United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Research

Report

Number 106

November 2010

Linda Calvin and Philip Martin

The U.S. Produce 

Industry and Labor

Facing the Future in a Global Economy
www.ers.usda.gov

For additional information on U.S. farm labor, visit our website at

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LaborAndEducation/FarmLabor.htm

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Calvin, Linda, and Philip Martin. The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing 

the Future in a Global Economy, ERR-106, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, November 2010.

Photo credit: Courtesy of Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission.

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Linda Calvin, lcalvin@ers.usda.gov

Philip Martin

The U.S. Produce Industry 

and Labor

Facing the Future in a Global Economy

Economic

Research

Report

Number 106

November 2010

Abstract

Fruit and vegetable production is a labor-intensive process, and over half of the hired 

workers employed by growers are believed to be unauthorized immigrants. Reforms 

to immigration laws, if they reduce the labor supply, may increase the cost of farm 

labor. The authors of this report assess how particular fruit and vegetable commodities might adjust if labor rates increased. Analysis of case studies suggests a range 

of possible adjustment scenarios, including increased mechanization for some crops, 

reduced U.S. output for a few crops, and increased use of labor aids to improve labor 

productivity for others. 

Keywords

Produce, agricultural labor, mechanization, immigration reform, apples, oranges, 

raisins, strawberries, asparagus, lettuce

Acknowledgments

The authors thank: Economic Research Service colleagues Steven Zahniser, Barry 

Krissoff, Gary Lucier, Susan Pollack, and Agnes Perez for their contributions; 

anonymous reviewers for comments; produce experts who contributed generously to 

our understanding; and Angela Anderson for editorial assistance and Curtia Taylor 

for design.

Linda Calvin is an agricultural economist with USDA, Economic Research Service. 

Philip Martin is a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics, University of California, Davis.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute 

endorsement by USDA.
ii

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Produce Industry in a Global Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Options for U.S. Producers if Wages Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Harvest Mechanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Industry Case Studies: Pressure To Reduce Labor Costs 

and Industry Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Washington State’s Fresh-Market Apples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Major Changes Affecting Labor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Apple Outlook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Florida’s Processing and California’s Fresh-Market Oranges . . . . . . . 20

Florida’s Processing Oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

California’s Fresh-Market Oranges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Processing and Fresh-Market Orange Outlook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Raisins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Harvest Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Raisin Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

California’s Fresh-Market Strawberries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Strawberry Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Strawberry Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Fresh-Market Asparagus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Harvesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Asparagus Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Lettuce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Harvesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Labor Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Lettuce Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
iii

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

The U.S. fruit and vegetable industry is labor intensive, faces higher labor 

rates than many other countries, and operates in a global economy with 

relatively free trade. Currently, labor makes up almost half of the variable 

production expenses for U.S. fruit and vegetable farms, although labor’s 

share varies signifi cantly by commodity. As a result, efforts to reduce labor 

costs are an ongoing challenge for U.S. producers. Over half of the hired 

workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture are believed to be unauthorized 

immigrants, and most hired workers stay in the seasonal farm workforce a 

decade or less. As a result, agricultural employers are constantly seeking new 

workers.

What Is the Issue? 

Growers are concerned that immigration reform (or stricter enforcement of 

current immigration or labor laws) could reduce the fl ow of unauthorized 

workers into the United States. Fewer workers could affect the cost and availability of farm labor for U.S. producers and reduce their ability to compete as 

suppliers in a global marketplace in which many competing countries have 

much lower wages. If wages increase, growers could respond in several ways. 

Grower response would vary across different fruit and vegetable commodities and across growers of particular commodities. In this report, the authors 

examine labor use for production of selected fruit and vegetables and assess 

likely adjustments if labor costs increase signifi cantly.

What Did the Study Find?

Commodities differ in their vulnerability to increases in labor costs. The 

authors of this report look at the likely adjustment scenarios for Washington 

State’s fresh-market apples; Florida’s processing oranges; California’s 

fresh-market oranges and strawberries; raisins; fresh-market asparagus; and 

lettuce. Analysis of the case studies reveals three major adjustments to rising 

labor costs: 

• Three commodities have partially adopted mechanical harvesters. 

As labor costs rise, more growers will likely turn to mechanization, 

which may result in fewer and larger producers of these commodities. The raisin industry is mechanizing; between 2000 and 2007 the 

estimated share of the raisin crop harvested mechanically increased 

from 1 percent to 45 percent. Mechanization of the processing orange 

harvest is currently stalled, awaiting the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s approval of a chemical compound that would loosen the ripe 

fruit and make it easier for machines to remove them. Approximately 

70-80 percent of the baby leaf lettuce crop is harvested mechanically; 

the rest would likely follow if wages increased.

• Producers of unmechanized commodities that face substantial import 

competition, such as asparagus producers, are likely to lose market 

share to imports as labor costs rise unless there is a breakthrough in 

labor-saving mechanization. Similarly, growers of commodities that 

face substantial competition in export markets, such as apple and 
iv

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

orange producers, may lose export share if labor costs rise and growers 

are unable to keep their total costs per unit of output from rising.

• Producers of fresh-market strawberries and lettuce (other than baby 

leaf lettuce), with little import competition, are likely to cope with 

rising labor costs by providing labor aids to their workers to raise 

labor productivity or by mechanizing, if a harvester can be developed. 

These producers may be able to pass some additional costs along to 

consumers.

Rising wages could prompt the development and adoption of labor aids and 

mechanical harvesters. Mechanization is a complicated process and usually 

requires an integrated approach that includes changes in crop varieties, 

cultural practices, and harvesting methods. The progress of mechanization 

research is diffi cult to predict; some mechanization efforts quickly produce 

a solution while others fail to make progress due to complex technical challenges. Individual growers, grower organizations, machinery manufacturers, 

and the Government have all invested in mechanization research at one 

time or another. Interest in mechanization depends on current and future 

wages; when wages are low, interest in investing in mechanization research 

declines. 

Even when a mechanical harvester is available, not all growers will adopt 

the new technology. Hand-harvested produce is usually of better quality, 

since it is hard to replicate the skill and care of hand harvesters. Until the 

technology has proved itself, farmers may be unwilling to risk investing in it. 

Mechanical harvesters often represent large fi xed costs, and mechanization 

is more economical for large farmers who can spread such costs over more 

acres. For some crops, mechanical harvesters may be available in a range of 

confi gurations appropriate for farms of different sizes.

Rising wages could also result in increased imports. Labor wages and costs 

in foreign countries are often low, but total production costs of fruit and 

vegetables delivered to the United States are often comparable with costs 

of U.S.-produced goods during the same season. Increased U.S. imports are 

sometimes due to lower costs abroad, but more often result from year-round 

demand for fruit and vegetables that cannot be grown profi tably in most of 

the United States during the winter. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

The case studies are based on literature reviews, commodity statistics, and 

indepth conversations with industry experts to understand the economic 

conditions and ability to adjust to potentially higher labor costs. A small 

number of commodities—either hand-harvested or only partially mechanically harvested—were selected for assessment and represent a broad spectrum of produce items, including fresh, fresh-cut (bagged salads), and 

processed items (storable raisins and orange juice). 
1

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

Labor makes up 42 percent of the variable production expenses for U.S. fruit 

and vegetable farms, although labor’s share varies signifi cantly depending on 

the characteristics of the commodity and whether the harvest is mechanized 

(Lucier et al., 2006). The U.S. fruit and vegetable industry competes in a 

global economy with producers from other countries who often have much 

lower wages. With increasing trade, competitive pressures are greater than 

ever. In summer 2009, the Federal minimum wage was $7.25 per hour and 

the minimum wage in California was $8.00 per hour, while the minimum 

wage in Mexico ranged from $3.49 to $4.16 per day, depending on the 

region.1

In this report, we focus on the current situation of the U.S. fruit and vegetable 

industry with respect to agricultural labor and how growers might respond 

to higher labor costs. If farm wages increase, producers could respond in 

several ways. Labor is just one component of a complex production process. 

Producers could try to keep production costs competitive by reducing labor 

use, by adopting labor aids to increase labor productivity, or by mechanizing 

to reduce labor needs. Even if labor costs cannot be reduced, other changes, 

such as yield increases, may compensate for increases in labor costs and keep 

U.S. production competitive. If total production costs increase, growers could 

adjust by decreasing production or passing higher labor costs on to consumers 

if possible. Decreased production could, in some cases, open the door for 

imports. Producer responses to higher wages would vary by commodity. 

Our analysis presents case studies of individual fruit and vegetable commodities. While the focus is on adjusting to higher labor costs, any factor that 

reduces the profi tability of an individual commodity puts pressure on labor, 

the single largest input cost in the production of many crops. Therefore, each 

case study begins with an assessment of the commodity’s economic situation. 

The case studies focus on Washington State’s fresh-market apples; Florida’s 

processing oranges; California’s fresh-market oranges and strawberries; 

raisins; fresh-market asparagus; and lettuce.

Over half the hired workers on U.S. fruit and vegetable farms are believed 

to be unauthorized immigrants and most will move on to nonagricultural 

employment within a decade of beginning to work in the fi elds. This situation 

makes the U.S. produce sector vulnerable to potential immigration reform or 

changes in enforcement of current immigration and labor laws. Growers are 

concerned that any such changes could increase wage rates. Efforts to enact 

immigration reform legislation are ongoing, and many growers’ organizations 

have made promoting immigration reform that is responsive to their needs an 

important legislative priority.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) National Agricultural 

Workers Survey (NAWS), 52 percent of the hired workers in crop agriculture between 2005 and 2007 were unauthorized immigrants, 27 percent 

were U.S. citizens, and 21 percent were authorized immigrants (Carroll, 

Saltz, and Gabbard, 2009). Three-fourths of the workers interviewed for the 

NAWS worked in fruit, vegetable, and nursery crops. Once, unauthorized 

immigrants were concentrated in certain States, but now they can be found 

1The U.S. minimum wage increased 

to $7.25 on July 24, 2009; Mexican 

minimum wages for 2009 were 

evaluated at the exchange rate for the 

same date.
2

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

in fruit and vegetable operations across the country (Passel and Cohn, 2009). 

Any enhanced border control or workplace enforcement of immigration and 

labor laws could reduce the supply of workers available to fruit and vegetable 

growers. 

A Federal guest worker program (H-2A) provides growers with a legal means 

of employing foreign workers in seasonal jobs. H-2A requires, among other 

things, that growers receive certifi cation from the DOL that U.S. workers 

are unavailable. DOL certifi cation allows employers to recruit foreign 

workers. Growers, however, must pay transportation costs and provide free 

housing to H-2A workers. Most growers fi nd that it is easier to hire unauthorized workers who appear at their farms seeking jobs. Federal guest worker 

programs, including the Bracero Program,2 have a long history in the United 

States. If the fl ow of unauthorized workers into the United States declines, 

the H-2A program could become more important for the fruit and vegetable 

industry. Growers would like to see employer-friendly administrative changes 

that would make the program less cumbersome to use.

