000 68% 69 1,200 6%

Rhode Island 86 300 29%

South Carolina 70 500 14%

South Dakota

Tennessee 51 900 6%

Texas 1,333 8,200 16%

Utah 629 1,400 45% 162 500 32%

Vermont 1,156 2,800 41%

Virginia 8,768 12,000 73% 62 500 12%

Washington 120,149 153,000 79% 735 1,280 57% 1,034 4,100 25% 23,006 33,000 70%

West Virginia 2,075 5,000 42%

Wisconsin 941 4,700 20% 1,837 3,100 59%

Wyoming

United States 478,380 680,000 70% 236,756 348,200 68% 7,141 12,380 58% 37,781 72,500 52% 44,055 81,536 54% 13,681 70,200 19% 49,384 81,910 60%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Chile Peppers Citrus Fruit Citrus Trees Cranberries Dry Beans Dry Peas Figs

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

New Jersey 2,897 3,100 93%

New Mexico 2,892 12,300 24% 7,428 9,300 80%

New York 8,652 17,000 51%

North Carolina

North Dakota 650,859 660,000 99% 569,973 615,000 93%

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon 1,096 2,700 41% 1,716 4,800 36% 2,132 5,500 39%

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota 8,839 8,839 100% 11,973 17,500 68%

Tennessee

Texas 18,508 27,300 68% 21,144 27,300 77% 6,594 24,000 27%

Utah 1,572 1,572 100%

Vermont

Virginia

Washington 684 1,700 40% 29,053 50,000 58% 81,688 130,000 63%

West Virginia

Wisconsin 16,097 17,500 92% 2,171 6,500 33%

Wyoming 25,587 31,500 81%

United States 3,771 15,800 24% 786,286 857,041 92% 21,144 27,300 77% 31,616 38,500 82% 1,276,208 1,501,511 85% 999,132 1,171,000 85% 6,002 9,400 64%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Grapes Green Peas Macadamia Nuts Nectarines Onions Peaches Pears

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

New Jersey 3,704 6,200 60%

New Mexico 1,488 7,000 21%

New York 19,435 37,000 53% 20,119 20,119 100% 7,985 10,600 75% 669 1,600 42%

North Carolina 248 1,700 15% 721 1,200 60%

North Dakota

Ohio 308 1,900 16%

Oklahoma 237 800 30%

Oregon 3,876 14,900 26% 18,647 18,700 100% 15,585 21,800 71% 127 650 20% 10,139 16,200 63%

Pennsylvania 9,875 13,600 73% 2,369 4,400 54% 112 800 14%

Rhode Island

South Carolina 11,933 14,000 85%

South Dakota

Tennessee 262 500 52%

Texas 873 2,500 35% 11,725 11,800 99% 1,352 4,900 28%

Utah 849 1,750 49% 243 1,500 16%

Vermont

Virginia 1,179 1,179 100%

Washington 45,787 58,000 79% 22,164 41,900 53% 1,298 1,300 100% 15,968 21,900 73% 1,661 2,300 72% 14,565 24,000 61%

West Virginia 463 950 49%

Wisconsin 20,286 40,700 50% 1,900

Wyoming

United States 567,492 838,310 68% 172,786 224,380 77% 11,837 15,000 79% 23,009 32,300 71% 80,040 160,971 50% 84,354 122,609 69% 35,104 56,000 63%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Pecans Peppers Plums Potatoes Processing Beans Prunes Pumpkins

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

New Jersey 417 2,000 21% 662 1,050 63%

New Mexico 20,880 39,250 53% 5,699 5,900 97% 852 852 100%

New York 11,167 18,000 62% 16,835 21,500 78%

North Carolina 12,092 14,500 83% 1,327 3,050 44%

North Dakota 76,680 82,000 94%

Ohio 35 2,500 1%

Oklahoma 4,932 21,600 23% 156 300 52%

Oregon 23,766 35,300 67% 2,191 18,700 12%

Pennsylvania 5,003 10,000 50% 7,162 10,700 67%

Rhode Island 108 500 22%

South Carolina

South Dakota 699 850 82%

Tennessee

Texas 34,598 83,000 42% 11,594 16,400 71% 3,639 7,250 50%

Utah

Vermont

Virginia 2,833 5,800 49% 2,672 2,672 100%

Washington 101,380 155,000 65% 1,233 5,050 24%

West Virginia

Wisconsin 41,880 63,500 66% 42,334 82,300 51%

Wyoming 759 850 89%

United States 156,973 279,450 56% 9,204 19,000 48% 21,795 29,500 74% 834,062 1,065,350 78% 102,542 209,324 49% 61,752 64,000 96% 6,188 13,100 47%
RMA/NASS Specialty Crop Comparison

NASS as of: 12/17/2009 Produced: 21DEC09:09:35:20 AM

Selected Crops in Acres

Raisins Sweet Corn Table Grapes Tomatoes Tropical Fruit Walnuts All

RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct RMA NASS Pct

New Jersey 996 7,100 14% 918 3,000 31% 15,386 33,650 46%

New Mexico 39,239 74,602 53%

New York 25,257 25,257 100% 18 3,000 1% 145,035 206,176 70%

North Carolina 6,800 3,500 25,253 47,866 53%

North Dakota 1,297,512 1,357,000 96%

Ohio 16,300 3,912 10,800 36% 6,295 39,700 16%

Oklahoma 5,325 22,700 23%

Oregon 3,675 23,200 16% 95,514 184,350 52%

Pennsylvania 3,475 15,700 22% 1,162 1,900 61% 43,420 79,300 55%

Rhode Island 326 800 41% 520 1,600 33%

South Carolina 2,149 2,600 83% 14,152 17,100 83%

South Dakota 21,511 27,189 79%

Tennessee 1,868 4,200 44% 2,181 5,600 39%

Texas 2,800 1,100 111,360 216,550 51%

Utah 3,455 6,722 51%

Vermont 95 1,100 9% 1,251 3,900 32%

Virginia 1 3,300 0% 1,779 4,800 37% 17,294 30,251 57%

Washington 58,898 78,100 75% 519,303 760,630 68%

West Virginia 2,538 5,950 43%

Wisconsin 44,957 96,600 47% 170,503 316,800 54%

Wyoming 26,346 32,350 81%

United States 249,160 249,160 100% 319,746 577,795 55% 84,691 97,000 87% 326,893 409,250 80% 3,784 8,780 43% 110,071 223,000 49% 7,252,820 9,661,557 75%