Based on evaluation of unemployment insurance and NAWS data, most hired 

workers stay in the seasonal farm workforce a decade or less. As a result, 

employers are constantly looking for new workers (Khan, Martin, Hardiman, 

2004; NAWS). Relatively low wages, hard physical labor, frequent adverse 

weather conditions, and seasonal work patterns make working on crop farms 

unappealing to most U.S. citizens and authorized immigrants. Those who do 

choose seasonal work on crop farms are generally workers with few alternative job options due to a lack of English language skills, education, and immigration authorization. 

According to the NAWS, hired agricultural workers earned an average of 

$8 per hour in 2006, a little more than half of what U.S. nonfarm production workers earn (Carroll and Saltz, 2008; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 

In addition, the NAWS also found that crop workers were employed on 

U.S. farms for about two-thirds of the year. Earning half as much over less 

time means that the annual earnings of crop workers averaged a third of the 

annual income of nonfarm production workers (almost $35,000 per year). 

Most analysts conclude that farmers will mechanize or reduce production before wages get high enough to induce U.S. workers into the fi elds 

(Huffman, 2007; Martin, 2009). As a result, the supply of farmworkers for 

the produce industry depends on a constant infl ux of new, foreign-born labor 

attracted to the United States by wages above those in the workers’ countries 

of origin, primarily Mexico. Immigration policy determines whether that 

labor force will be authorized or unauthorized. 

2The Bracero Program was a series 

of laws and agreements that allowed 

U.S. famers to hire Mexican workers 

between 1942 and 1964. The number 

of Bracero workers admitted peaked in 

the mid-1950s.
3

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The Produce Industry in a Global Economy

The average annual farm value for U.S. fruit, vegetable, and tree nut crops 

harvested during 2005-07 was $36.3 billion. The United States produces 

a broad range of fruit and vegetables for fresh and processed use. Between 

1990-92 and 2005-07, average annual fresh-market fruit production increased 

7 percent and fresh-market vegetable production increased 36 percent (table 

1). Individual commodities fared very differently. Fresh-market asparagus 

production declined 28 percent, while fresh-market strawberry production 

increased 103 percent. The overall growth in production refl ects increasing 

domestic consumption. 

The U.S. fruit and vegetable industry operates in a global environment. Both 

imports and exports have increased; between 1990-92 and 2005-07, U.S. 

imports of fresh fruit increased 212 percent and imports of fresh vegetables 

increased 163 percent (table 1). In 2005-07, imports of fresh fruit accounted 

for 30 percent of consumption (excluding bananas3) and imports of fresh 

vegetables accounted for 19 percent of consumption. U.S. produce exports 

3If bananas are included, the share 

rises to 48 percent because bananas are 

the most consumed fruit, and virtually 

all bananas are imported.

Table 1

U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable statistics, 1990/92 to 2005/071

Unit

Average Percent 

1990-92 2005-07 change

Acreage

All fruit (fresh and processed) 1,000 bearing acres 2,840 2,972 5

All vegetables (fresh and processed) 1,000 acres 3,356 3,194 -5

Production

Fresh fruit Million pounds 19,541 20,930 7

Fresh vegetables Million pounds 35,335 47,964 36

Per capita consumption

Fresh fruit Pounds 68 76 12

Fresh vegetables Pounds 142 179 26

Imports

Fresh fruit Million pounds 2,133 6,651 212

Fresh vegetables Million pounds 3,874 10,205 163

Exports

Fresh fruit Million pounds 4,429 5,240 18

Fresh vegetables Million pounds 2,949 4,011 36

Import share of consumption

Fresh fruit Percent 12 30 140

Fresh vegetables Percent 11 19 76

Export share of production

Fresh fruit Percent 23 25 10

Fresh vegetables Percent 8 8 0

1Bananas are excluded from the fruit group. Vegetables exclude potatoes, sweet potatoes, dry peas, dry beans, and lentils; but include melons.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook, Vegetables and Melons Situation and 

Outlook Yearbook.
4

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

expanded at a slower pace. In 2005-07, 25 percent of fresh fruit production 

and 8 percent of fresh vegetable production were exported. The U.S. produce 

industry is vulnerable to import and export competition due to lower wages 

abroad.

The United States imports fruit and vegetables during times of the year when 

there is little or no domestic production and imports are cheaper than U.S. 

commodities. For example, bananas could be grown in U.S. greenhouses, but 

at a cost far higher than readily available imports. Imports of tropical fruit 

are not controversial if there is no domestic industry (table 2). American 

consumers have come to expect year-round supplies of fresh produce, and 

the United States has imported warm-weather crops during the winter for 

decades. For example, only Florida produces tomatoes outdoors in the winter 

and spring, when Mexico typically ships large quantities of tomatoes to the 

United States. Florida and Mexico share the market; imports lower U.S. 

tomato prices, which benefi ts consumers but provides additional competition 

for Florida producers. The emergence of the U.S. greenhouse tomato industry 

provides additional opportunities for profi table winter production (Cook and 

Calvin, 2005). More recent imports of commodities during warm-weather 

Table 2

Import share of fresh fruit and vegetable consumption, 2007

Commodity

Import share 

of consumption 2007 Commodity

Import share 

of consumption 2007

Percent Percent

Mangoes 100 Apricots 22

Limes 100 Watermelon 21

Bananas 100 Raspberries 14

Papayas 94 Onions 14

Green onions 91 Snap beans 11

Pineapples 90 Broccoli 11

Asparagus 78 Peaches and nectarines 10

Kiwifruit 78 Carrots 10

Avocados 64 Cherries 9

Grapes 57 Strawberries 8

Cucumbers 52 Oranges 8

Squash 51 Apples 7

Blueberries 43 Lemons 7

Tomatoes 41 Caulifl ower 6

Cantaloupe 35 Grapefruit 5

Honeydew 33 Cabbage 5

Radishes 29 Spinach 4

Tangerines 27 Head lettuce 3

Pears 23 Sweet corn 2

Plums 22 Leaf/romaine lettuce 2

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook, Vegetables and Melons Situation and 

Outlook Yearbook; for green onion data USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Shipments.
5

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. production seasons demonstrate that some commodities face competition 

not related to climate alone.

Options for U.S. Producers if Wages Rise

U.S. fruit and vegetable producers are concerned about the cost and availability of labor to harvest their crops. The availability of labor is particularly 

important for growers of seasonally harvested crops, such as raisin grapes, 

where growers need to hire a large number of workers for just a few weeks 

during the year. For most crops, a harvest delayed by labor issues means less 

profi t for growers, since even a short delay can reduce quality and price. In 

the case of a longer delay, the entire crop may be lost if the quality deteriorates to the point that it cannot be marketed.

If wages rise, growers have several options. Labor is one input in a complex 

production process. Individual growers of a commodity are not homogeneous, 

so there may be a range of responses to rising wages:

1. Growers may use less labor. For example, growers might make several 

harvesting passes over a fi eld or orchard to pick produce as it ripens 

but, because of higher wages, decide to make fewer passes—reducing 

labor costs by accepting lower yields. 

2. Growers may use labor more effi ciently. Labor aids, such as conveyor 

belts in the fi elds, can increase worker productivity by reducing the 

time spent carrying the produce from where it is picked to the edge 

of the fi eld. By making work less physically demanding, labor aids 

could increase the size of the labor force that can comply with work 

requirements. 

3. Growers can mechanize to replace costly labor. While most of 

this report focuses on mechanical harvesters, the mechanization 

of any task that currently requires manual labor, including insect/

disease scouting, spraying, pruning, cultivating, weeding, and thinning, reduces costs and frees up labor for other tasks that are not yet 

mechanized. Economically viable mechanized alternatives to hand 

harvesting, however, do not materialize instantaneously. 

Research and development (R&D) takes time, and the success of mechanization efforts is diffi cult to predict. In some cases, growers are surprised 

by the rapid development and adoption of mechanical harvesters, while, in 

other cases, confi dent predictions of eminent mechanization have proved 

too optimistic. Mechanization often presents complex technical challenges. 

The judgment and dexterity of experienced farmworkers are often diffi -

cult for a machine to mimic, particularly when crops do not mature evenly, 

and workers must determine what can be harvested during multiple passes 

through fi elds and orchards. A nonselective mechanical harvester that 

harvests everything in the fi eld, regardless of maturity, will reduce useable 

yield per acre.4 In addition, the machines must be designed so that they do 

not create economically unacceptable levels of damage to the harvested 

produce or plants. Often growers switching to mechanical harvesters have 

lower harvesting costs but lower yields too.

4 In some cases, growers could 

use cultural practices to encourage 

more even maturity, but this can raise 

production costs. 
6

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Even if growers cannot reduce labor costs, other ongoing changes may affect 

profi tability and compensate for increasing wages. Precision agriculture, 

improved irrigation techniques, better pest control, and the availability of 

new plant varieties can lead to higher profi ts. For example, increases in wages 

can be offset by yield increases; between 1990-92 and 2005-07, average 

annual U.S. strawberry yields increased 63 percent. To concentrate on harvest 

mechanization as a strategy to deal with higher labor costs, we do not focus 

on these other strategies that growers could use to reduce total costs or raise 

yields.

Adjusting To Rising Costs

If total production costs rise with labor rates, growers will have to adjust. If 

agriculture is competitive, higher costs will be passed on to consumers. The 

exact response depends on consumer demand for the particular commodity 

and trade patterns. If there is no trade and consumer demand is perfectly 

inelastic—consumers buy the same quantity regardless of price—producers 

can pass all additional labor costs on to consumers without a decline in 

demand. This is unlikely for most fresh produce items, however, since there 

are many substitutes for any particular commodity. On the other hand, if 

demand is perfectly elastic because consumers have many choices, rising 

costs and prices will reduce quantity demanded sharply. In between these 

extremes, rising costs lead to lower demand as prices increase and production 

declines. 

In today’s relatively open international marketplace, it is hard for growers 

to pass on higher production costs if the same commodity can be imported 

for less during the same season. Some growers may then shift production 

to crops that are already mechanized. In some areas, selling farmland for 

housing is an attractive alternative. Some production of labor-intensive crops 

may shift to countries with lower labor costs; a number of U.S. growers 

already produce fruit and vegetables abroad (Calvin and Barrios, 1998). 

Production abroad for the U.S. market is not easy, however, and the resulting 

labor savings must be substantial to justify relocation. While labor rates may 

be lower in other countries, other input costs may be higher. For example, 

Mexican growers who export produce to the United States import many of 

their inputs from the United States, which may raise their production costs for 

those inputs relative to U.S. growers. There are other costs in growing abroad, 

including tariffs, transportation, and additional costs necessary to meet any 

U.S. phytosanitary standards. Newer concerns, such as consumer interest in 

the distance their food travels, may affect grower decisions about whether to 

move production abroad. 

There are relatively few examples of U.S. growers moving most of their 

production of fresh-market commodities abroad if these commodities could 

be produced in the United States at the same time. Green onions are an 

example; this commodity requires as many as nine manual labor steps from 

harvesting to packing (Calvin, Avendaño, Schwentesius, 2004). The United 

States began importing green onions from Mexico in 1980; in 2007, Mexico 

supplied 91 percent of U.S. green onion consumption. 

Competition from imports may be more intense for processed commodities. 

In the late 1970s, U.S. fi rms were producing frozen broccoli, particularly 
7

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

hand-cut broccoli spears, in Mexico to lower their labor costs. U.S. production of broccoli for freezing declined 63 percent between 1990 and 2007. In 

2007, only 10 percent of U.S. fresh broccoli consumption came from imports, 

but 87 percent of frozen broccoli consumption came from imports. Almost 

all fresh broccoli imports came from Mexico and Canada, production regions 

where a perishable product can be transported quickly to the U.S. market by 

truck at relatively low cost. For frozen broccoli, 68 percent of imports came 

from Mexico and the remainder came from Guatemala, Ecuador, and China. 

Frozen broccoli can be transported by ship, which is slow but inexpensive and 

allows more distant suppliers to be competitive. Frozen broccoli, unlike fresh 

broccoli, does not face potential phytosanitary barriers. 

Harvest Mechanization

Harvest mechanization is more advanced for vegetables than for fruit; it is 

also more common in processed produce than in fresh-market produce (table 

3). Most vegetables are annual crops rather than perennials, so damage done 

to plants during harvesting is of less concern than when machines harvest 

fruit from trees and vines. It is also easier to use mechanical harvesters with 

annual crops that are planted in rows, than with trees and vines where the 

location of the fruit is not as predictable. About 75 percent of U.S. vegetable and melon production (in terms of acreage) is harvested by machine, 

compared with about 55 percent of U.S. fruit production (Sarig et al., 2000). 

Most root vegetables are machine harvested. For potatoes, growers use a 

nonselective harvester that removes the potatoes from the soil, sifts out 

excess soil, and conveys the potatoes to a truck. This technology became 

common in the 1950s. Mechanical harvesting of nuts (and some citrus fruit 

for processing, where appearance is not important) is done with a shaker 

system; the whole tree or canopy is shaken to dislodge the fruit or nuts. 

Tree-shakers for nuts were developed in the 1960s and are now widely used. 

For relatively fragile tree fruit, such as apples and oranges, researchers are 

experimenting with a two-stage approach. A machine using vision technology 

locates and maps the fruit, and a second machine takes this information and 

uses robotics to selectively harvest the fruit as it matures. Mechatronics is a 

new term describing this marriage of mechanical devices with electronic and 

computational systems (USDA/CSREES, 2007). With the declining price of 

computing power and robotics, a new wave of selective mechanical harvesters 

may be on the horizon. 

Processed products are more likely to be handled mechanically than freshmarket products. Processed fruit and vegetables can often withstand more 

wear and tear from machinery since they are immediately stabilized by 

processing to prevent further damage. For example, fresh table grapes are 

hand harvested, many raisins are mechanically harvested, and wine and juice 

grapes, which are immediately crushed, are largely mechanically harvested 

(except for some premium wine grapes). 

Many crops are sold to both the fresh and processed market. For example, 

almost all Washington State sweet cherries are grown for the fresh market 

and harvested by hand, even though some that cannot be sold fresh are 

processed.5 Washington State growers do not know in advance where their 

cherries will end up; that uncertainty encourages hand harvesting to preserve 

5The only exception is a small 

quantity of sweet cherries that are 

grown specifi cally for the processed 

maraschino cherry industry, and these 

are mechanically harvested.
8

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3

Mechanization of fruit and vegetable crops

Typical type of harvest

Commodity Fresh Processed

Noncitrus tree fruit:

Apples Hand Hand1

Apricots Hand Hand 1

Avocadoes Hand NA2

Cherries, sweet Hand Hand1

Cherries, tart NA Machine

Dates Hand Hand1

Figs Hand Other 3

Nectarines Hand Hand1

Olives NA Hand/machine

Peaches, freestone Hand Hand1

Peaches, clingstone for canning NA Hand/machine

Pears Hand Hand1

Plums Hand Hand1

Prunes Hand Machine

Grapes:

Wine/juice NA Machine4

Raisins NA Hand/machine

Table grapes Hand NA

Berries:

Blueberries, cultivated Hand/machine Machine

Blueberries, wild Hand Machine

Cranberries Machine Machine

Kiwi Hand NA

Raspberries/blackberries Hand Hand/machine5

Strawberries Hand Hand

Citrus fruit:

Grapefruit Hand Hand1

Lemons/limes Hand Hand1

Oranges Hand Hand/machine

Tangerines Hand Hand1

Melons:

Cantaloupe, honeydew Hand Hand1

Watermelon Hand Hand1

Tree nuts:

Almonds Machine Machine

Hazelnuts Other6 Other6

Macadamias Other6 Other6

Pecans Machine Machine

Pistachios Machine Machine

Walnuts Machine Machine

Root vegetables:

Beets Hand Machine

Carrots Machine7 Machine

Garlic Hand Machine

Green onions Hand Hand

Leeks Hand Machine

Onions Hand/machine8 Machine

Parsnips Hand/machine Machine

Potatoes Machine Machine

Sweet potatoes Machine Machine

Radishes Hand/machine9 NA

Turnips/rutabagas Hand Machine

-- Continued
9

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3

Mechanization of fruit and vegetable crops (continued)

Typical type of harvest

Commodity Fresh Processed

Other vegetables:

Artichokes Hand NA2

Asparagus Hand Hand

Broccoli Hand Hand/machine

Brussels sprouts Hand Hand

Cabbage Hand Machine

Caulifl ower Hand Hand

Celery Hand Machine

Corn, sweet Hand/machine Machine

Cucumbers Hand Hand/machine

Eggplant Hand Hand

Herbs Hand Machine

Lettuce Hand/machine10 NA

Lima beans Hand/machine Machine

Mushrooms Hand Hand1

Okra Hand Hand

Peas Hand Machine

Peppers, chile Hand Hand/machine11

Peppers, sweet Hand Hand

Potatoes Machine Machine

Snap beans Hand/machine12 Machine

Spinach Hand/machine13 Machine

Squash, winter and pumpkins Hand Machine

Squash, summer Hand Hand

Tomatoes Hand Machine

NA=Not applicable; product not generally grown for this market.

1In most areas, these commodities are all hand harvested with the hope that the commodity 

will be sold in the fresh market. After harvesting, some product may be diverted into the 

generally less profi table processing market.

2In California, all avocadoes and artichokes are harvested just for the fresh market. Processed 

product is imported.

3Dried fi gs are dried on the tree and then they fall off naturally. Once the dried fi gs are on the 

ground, they are picked up by machine.

4Some wine grapes are hand harvested, primarily for premium wines.

5In California, which is mostly a fresh raspberry producer, raspberries are hand harvested for 

the fresh market, although some may end up in the processing market. Harvest method is often 

different in other States. For example, in Washington State, where most raspberries go to the 

processing market, raspberries are machine harvested; only raspberries for the fresh market 

are hand picked.

6Most nuts are harvested with shaker machines, but hazelnuts and macadamia nuts do not 

ripen at the same time and shaking damages the unripe nuts. These nuts dry, fall to the ground, 

and then are scooped up off the ground with machines.

7Most carrots are machine harvested. Bunched carrots with the tops on, now just a small 

portion of the industry, are hand harvested.

8Nonpungent onions are typically hand harvested because they have a high water content and 

bruise easily. Pungent onions are most often machine harvested since they have a lower water 

content. There are exceptions in both cases.

9The harvest method varies by the way radishes are sold. For example, radishes sold in bags 

without their tops are machine harvested, but radishes sold in bunches with their tops are hand 

harvested.

10Baby lettuces are often machine harvested.

11Green chile peppers for canning are hand harvested. Red chile peppers for ground paprika 

are machine harvested.

12Snap beans are both hand and machine harvested in Florida. Growers get a higher price for 

hand-harvested beans.

13Spinach to be marketed as bunch spinach is hand harvested, while spinach to be processed 

as bagged spinach and bagged salad is machine harvested.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
10

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

their marketing options. Tart cherry growers in Michigan know their crop 

will be processed and it is all machine harvested. 

Investment in Mechanization Research

Interest in mechanization rises and falls with the price and availability of 

labor. When labor is relatively scarce and wages rise, producers seek laborsaving innovations (Hayami and Ruttan, 1985). Growers, grower organizations, machinery manufacturers, and the public sector have invested in 

research to develop labor aids and mechanical harvesters. 

Individual growers may do their own R&D if they think they can cut labor 

costs and make a profi t. A grower may pay a machinery manufacturer to 

develop a machine. Growers could use any machinery they develop on their 

own operations and even sell the machinery to their competitors. Some 

commodity groups include large growers who can support private mechanization R&D, but many growers are too small to do so. 

Grower organizations have funded mechanization research with member 

fees on each box of produce sold. In some cases, the investment in R&D may 

have some near-term payoff, particularly when a private fi rm has a promising 

prototype. In other cases, the R&D may be more basic with no immediate 

payoff. 

Private machinery manufacturers pursue mechanization if expected benefi ts 

exceed expected costs. Economists are concerned that research costs can be 

high for fruit and vegetables, making some crops potential “technological 

orphans” because they pose special challenges to successful mechanization, 

but attract few private resources (Alston and Pardey, 2008). For example, 

the market for many fruit and vegetable mechanical harvesters is relatively 

small. The United States had over 93 million acres of fi eld corn in 2007 but 

only 298,800 acres of lettuce. Conducting research to mechanize harvesting 

involves fi xed costs that must be spread over a smaller market in the case of 

lettuce. Despite this challenge, there are many examples of successful innovations by private fi rms. Innovations in mechanization for one commodity can 

often be applied to other commodities. There is also a worldwide market for 

farm machinery, which provides potential for additional sales. Some of the 

machines used by U.S. producers are imported, and U.S. innovations are also 

exported to producers in other countries. Today, private machinery manufacturers, augmented by funds from individual growers, grower organizations, 

and Federal and State governments, conduct most agricultural mechanization 

research. Private-sector expenditures on general agricultural research have 

exceeded public sector expenditures since the early 1980s, and the gap is 

widening (Schimmelpfennig and Heisey, 2009).

Government investment in R&D is economically justifi ed when private investors are unable to provide a socially optimal level of research. Most growers 

benefi t from public mechanization research, although smaller growers may 

be at a disadvantage if a harvester is more economical for larger growers. 

There are, however, broader potential social benefi ts to public R&D that the 

Government might consider when deciding whether to invest, including any 

positive impact on fruit and vegetable consumption, the value of a strong 

domestic fruit and vegetable industry for national security, and employment 
11

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

goals—particularly when an industry may be the major employer in a region. 

Another potential public benefi t to consider is that successful mechanization 

could reduce the reliance of the fruit and vegetable industry on unauthorized 

workers and reduce the lure of easy-entry agricultural jobs.

When the Government invests in R&D, it also has to consider potential 

social costs. The elimination of jobs is an important social cost, particularly 

at times of high unemployment. Jobless workers can have ripple effects on 

communities and local businesses that house, feed, and provide services 

to farmworkers. On the other hand, the machine operators and mechanics 

who replace hand harvesters usually earn higher wages; a small number of 

workers displaced by mechanization may fi nd higher paying jobs working 

in the mechanized harvest. The skills, however, required for workers in the 

mechanical harvest system are not necessarily the same as those required in 

the hand-harvest system.6 

Public support of fruit and vegetable mechanization reached its peak in 

the 1960s and 1970s, a period when farm labor costs were rising rapidly. 

Agricultural engineers in university and Government research institutions 

worked with growers and private machinery manufacturers to develop labor 

aids to increase worker productivity and mechanical harvesters to reduce 

labor requirements (Martin and Olmstead, 1985). Efforts to mechanize fruit 

and vegetable production stalled after 1980 because there was a large supply 

of labor available, which held down wages. In addition, the substantial, 

Federal- and State-supported mechanical research system for fresh fruit and 

vegetables was mostly dismantled during the 1980s, leaving such research 

primarily to the private sector (Martin and Olmstead, 1985). 

Now there is renewed interest in agricultural mechanization associated 

with the loss, or potential loss, of unauthorized foreign workers. The Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 created the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), providing 

$230 million for fi scal years 2009-12 to support research on fi ve issues critical to the future of the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry, including “improved 

mechanization.” This is the fi rst major Federal investment in mechanization research for fruit and vegetables since the early 1980s. Research funded 

under this initiative requires 100 percent non-Federal matching funds. 

Adoption of Mechanical Harvesters

Even if a mechanical harvester is available, there are economic obstacles 

to its adoption. Many growers prefer manual harvesting because quality is 

generally better and yields are higher. Moreover, switching to mechanical 

harvesting is often expensive and risky, requiring a major transformation of 

the farm’s operations, such as replanting crops to accommodate the harvester, 

using new plant varieties, and developing new packing processes.

There are continuous and discontinuous adjustments to the cost of agricultural labor. An industry may adjust gradually, with a few new growers every 

year using labor aids or mechanical harvesters that slowly reduce the industry’s demand for labor. In some cases, machine and hand harvesting systems 

may exist side by side. Dramatic changes may also occur. At some stage, 

the price of labor may reach a critical point where mechanization is the only 

6 Many new jobs in fruit and 

vegetable production require more 

sophisticated skills than in the past. 

This may require changes in the way 

employers recruit, train, and retain 

workers. 
12

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

realistic option to harvest a commodity, or a new machine may suddenly 

make mechanization more appealing and growers convert to the new technology quickly, causing the demand for labor to fall sharply. 

Large-scale adoption of a new technology can change an industry’s structure. 

The fresh produce industry is generally concentrated—the largest growers 

supply the vast majority of production. Depending on the type of machinery 

available, mechanization may accelerate the trend toward fewer and larger 

producers. If only a large mechanical harvester is available, larger growers 

are the most likely to invest in these expensive machines, since a large, 

fi xed investment can be spread over more acreage. An alternative to buying 

specialized machinery is custom harvesting, such as when a third party buys 

machinery and harvests crops for multiple growers. Some growers worry 

that if they do not purchase their own machines, harvesting may not occur 

at the optimal time. In other cases, harvesters may be available in a range of 

confi gurations appropriate for farms of different sizes. Once growers invest in 

specialized machinery for a particular crop, they may reduce the number of 

commodities produced on their farms.

A major obstacle to labor-saving mechanization is the fact that many farmers 

send their produce to packers and processors (as opposed to packing in the 

fi eld), who are usually equipped to deal with manually harvested produce 

or machine-picked produce but not both, making it hard for one farmer to 

mechanize in isolation. Packers and processors can encourage or discourage 

mechanization, however, by adjusting their standards. 

Mechanical harvesting does not eliminate the need for hand labor to harvest 

small fi elds, to pick what the machines miss, or to meet special customer 

requests. If a machine is less selective and gentle than hand labor, additional 

labor may be required to sort out undesirable product or debris.

Industry Case Studies: Pressure To Reduce 

Labor Costs and Industry Response

Our analysis reviews the economic situation, labor usage, and mechanization 

prospects for seven commodities: Washington State’s fresh-market apples; 

Florida’s processing oranges; California’s fresh-market oranges and strawberries; raisins; fresh-market asparagus; and lettuce. These commodities 

represent a wide spectrum of fruit and vegetables, including fresh, fresh-cut 

(bagged salads), and processed items (storable raisins and orange juice). 

Some commodities represent a small portion of the produce market, such as 

fresh asparagus, with an average annual farm value of $91 million in 2005-

07. Other commodities are a large portion of the market, such as lettuce, 

with an average annual value of $2.1 billion (fi g. 1). All of the commodities discussed here are either hand harvested or only partially mechanized. 

Recognizing how growers of these commodities may respond to higher labor 

costs demonstrates how immigration reform and similar policy-induced labor 

market changes impact the industry. 
13

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 1

Farm value of U.S. production, 2005-07 average1 

Million dollars

1For citrus, year refers to the year the harvest was completed. Also for citrus, value is based on equivalent packinghouse-door returns.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Vegetables and Melons Situation and Outlook Yearbook; USDA, Economic Research 

Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook; USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Citrus Fruits 2007.

Fresh 

apples

Processing 

apples

Fresh 

oranges

Processing 

oranges

Fresh 

asparagus

Processing 

asparagus

Fresh 

strawberries

Processing 

strawberries

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Raisins Lettuce
14

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Washington State’s Fresh-Market Apples

Washington State produced 57 percent of the U.S. apple crop in 2007. After 

a peak in 1998, production declined 7 percent from 1998-2000 to 2005-

07. Growers in Washington State generally produce for the fresh market 

and processing serves as a secondary market; any apples that do not meet 

the demands of the fresh market can be diverted to processing. While 

overall apple production is declining, the share going to the fresh market is 

increasing, reaching an all-time high of 84 percent in the 2007/08 marketing 

year.7

Washington State’s fresh apple industry faces several challenges, both 

domestic and foreign. U.S. per capita consumption of fresh apples declined 

11 percent between 1990/91-1992/93 and 2005/06-2007/08 (table 4), perhaps 

due to the increasing variety of fruit competing for consumer attention. As 

a result, Washington State growers are increasingly reliant on the export 

market. In 2005/06-2007/08, U.S. fresh apple exports averaged 24 percent of 

production sent to the fresh market. Growers are concerned about increased 

competition from China, which is currently prevented from exporting fresh 

apples to the United States because of phytosanitary issues. Chinese apples, 

however, are displacing U.S. apples in some traditional Asian markets. In the 

2007/08 marketing year, China was the world’s largest producer and exporter 

of apples, accounting for 24 percent of the world’s fresh apple exports, 

compared with 18 percent for Chile and 16 percent for the United States. U.S. 

imports of fresh apples are relatively small. The growth in imports is largely 

due to seasonal production differences across countries. In the spring, the 

7 The marketing year for U.S. 

apples begins in August of the fi rst 

year shown and runs through July 

of the second year (i.e., the 2007/08 

marketing year began in August 2007 

and ended in July 2008).

Table 4

Washington State and U.S. apple industry statistics, 1990/91-1992/93 to 2005/06-2007/081

 Units 

Average

Percent 

change

1990/91-

1992/93

2005/06- 

2007/08

Washington’s total apple production Million pounds 4,583 5,483 20

Washington’s apple-bearing acreage Acres 139,000 153,667 11

Washington’s apple yield Pounds/acre 32,967 35,667 8

Washington’s fresh-market share Percent 71 80 13

Washington’s fresh-market price $/pound * * 39

U.S. fresh apple per capita consumption Pounds 19 17 -11

U.S. fresh apple imports Million pounds 264 386 46

U.S. fresh apple imports as a percent of fresh-market

 consumption Percent 5 8 38

Washington’s processed-market price $/ton 150 103 -31

U.S. processed apple (juice) per capita consumption Gallons 2 2 32

U.S. fresh exports Million pounds 1,011 1,460 44

U.S. fresh exports as a percent of production Percent 18 24 31

1Marketing year is August through July.

*Price is less than $1. The average for 1990/91 - 1992/93 was $0.22 and for 2005/06 - 2007/08 it was $0.31.

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook 2008; USDA, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, Noncitrus Fruit and Nut Report.
15

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

United States imports just-harvested apples from the Southern Hemisphere, 

which provide an alternative to storage apples and varieties of apples that may 

be in short supply. 

The processed apple market is also a concern for the Washington State 

apple industry. U.S. per capita consumption of processed apple products 

has increased, but U.S. growers are supplying fewer apples for processing 

because of rising imports of apple juice, mainly from China—the world’s 

largest producer of concentrated apple juice. Unlike the case of fresh apples, 

the United States does not have any phytosanitary restrictions on Chinese 

concentrated apple juice, and imports have grown substantially. In 2007, 

Chinese imports accounted for 65 percent of U.S. domestic consumption of 

apple juice. In some years, the price received by U.S. growers for juice apples 

no longer covers harvesting costs, putting additional pressure on overall apple 

profi tability. 

Major Changes Affecting Labor Use

The Washington State apple industry faces challenges regarding both the 

availability of labor and a more competitive international market. Other 

changes in the industry affect the demand for and supply of labor, including 

increased use of smaller trees, development of new production areas, and 

changes in apple varieties. 

Semi-dwarf and dwarf trees. Most newly planted apple trees in Washington 

State are semi-dwarf or dwarf; these trees are smaller and more compact than 

the standard apple tree. The decision to use dwarf varieties was not driven 

exclusively by labor issues, but reduced labor costs are an important benefi t. 

Dwarf trees require structural support, such as a trellis, to support the weight 

of the fruit, which makes it expensive to develop a new orchard. Short trees 

make it easier for human harvesters to fi nd apples, improving the effi ciency of 

hand harvesting and paving the way for mechanical harvesting. Shorter trees 

reduce the amount of fi eld work done from ladders, which increases labor 

productivity and worker safety.8 As a result, labor costs are an important 

consideration in designing new orchards. 

Changes in industry location and size. The Columbia Basin is a relatively 

new production area in Washington State. The average size of orchards in 

the Columbia Basin is more than twice that of older production areas, and 

the density of apple plantings is also much higher. Larger farms with dwarf 

trees in the Columbia Basin should be best positioned for future mechanical 

harvesting. In the meantime, however, the area has very few large towns, 

limited housing for seasonal workers, and an inadequate infrastructure to 

handle temporary population increases for the harvest. A few fi rms have built 

housing in this area to qualify for H-2A guest workers.

Changes in apple varieties. Substantial changes have occurred over the 

past two decades in the varietal composition of the apples grown in the 

Western United States, with Gala and Fuji becoming important varieties 

at the expense of Red and Golden Delicious. In 1990, Red and Golden 

Delicious apples accounted for 81 percent of the apples grown in the Western 

United States, compared with 11 percent for Granny Smith and 8 percent 

for other varieties which included Gala and Fuji. By 2007, the Red and 

8Worker compensation premiums 

are an important cost of hiring labor. 

Efforts to improve safety for workers 

can reduce days lost due to injury and 

worker compensation premiums. 
16

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Golden Delicious share had declined to 41 percent; Gala and Fuji shares had 

expanded to 19 percent and 13 percent, respectively, and the Granny Smith 

share had increased to 15 percent (U.S. Apple Association, 1991 and 2008). 

These varietal changes have had an important impact on labor demand. 

Figure 2 shows estimated harvest volumes by week for various types of 

apples. Total production divided by weeks of harvest is used as a proxy for 

actual weekly harvest volume. The Red Delicious harvest runs from midSeptember to mid-October, and the Golden Delicious harvest starts and ends 

a week earlier. The Granny Smith harvest falls in October. This means that in 

1990, over 92 percent of the apple harvest occurred between the second week 

of September and the end of October. 

Today the apple harvesting season is much longer. Gala apples are the fi rst 

major variety harvested each year, beginning in the second week of August 

and ending after the fi rst week in September, just as the Golden Delicious 

harvest begins. Fuji apples are harvested in October, raising labor demand 

during the Granny Smith harvest. Cripps Pink apples (also known as Pink 

Lady) are harvested during the fi rst half of November. With the addition of 

new varieties, the apple harvest now runs from the second week of August 

through the second week of November—13 weeks—compared with the 

7-week harvest of 1990. The peak demand for harvest labor still occurs 

during the Red Delicious season. As the availability of labor becomes 

less certain, some growers with several varieties of apples may hire more 

workers than they really need for the early season to ensure that they have 

enough labor for the Red Delicious harvest. Smaller shippers and growers 

who produce only Red Delicious apples may fi nd it more diffi cult to compete 

for labor. 

Figure 2

Apple harvest, by major varieties and harvest period, 20071

1,000 42-pound boxes

1Estimated weekly variety harvest is total production divided evenly over the typical weeks of harvest.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on the U.S. Apple Association’s Production and Utilization Analysis, 

2008 Edition.

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

8/2 8/3 8/4 9/1 9/2 9/3

Month and week (1st to 4th of each month)

9/4 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/4 11/1 11/2

Gala Golden Delicious Red Delicious

Fuji Granny Smith Cripps Pink
17

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Harvesting practices vary by apple variety. Even though apples ripen 

unevenly, a Red Delicious orchard might be harvested in just one pass 

because the price of Red Delicious apples is low relative to other varieties. A 

grower might have harvesters make several passes in an orchard of a highvalue apple to select fruit at peak maturity. Some varieties require special 

handling; for example, when workers harvest Fuji apples they must clip off 

the stiff stems to avoid damage to other fruit. 

Labor 

The Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission (WTFRC) was established in 1969 to promote and carry out research for the industry. The formation of the WTFRC was motivated, in part, by concerns about labor cost 

and availability. Research on mechanization, however, was not a large part 

of the WTFRC’s mission until recently. Today, active research and experimentation is taking place on the mechanization of the apple industry. The 

WTFRC spends about $600,000 a year on mechanization research. Since 

shaker machines used for most nuts are not appropriate for fragile (but 

heavy) apples, the WTFRC is focusing on a two-stage mechanical harvesting 

system. The fi rst stage includes a self-propelled scout that would monitor tree 

growth, chlorophyll levels, disease, insects, yield, and optimum harvest time 

using cameras to map individual apples. The second stage relies on a robotic 

harvester that would use the information from the scout to develop a picking 

strategy, including multiple harvest passes to pick apples at the peak of their 

maturity. Using machines effi ciently requires that orchards be designed to 

facilitate mechanical harvesting—specifi cally, short trees that are trellised 

to fi t the machine’s need for more homogeneous trees. Most prototypes of 

robotic harvesters for apples are slow, unreliable, damage the fruit, or in 

some cases, simply lack the power to be of immediate use. Labor aids, such 

as mobile platforms, however, offer ways to increase labor productivity until 

commercial harvesters are developed.

In 2008, USDA’s SCRI awarded Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics 

Institute $6 million for its Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops 

project. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, 

Oregon State University, Washington State University, the Federal 

Government, private machinery manufacturers, and growers are also part of 

the consortium to increase mechanization in apple production. 

Apple growers require laborers for both fi eld and packinghouse/warehouse 

operations. The most important fi eld activities include pruning and training, 

thinning, and harvesting. Currently, all fi eld operations are hand-labor activities, although there is research underway to mechanize these activities as 

well. In 2006, a budget study for a typical Washington State apple orchard 

found that 21 percent of variable labor costs were for pruning and training, 

another 21 percent was for thinning, and 48 percent for was harvesting 

(Seavert et al., 2007). 

Pruning and training. Most pruning and training (shaping young trees), done 

by relatively skilled workers, occurs during the winter season when the trees 

are dormant. Labor availability has generally not been a problem at this time 

of year because there is less demand for farm labor and workers have a longer 

period to perform the task. Some fi rms employ year-round workers for these 
18

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

tasks. In orchards with shorter trees, some growers utilize mobile platforms 

for workers to stand on while they prune. These platforms were developed 

with funding from the WTFRC and are now manufactured by a private 

fi rm. The platforms move down the rows, eliminating the need for ladders 

and increasing both worker productivity and safety. Because pruning can be 

spread over many months, a grower does not need many motorized platforms. 

Thinning. Growers use chemical thinners during and shortly after the bloom 

period to improve fruit quality by reducing the number of future apples. Later 

in the growing cycle, apples must be thinned by hand, removing poor quality 

apples and those that are too close together to ensure the remaining apples 

will be of good quality and size. Most of the hand thinning occurs in June 

and July. Thinning requires less skill than pruning; thus, temporary workers 

are often hired for this task. Motorized platforms may be used by workers for 

this task.

Harvesting. Apples are hand harvested, and harvesting is the most expensive 

labor component of apple production. Again, shorter trees aid workers, but 

motorized platforms have not been used in harvesting because putting heavy 

harvested fruit on platforms can make them unstable. In 2009, a private fi rm 

introduced a new harvest platform prototype which may prove useful since 

it suctions the apples away from the platform and potentially resolves the 

stability issue (Wilhelm, 2009). The WTFRC is providing some support to 

this fi rm to further its research. Several fi rms are currently developing promising prototypes. Studies show that when apple pickers are in the orchard, 

only 30 percent of their time is spent picking with the rest of their time spent 

positioning ladders, climbing ladders, and unloading bags of fruit. A motorized platform would enable workers to devote a greater proportion of their 

time to picking apples. 

The harvest labor market must be put in the context of the larger Washington 

State tree fruit industry. Expanded cherry production in Washington State 

has increased the demand for labor in the tree fruit industry, increasing the 

competition for labor between apple and cherry growers. Between 1990-92 

and 2005-07, Washington State cherry production increased 117 percent, 

and new varieties extended the cherry-harvesting season. As the late cherry 

harvest season encroaches on the traditional apple-thinning season, apple 

growers may have to raise wages to obtain workers. Both cherry production 

and prices were rising for most of the past decade, enabling cherry growers to 

offer higher harvesting wages. 

Packing. Because apples are a storable commodity, packinghouse/warehouse 

operations and jobs are year-round for large operations. In some packinghouses, the apples are only touched once by human hands, when the apple 

is placed in a tray with the label side up. There is little problem recruiting 

workers to fi ll packinghouse/warehouse jobs, which are indoors, largely 

mechanized, and year-round.

Apple Outlook

How would the Washington State apple industry respond to sustained higher 

wages? If labor costs rose by 20-30 percent due to a decline in the labor 

supply, older orchards with traditional varieties located near towns would 
19

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

likely be replaced with new housing developments. Growers might look to 

other crops with higher potential returns, such as sweet cherries in some 

areas and wine grapes in others. Sharp and sustained increases in wages 

would probably be necessary to mechanize the fresh apple harvest, and such 

labor cost increases could also lead to structural changes in the industry.

Currently, offsetting trends in the apple industry keep the demand for labor 

fairly stable. Total apple production has declined, reducing the demand for 

labor. The use of smaller trees and mobile platforms has made labor more 

productive. On the other hand, changes in varieties have increased labor 

demand as these trees are often harvested more than once. 
20

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Florida’s Processing and 

California’s Fresh-Market Oranges

Florida and California produce most of the U.S. orange crop. The vast 

majority of Florida’s oranges are sold to the processing (mainly juice) market 

(96 percent during the 2005/06-2007/08 marketing seasons), while more than 

two-thirds of California’s oranges (69 percent during 2005/06-2007/08) are 

sold in the fresh market.9

Florida’s Processing Oranges

Florida’s orange acreage has declined because of urbanization, hurricanes, 

and two serious citrus diseases—citrus canker and citrus greening. Citrus 

canker causes blemishes on the skin of the fruit and makes oranges unsuitable for the fresh market. An infected tree also loses productivity. With 

proper management, however, oranges from infected trees can be used for 

juice. Citrus greening, which kills trees and cannot be eradicated, was fi rst 

confi rmed in Florida in 2005. Infected trees can have a mix of symptomatic 

(bitter, blemished, and unusable) and asymptomatic fruit. The asymptomatic 

fruit can be used for juice and the fresh market. Researchers are investigating 

methods to control citrus greening, including the development of varieties 

resistant to the disease. 

U.S. orange juice production peaked in the 1997/98 season and has declined 

35 percent since then. During the 2005/06-2007/08 seasons, orange juice 

imports accounted for 30 percent of U.S. orange juice consumption (table 5). 

Most U.S. orange juice imports come from Brazil, the world’s largest orange 

juice producer and exporter. Due to lower labor costs, Brazil can produce 

orange juice at a lower cost than Florida (Muraro et al., 2003). The United 

States applies a tariff on frozen concentrated orange juice from Brazil and 

also levies antidumping duties against several Brazilian exporters.

Almost all of Florida’s processing oranges are harvested by hand. Research 

on mechanical harvesting and labor aids for Florida citrus began in the mid 

1950s, when consistent labor availability was the primary concern (Futch et 

al., 2005). Over time, the Florida Department of Citrus (FDOC)—a State 

organization supported by grower assessments—USDA, and the University 

of Florida have all invested in mechanization research. Three major freezes 

during the 1980s substantially reduced the size of the crop, reducing interest 

in mechanization. In the 1990s, however, interest increased due to the rising 

cost of labor. 

The Florida industry has used three different mechanical harvest machines, 

all of which shake either the canopy of the tree or its trunk. Currently, only 

canopy shaker technology is used. Seven businesses use a self-propelled, 

continuous canopy shaker to collect fruit as it is harvested, and two businesses use tractor-drawn canopy shakers that drop harvested fruit on the 

ground, where it is picked up by workers. Growers have been reluctant to 

adopt trunk-shaking harvesters for fear of damage to the trees. As a result, 

this technology has not been used over the past several years. Some growers 

also have expressed fears about the potential damage to trees from canopy 

shaking. 

9The Florida marketing season 

begins in October, while the California 

season begins in November. 
21

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Continuous canopy shakers are expensive. In 2009, a set of left and right 

continuous canopy shakers cost a total of $1.15 million, prompting the development of a custom harvest system. Custom harvesters use their machinery to 

harvest groves for other growers. Of the nine Florida businesses that currently 

use canopy shakers, only two are private growing organizations. The others 

are primarily custom harvesters, although some of these fi rms may also own 

groves (Roka, 2009a).

Mechanical harvesting could reduce harvest costs by as much as 50 percent 

and production costs for a box of oranges by 20-30 cents (Roka et al., 2009). 

As a result of lingering technical issues, only a small share of Florida’s 

processing orange crop is currently mechanically harvested—9.6 million 

boxes, or 5.8 percent of the total, in the 2007/08 season (fi g. 3). 

The most serious challenge to mechanization is that the mechanical harvester 

cannot be used on late-season Valencia oranges, which account for 25-30 

percent of Florida’s total orange harvest. At harvest time, late-season 

Valencia orange trees contain both mature fruit and immature fruit for the 

following season; mechanical harvesting removes too much of the following 

year’s production. To address this problem, researchers developed an abscission compound, which is sprayed on trees to loosen the bond between the 

stem and the fruit on mature oranges. This allows mechanical harvesters 

to shake the canopy with less force and dislodge the mature fruit without 

Table 5

U.S. processing and fresh-market orange industry statistics, 1990/91-1992/93 to 2005/06-2007/081

 Unit

Average

Percent 

change 

1990/91-

1992/93

2005/06-

2007/08

Orange juice

Production Million SSE gallons 999 1,006 1

Imports Million SSE gallons 310 370 19

Import share of consumption Percent 26 30 16

Exports Million SSE gallons 105 137 31

Export share of production Percent 11 14 29

Per capita consumption Gallons SSE 5 4 -12

Price2 $/90-pound box 5 7 46

Fresh oranges 

Production Million pounds 3,917 3,743 -4

Imports Million pounds 65 188 190

Exports Million pounds 944 1,103 17

Per capita consumption Pounds 12 9 -21

Import share of consumption Percent 3 7 162

Export share of production Percent 24 29 24

Price2 $/75-pound box 12 12 1

SSE= Single-strength equivalent.

1For juice using the Florida season and for fresh-market oranges using the California season.

2Price is equivalent-on-tree returns. Florida price for fresh oranges for processing and California price for fresh-market oranges.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook.
22

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

harming the immature fruit. Since 1996, the University of Florida has spent 

$500,000-700,000 per year to develop the abscission compound. In 2009, the 

FDOC presented its proposal to register the abscission compound with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a process that will cost $7-11 

million (Blanco and Roka, 2009). The industry expects a decision from EPA 

by July 2011. 

Mechanical harvesting does not eliminate the need for manual labor, 

however. During the early part of the season, some growers who use 

mechanical harvesters also employ hand harvesters to ensure that they will 

have workers for the late-season Valencia harvest, when machines are not 

used. When the price of oranges is suffi ciently high relative to labor costs, 

mechanically harvested trees are often harvested again by hand to glean the 

remaining oranges. 

Mechanical harvesting requires specially designed groves, and growers 

now design most new plantings for machine harvesting. Due to the many 

challenges facing the industry, there have been relatively few new plantings 

in recent years. In the 2005/06 season, Florida’s orange-bearing acreage 

declined 9 percent. 

In light of these challenges, the Florida market for mechanical orange 

harvesters has declined. The sole U.S. manufacturer of these machines made 

its most recent sale in Florida in 2006.10 While this fi rm continues to export 

mechanical harvesters to countries where demand is stronger, it is waiting to 

see if the abscission compound is approved, which would improve the profi tability of mechanical harvesting and stimulate domestic demand. 

The adoption of mechanized harvesters can often affect packing or 

processing operations. Shaking the trees instead of hand harvesting introduces harvest debris into the containers delivered to processing plants, 

requiring not just additional sorting but also presenting a potential hazard to 

10In the late 1990s, several companies were working to develop mechanical citrus harvesters, but today there is 

only one such company in business.

Figure 3

Machine-harvested Florida processing oranges1 

Million 90-pound boxes

1Total Florida processing orange production varied by year, so the share of the total harvested 

by machine ranged from a low of 2.7 percent in 2003/04 to 6.8 percent in 2006/07.

Source: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Citrus Mechanical 

Harvesting Program. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Marketing year

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
23

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

processing machinery (Roka, 2009b). Debris has become more of a challenge 

because recent hurricanes and disease problems have left larger amounts of 

dead wood in the trees. With an abscission compound, the fruit would come 

off the trees more easily, reducing harvest debris problems. 

Successful mechanization may require adjustments on the part of the 

processor as well as the grower. Processors typically allocate a certain 

harvest volume to each grower on a daily basis, usually a percent of total 

production, to control the fl ow of product into the processing plant. This 

allocation system works well with fl exible farmworkers; the grower is paying 

wages only while the workers are harvesting. For mechanical harvesting, 

however, a small allocation that takes a mechanical harvester only a few 

hours to fi nish would be an ineffi cient use of expensive machinery. 

In 2008, USDA/SCRI awarded a grant of $4 million to Carnegie Mellon 

University for research on robotic harvest mechanization and autonomous 

vehicles for the orange industry. Autonomous vehicles would support precision agriculture, the scouting and detection of diseases, and the mapping of 

fruit. Robotic harvesting might also offer an alternative to the shaker technology used for processing oranges. 

California’s Fresh-Market Oranges

California orange growers produce oranges for the fresh market and use the 

processing market as a residual market. National statistics reveal some of the 

economic challenges facing the California industry: 

• U.S. fresh-market orange production decreased 4 percent between 

1990/91-1992/93 and 2005/06-2007/08; 

• Per capita consumption of fresh oranges dropped by 21 percent over the 

same period; and 

• U.S. per capita tangerine consumption (including the popular clementine) increased by 57 percent over the same period. The decline in U.S. 

fresh orange consumption is linked to greater availability of other fresh 

produce.

California growers are also concerned about the potential for citrus canker 

and citrus greening in their State. While citrus greening has not yet been 

found in California, the Asian citrus psyllid, an insect that is the vector of 

citrus greening, was detected in California trees in 2008. So far, the pests 

found have not tested positive for the disease (California Department of Food 

and Agriculture, 2009). 

Imports of fresh oranges are small but increasing; most U.S. imports are 

navel oranges entering in the summer when there are no domestic navel 

oranges available. Exports are important to the U.S. fresh-market orange 

industry, accounting for 29 percent of U.S. production during 2005/06-

2007/08. The top export markets for fresh U.S. oranges are Canada, followed 

by South Korea, Hong Kong/China, and Japan. Reducing labor costs may be 

particularly important to maintain U.S. competitiveness in the international 
24

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

market for fresh oranges, since China has identifi ed fresh-market oranges as 

having export potential (USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2008). 

All of California’s fresh-market oranges are hand harvested. The shaker 

technology used in Florida for processing oranges is inappropriate for freshmarket oranges, which must have a good appearance. The California Citrus 

Research Board (CRB)—a State marketing order program funded by grower 

assessments—has invested nearly $1 million in mechanical harvest research 

since 2004. CRB funding, however, varies from year to year depending on 

crop size, and mechanization research must compete with other industry 

priorities, such as controlling the Asian citrus psyllid. 

The California fresh-market orange industry is exploring the development 

of a robotic harvester that would mimic hand harvesting. CRB has funded 

San Diego-based Vision Robotics to develop a harvest system that features 

a self-propelled scout machine and a robotic harvester that could have broad 

applicability to many citrus fruit. The fi rst round of research focuses on 

oranges and lemons, the second round will focus on mandarins, which grow 

in clusters, and a third round will target grapefruit, which are larger and 

heavier. While commodities and harvesting processes vary, many industries 

are working together to reduce R&D costs. The apple industry has funded 

similar research with VisionRobotics, since the two-machine harvesting 

strategy would also work with apples. Other tree fruit and table grapes could 

benefi t from this technology. In addition, the strawberry industry has invested 

in mechanization research with this fi rm, although strawberry harvesting and 

orange harvesting would have some different requirements. 

Once a mechanical harvester is available for fresh-market oranges, the 

industry can adapt groves to the machine. This task may be easier for oranges 

than for other tree fruit, since new varieties are not needed. There are no 

dwarf commercial orange trees. Growers have pruned their trees to reduce 

height over time to improve worker effi ciency and safety, facilitate pest 

control, and promote better fruit size and quality. Trees could be trimmed 

even shorter to accommodate a robotic harvester.

Processing and Fresh-Market Orange Outlook

With Florida’s orange acreage shrinking, public policy plays a larger role in 

shaping the future of the processing orange industry. A decrease in the import 

tariff or a sustained increase in labor costs could speed the shift of Florida’s 

orange groves toward the southwestern part of the State, where new plantings are most amenable to mechanical harvesting. Mechanical harvesters are 

available, but their use is currently limited. If the EPA approves an abscission 

compound that allows machine harvesting throughout the season, the use of 

mechanical harvesters may expand. 

The California fresh-market orange industry does not have a mechanical 

alternative to hand harvesters, although research is ongoing. California’s 

navel oranges do not currently face any serious import competition during 

their season, but when freezes occur imports increase, indicating that imports 

are possible at high prices. Lower harvesting costs and lower production 

costs, in general, are important to maintain export markets.
25

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Raisins

The U.S. raisin industry, centered in Fresno County, California, faces several 

challenges. Average U.S. per capita raisin consumption declined by 15 

percent between the 1990/91-1992/93 and 2005/06-2007/08 seasons (table 

6).11 Per capita consumption declined for several reasons: greater year-round 

availability of fresh fruit and competition from other dried fruit, including 

cranberries, blueberries, cherries, and various tropical fruit. 

With lower per capita consumption, exports are very important to the 

industry. In 2005/06-2007/08, 41 percent of raisin production was exported. 

Increased international competition also contributes to the economic challenges of the U.S. raisin industry. The United States and Turkey are the 

world’s largest raisin producers, accounting for over half of global supply. 

Turkey is the world’s largest exporter of raisins, and the cost of producing 

raisins is much lower in Turkey than in California (Martin and Mason, 

2009). The U.S. industry depends on a complicated set of State and Federal 

marketing programs to remain competitive in export markets. There is a 

two-tier market for domestic and export sales, with a lower price for exports 

(Federal Register, 2009; Federal Register, 2007). Without these programs, 

U.S. raisin exports would decline substantially. U.S. raisin imports are relatively small but increasing. 

Harvest Systems

The raisin industry has alternatives to hand harvesting, but only a few 

pioneering growers used them prior to 2000. In that year, production of fresh 

11The California marketing season 

runs from August to July.

Table 6

U.S. raisin industry statistics, 1990/91-1992/93 to 2005/06-2007/081

 Unit

Average

Percent 

change

1990/91-

1992/93

2005/06-

2007/08

California raisin-type grape-bearing acreage Acres 267,333 233,667 -13

Fresh grapes going to raisins (fresh-weight basis) Million tons 1,635 1,563 -4

Percent of raisin-type grapes going to raisins2 Percent 69 75 9

Raisin shipments3 Million pounds 705 664 -6

Prices for grapes that are dried 

 (fresh-weight basis) $ per ton 215 227 6

Raisin imports Million pounds 19 53 183

Raisin exports Million pounds 284 275 -3

Per capita raisin consumption Pounds 2 2 -15

Raisin import share of consumption Percent 4 12 182

Raisin export share of production Percent 40 41 2

1Statistics on a marketing-year basis, August to July.

2Grapes processed for raisins as a percent of raisin-type grape production.

3Raisins can be stored; shipments represent sales from annual production and stored raisins. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook 2008; USDA, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts.
26

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

grapes used for raisins, mainly Thompson Seedless, peaked at a record 2.2 

million tons and the price plummeted 56 percent from the previous season, 

remaining below 1999/2000 levels until 2004/05 (fi g. 4). Between 2000 and 

2004, the quantity of fresh grapes used for raisins declined 50 percent before 

production began to increase again. Growers began to adopt mechanical 

harvesting in response to this price shock, a few years of low labor supply, 

and the introduction in 2001 of a modifi ed mechanical wine-grape harvester. 

Currently, there are three harvest systems—the traditional tray-drying 

system, the continuous-tray system, and the dried-on-the-vine (DOV) system. 

Tray drying. Tray drying is the traditional method of harvesting and drying 

grapes into raisins. Workers harvest the grape clusters by hand after the 

grapes reach the appropriate sugar content, usually by the fi rst two weeks of 

September. Then, the workers place the clusters onto paper trays on terraces 

(smoothed soil surfaces) that have been prepared between the rows of grape 

trellises. The grapes dry into raisins in the 100-degree plus heat for 14 days. 

After the fi rst week of drying, the trays of partially dried grapes are turned or 

rolled to expose the other side of the cluster to the sun and to ensure uniform 

drying. After the second week, the trays are rolled up and taken to a facility 

where the raisins are stored, packed, and sold. 

Tray drying has several disadvantages. Tray drying requires a substantial 

amount of labor. Given a raisin yield of 2 tons per acre, three people working 

a 10-hour day can pick an acre of raisin grapes (University of California 

Cooperative Extension, 2006b). Based on an estimate for the mid-1990s, 

roughly two-thirds of raisin harvesters were unauthorized (Mason et al., 

1997). With a labor force that is temporary and largely unauthorized, the 

raisin harvest may be more vulnerable to stricter immigration enforcement 

than other crops that employ workers for a longer season and may have a 

larger proportion of authorized workers (Mason, 1998).

Vulnerability to rain damage is another disadvantage of tray drying. Because 

of the threat posed by fall rains, growers must have their raisins drying on 

Figure 4

U.S. fresh grapes used for raisins, 1990-2007 

Million tons fresh weight

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook 2008. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

1

1

2

2

3

1990 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Price ($/ton) Price

Quantity
27

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

the ground by the “rain date” (typically about September 20) to be eligible 

for payments under their crop insurance policies in the event of damaging 

rains. Because raisins must have a certain sugar content to be marketable 

and the grapes must be on the ground to dry by the rain date, growers have 

a short window for harvesting their raisins. The longer farmers wait to begin 

the harvest, the more workers they need. If the harvest begins 20 days before 

the rain date, twice as many workers are needed than if the harvest begins 40 

days before the rain date. 

Continuous-tray harvesting. Continuous-tray harvesting has evolved since 

its development and adoption by a single raisin grower in 1972. Numerous 

growers have adopted this system since 2000, in large part, because continuous-tray harvesting is virtually identical to the traditional tray-drying system 

until the harvest. With continuous-tray harvesting, workers sever the grape 

canes about 7 days prior to harvest, which allows the grapes to start drying 

on the vine.12 The slightly withered grapes are then harvested using a modifi ed wine-grape harvester, which strips individual grapes from the stems.13

The grapes are laid down by machine on a long continuous paper tray (also 

laid down by machine) on the traditional terrace between rows. The individual 

grapes need only 7-10 days to dry on the ground, compared with 14 days using 

traditional tray drying where entire clusters are laid down to dry. Machines pick 

up the raisins from continuous trays when drying is complete and load them 

into bins. The paper is shredded during the pick-up process and incorporated 

into the soil. 

Harvesting costs using the continuous-tray system are much lower than 

under the traditional tray-drying system, but yields under the two systems 

are the same. Using a mechanical harvester with the continuous-tray system 

can reduce hand-harvest labor costs by 83 percent and total harvest costs 

by 56 percent (University of California Cooperative Extension, 2006a and 

2006b). In 2008, costs for the continuous-tray system included $185,000 for 

the harvester, $24,000 for the machine to lay down the tray, and $44,000 

for a machine to pick up the raisins. High machinery costs could deter small 

farmers from purchasing machinery for this harvest system. If a custom 

harvest industry emerged, then small growers would not necessarily have to 

purchase the machinery themselves. 

Dried-on-the-vine (DOV) systems. There are two ways of adopting a DOV 

system—retrofi tting an existing vineyard or developing a new vineyard that 

will generate higher yields. For our purposes, we limit the discussion to 

DOV systems for new vineyards in which growers use new trellises, new 

grape varieties, and new cultural practices. Researchers at the University of 

California’s Kearney Agricultural Center developed a DOV system in the 

1960s, although Australian researchers were already tinkering with DOV 

systems in the 1950s. Around 1990, the fi rst California raisin producers 

began using this system.

DOV systems eliminate the need for drying raisin grapes on the ground. 

When the grapes are ripe, the canes are severed and the grapes dry into 

raisins for 6-8 weeks on the vine. Since the temperature within the canopy, 

5 to 6 feet above the soil, is substantially lower than on the drying terraces, 

grapes need to be mature by mid-August to complete drying before the fall 

rains begin. The DOV system reduces risk, since water from an early rain 

12 Severing the canes is the only 

manually performed harvest task that 

does not yet have a mechanized alternative, but researchers are working to 

develop such an alternative. Workers 

only sever the fruiting canes, not the 

renewal canes. Some growers using 

the continuous-tray system may have 

their workers perform additional work 

to separate the fruiting and renewal 

canes. This separation of canes is not 

necessary in the traditional tray-drying 

system, since only grape clusters are 

cut, not canes.

13The modifi ed wine-grape 

harvesting machine, developed by a 

private fi rm, can be used on traditional 

raisin-grape trellises and reduces wear 

and tear on the trellises.
28

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

drains off the grapes drying on the vine, usually without causing damage. 

When canes are cut by August 15, the probability of successful DOV 

harvesting is 90 percent, but the probability falls to 70-80 percent a week 

later and to 50 percent by September 1 (Sun-Maid Growers of California, 

2002). 

The DOV system requires new grape varieties that mature earlier, since the 

traditional Thompson Seedless grape does not mature until late August or 

early September. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) developed 

several new varieties of raisin grapes that mature earlier and reduce grower 

risks of rain damage: Fiesta (released in 1973), DOVine (1995), and Selma 

Pete (2001) (Vasquez and Fidelibus, 2003). Each of these varieties can be 

harvested by August 15 or earlier. In addition, researchers are looking for 

new grape varieties that would dry on the vine without having to cut the 

canes (Bryant, 2010). 

With the DOV system, grapes are harvested mechanically, placed directly 

into containers, and taken to storage, eliminating the use of paper trays and 

reducing foreign material in the raisins. Without the need for drying terraces, 

growers have new options for vineyard architecture and can experiment with 

trellises that maximize the sunlight available to the grapes and increase 

yields. New trellis systems are being developed by individual growers and 

University of California researchers, with some support from the California 

Raisin Marketing Board, a grower-supported organization. New trellises can 

be expensive; one estimate put the cost at $10,000 per acre in 2009 (Pollock, 

2009). Yields, however, increase substantially with DOV. The traditional 

tray-drying system and the continuous-tray system yield about 2 tons of dry 

raisins per acre. With the DOV system, yields can range from 4.7 to 7 tons 

per acre. 

New trellises require new cultural practices. Growers spend more time 

pruning to separate fruiting and renewal canes so that the harvester has easy 

access to grapes on the fruiting canes without damaging the renewal canes. 

This requires more skilled labor during the winter, encouraging many DOV 

growers to employ a small, permanent, year-round staff for pruning and then 

hire a relatively small number of temporary workers for the harvest.

The DOV system is a dramatic departure from the traditional tray-drying 

system and requires a major investment. There is no harvest until the third 

year after replanting a vineyard to one of the new early maturing varieties. 

Even if growers are interested in adopting new varieties, they may be reluctant to pull out an existing vineyard that has a productive lifetime of at least 

30-35 years. In addition, there are concerns about whether cutting canes for 

the continuous-tray or DOV system reduces the long-term vigor of the vineyard (Christensen, 2000). Industry structure will likely affect the speed of 

adoption. California has an estimated 3,500 raisin growers, many of retirement age with small vineyards (Cline, 2008). Output is concentrated among 

the larger growers, with 30 percent of the growers producing about 70 percent 

of the raisins. Older farmers with small vineyards may be less likely to adopt 

the DOV system. As these growers retire, their vineyards may be consolidated into larger operations, which would make the adoption of new technology more profi table. 
29

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

One industry source estimated that growers produced 45 percent of the raisin 

crop using some type of mechanical harvesting system in 2007, up from 1 

percent in 2000 (fi g. 5). There was little change in 2008, perhaps refl ecting 

rising raisin prices and increasing labor availability due to the economic 

downturn, but more mechanization is expected in the future. In 2007, growers 

harvested about 33 percent of the raisin crop using continuous-tray and 12 

percent using DOV harvest technology. The continuous-tray system, with less 

up-front costs and substantial labor savings, is clearly expanding. To remain 

competitive in an international market, growers may eventually be forced to 

adopt DOV, which provides higher yields. 

DOV raisins differ slightly from traditional tray-harvested grapes in appearance and taste (Angulo, Fidelibus, and Heymann, 2007), but the raisin 

industry has not had any trouble dealing with this variation. Raisin handlers 

do not mix raisins produced using different harvest methods since the raisins 

differ in appearance and other attributes. Currently, all raisins of the same 

type receive the same price, regardless of harvest method, and the harvest 

system is not advertised to the retail consumer.

Raisin Outlook

With increased mechanization, the demand for labor in the raisin industry 

has already peaked. The raisin harvest once required 50,000 workers; the 

industry now estimates it uses 20,000-30,000 workers (Cline, 2008). To 

remain competitive in a global market, California producers aim to reduce 

production costs, a process most easily achieved by reducing harvest labor 

costs and increasing yields in DOV systems. With current economic conditions, adoption of mechanical harvesters has slowed. If wages increased or 

prices declined, there would likely be an increase in adoption. Major obstacles to mechanization include the industry’s structure, which features a large 

number of relatively small producers. 

Figure 5

Estimated share of California’s raisin production, 

by harvest technology, 1997-2007 

Percent of production

Source: Ron Brase, California AgQuest Consulting, 2009.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 98 99 0 2000 1 02 0 2003 4 05 0 2006 7

Tray drying

Dried-on-the-vine

Continuous tray
30

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

California’s Fresh-Market Strawberries

In 2007, California accounted for 88 percent of U.S. strawberry production. With growing areas extending from San Diego to Santa Cruz counties, 

the California industry produces year round, although winter supplies are 

relatively low (fi g. 6). Florida produces in the winter when the United States 

imports small quantities of strawberries from Mexico. California produces for 

the fresh market and uses the processing market as a residual market. 

The U.S. fresh strawberry industry has experienced tremendous growth over 

the past two decades (table 7). Between 1990-92 and 2005-07, harvested 

acreage increased 12 percent, yield increased 63 percent, and total utilized 

production increased 81 percent. Growth in supply was met with an increase 

in per capita consumption of 75 percent. 

Fresh-market strawberries are one of the more labor-intensive horticultural crops, but the U.S. industry does not face signifi cant import pressure, 

even from countries with lower labor costs. California’s climate is ideal for 

growing strawberries, and there are not many potential foreign suppliers who 

can deliver this fragile and perishable product to U.S. consumers at a competitive price. Imports were 8 percent of domestic consumption of fresh strawberries in 2005-07. Mexico, mostly the State of Baja California, supplied 

99 percent of U.S. imports of fresh-market strawberries during 2005-07. 

Several California strawberry growers operate in Mexico since California has 

limited land appropriate for winter strawberry production. Baja California 

has little land, water, and labor to devote to strawberry production, prompting 

some U.S. growers to develop a winter strawberry export industry in central 

Mexico. Unless U.S. wages increase dramatically, imports pose little threat to 

U.S. fresh strawberry producers. While imports from Mexico have increased, 

Mexico is also an important and growing market for fresh strawberry exports. 

In 2007, Mexico was the second largest U.S. export market with a 13-percent 

share, after Canada with an 80-percent share. 

Figure 6

U.S. fresh strawberry shipments, 2007 

Tons

Note: California, Florida, and Mexico represent virtually all fresh-market shipments 

reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service.

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Service, Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Shipments.

120,000

80,000

100,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Dec.Nov.

California Florida Mexico
31

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The share of strawberries going to the fresh market has increased, but strawberries going to the processing market are still an important component of 

grower revenue (an average of 21 percent of production went to processing 

in 2005-07). If the fresh price or the quality is low, growers often sell to the 

processing market to help defray production costs. The processing strawberry 

industry, mainly frozen, is more vulnerable to imports. Between 1997-99 

and 2005-07, the import share of frozen strawberry consumption rose from 

20 percent to 32 percent. Over the same period, average frozen exports fell 

7 percent, but from 1997-99 (the peak) to 2005-07, frozen exports fell 49 

percent. California growers are concerned about lower returns in processing.

Strawberry Labor

All California strawberries for the fresh or processing market are harvested 

by hand. In 2004, one acre of strawberries in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties required nearly 1,000 hours of harvest labor (Bolda et al., 2004).14 In 

this same area, labor costs represented 53 percent of the cost of strawberry 

harvesting in 2004 and 36 percent of total operating costs. The growth of 

organic strawberry production has an impact on demand for labor. Organic 

growers, who cannot use herbicides and fumigants for weed suppression, tend 

to use more labor than conventional growers. 

14 This cost of production study 

does not consider the use of a labor 

aid, which is discussed later.

Table 7

U.S. strawberry industry statistics, 1990-92 to 2005-07

Unit

Average Percent 

1990-1992 2005-2007 change

Acres harvested Acres 47,230 52,700 12

Utilized production Tons 659,017 1,195,300 81

Yield Tons/acre 14 23 63

Fresh utilization Tons 471,917 949,200 101

Processed utilization Tons 187,100 246,100 32

Fresh share of utilization Percent 72 79 11

Grower price (fresh) $/ton 1,139 1,488 31

Grower price (processed) $/ton 539 567 5

Fresh imports Tons 14,573 72,301 396

Fresh import share of consumption Percent 3 8 137

Fresh exports Tons 47,201 112,835 139

Fresh export share of production Percent 10 12 19

Fresh per capita consumption Pounds 3 6 75

Frozen strawberry production Tons 150,774 203,332 35

Frozen imports Tons 33,470 87,550 162

Frozen import share of consumption Percent 20 32 61

Frozen exports Tons 14,815 13,723 -7

Frozen export share of production Percent 10 7 -32

Processed per capita consumption Pounds 1 2 41

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook 2008.
32

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Growers would like to reduce their labor costs, but strawberries present a 

diffi cult challenge for a mechanical harvester. The fruit is very fragile and 

does not mature at one time. It is diffi cult to develop a machine that duplicates the skill and speed with which a worker can sort through foliage, identify a ripe strawberry, and pick the fruit without damaging it. Since the plants 

are harvested continuously for many months, a mechanical harvester must 

avoid damaging the strawberry plants as well as the immature fruit. In 2007, 

the California Strawberry Commission began funding research on a robotic 

harvester, spending $75,000-$100,000 per year. The strawberry industry is 

looking at a two-machine harvest system like that being developed for apples 

and California citrus. As of early 2009, research had progressed to the stage 

where an experimental prototype could identify and pick a ripe strawberry 

and then deposit it safely into a container. An economical robotic harvest 

system will take more time to develop. Many believe that strawberries will 

be the last or one of the last fruit and vegetable crops to be mechanically 

harvested.

Adoption of a labor aid, rather than a mechanical harvester, has increased 

labor productivity in the strawberry industry in Southern California. In 2002, 

a slow-moving conveyor belt that serves as a receiving station for pickers 

was introduced in Ventura County. The conveyor belt moves down the fi eld 

in front of the harvest crew, straddling many rows of strawberries. The work 

crew still picks the strawberries by hand and places them into trays, but full 

trays are now deposited onto the conveyor belt a few steps away rather than 

being carried to trucks at the end of the row. This increases worker productivity, particularly in large fi elds, and reduces the hours of labor required 

per acre. Early in the adoption process, a fi rm in Ventura County reported 

that the new technology reduced harvest hours per acre by about 40 percent 

(Rosenberg, 2004).

This conveyor-belt technology was developed and patented by a private 

custom fabrication fi rm that specializes in machinery for the strawberry 

industry. Approximately 250 such conveyor belts were in operation in 2008, 

mostly in Ventura County. Industry experts estimate that 50-75 percent of 

the Ventura County strawberry acreage was harvested with the assistance of 

conveyor belts in 2008. A single conveyor belt cost approximately $115,000 

in 2008; the cost may be a deterrent to its adoption for some small growers, 

but a custom harvest industry could evolve to allow smaller growers to use 

the new technology. Alternatively, a smaller and cheaper conveyor belt could 

be developed to handle the volume of smaller farms. 

Most growers who adopted conveyor-belt technology reduced their piece-rate 

wages because of the increased labor productivity. This raised fears among 

workers that their total income could drop. An early adopter of the conveyor 

belt reduced the piece rate, but because workers could harvest substantially 

more trays per hour with the assistance of the conveyor belt, their average 

hourly earnings actually rose (Rosenberg, 2004). Nonetheless, reactions 

of harvest crews to the conveyor belts have been mixed. Some crews have 

refused to use the machines; others have experimented with the machines, 

only to reject them; and still others have made a successful transition to the 

machines. Some growers use a combination of conventional labor crews and 

conveyor-belt crews with separate piece rates for each.
33

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Growers outside Ventura County have been less likely to adopt the conveyor 

belt. Ventura County has very fl at terrain, and the technology may be less 

suitable for California’s northern production area, which has more hilly 

terrain. The northern area accounted for 44 percent of California’s strawberry production in 2007, compared with 27 percent for Ventura County. 

One grower in the north has been experimenting with two conveyor belts for 

several years, but has not yet deployed them for commercial use.15 Another 

grower is developing a machine that may be more appropriate for smaller 

operations. Some reports suggest that growers in the northern area have not 

adopted the conveyor belt because they are anxious to avoid the labor issues 

inherent in adopting any new technology (The Packer, 2008). 

Strawberry Outlook

Between 1990 and 2007, strawberry production increased at an average 

annual rate of 5 percent. Labor aids can make harvest workers more effi -

cient, reducing labor hours per acre. Commercial mechanical harvesting 

technology is not currently available nor is it expected in the near future. The 

fresh strawberry market is not very vulnerable to import competition but the 

processed strawberry market is. An increase in processing imports is likely 

to encourage adoption of labor-saving technologies, such as the conveyor belt, 

and to increase the urgency of fi nding an economical mechanical harvesting 

technology.

15One grower in Florida experimented with the Ventura conveyor belt 

technology without success.
34

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Fresh-Market Asparagus

The U.S. asparagus industry is in decline due to import competition. Production 

decreased by 46 percent between 1990-92 and 2005-07, even though U.S. 

per capita consumption of fresh asparagus increased by 91 percent over 

this period from 0.6 pounds to 1.1 pounds per capita. Imports, mainly from 

Mexico and Peru, supplied 76 percent of U.S. fresh-asparagus consumption 

during 2005-07 (table 8). Since the bulk of the U.S. fresh asparagus harvest 

is marketed from March through June, not all fresh imports compete directly 

with domestic production (imports of nonperishable processed products, 

such as canned and frozen asparagus, which do not have a season, compete 

directly). For many years, the U.S. asparagus industry was protected from 

imports by high tariffs compared with those of other fruit and vegetables. 

Before the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 

1994, the United States applied a most-favored-nation tariff of 25 percent on 

imported fresh asparagus during the critical February 1-June 30 period, when 

most of the U.S. production is harvested. Under NAFTA, this seasonal tariff 

was gradually phased out for Mexican asparagus over a 14-year period that 

ended in 2008. U.S. asparagus imports from Mexico increased as the tariff 

gradually declined to zero. Peruvian asparagus has entered the United States 

tariff-free since 1991 under the Andean Trade Preference Act. 

Table 8

Asparagus industry statistics, 1990-92 to 2005-07

 Unit

Average Percent 

1990-92 2005-07 change

Total production Million pounds fresh weight 235 127 -46

Fresh production Million pounds fresh weight 139 99 -28

Fresh imports Million pounds fresh weight 51 258 402

Fresh import share of consumption Percent 34 76 124

Fresh exports Million pounds fresh weight 40 18 -53

Fresh export share of production Percent 29 19 -35

Fresh price $/cwt (constant 2000 $) 95 79 -20

Fresh per capita consumption Pounds/person * * 91

Canned production Million pounds fresh weight 75 20 -73

Canned imports Million pounds fresh weight 2 29 1,237

Canned import share of consumption Percent 3 61 1,973

Canned exports Million pounds fresh weight 4 1 -78

Canned per capita consumption Pounds/person * * -41

Frozen production Million pounds fresh weight 20 8 -63

Frozen imports Million pounds fresh weight 3 17 562

Frozen import share of consumption Percent 10 68 599

Frozen exports Million pounds fresh weight N.A. 2 N.A.

Frozen per capita consumption Pounds/person * * -20

cwt=Hundredweight.

N.A.=Not available.

*Less than 1 pound per capita.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Vegetables and Melons Situation and Outlook Yearbook.
35

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Traditionally, California’s growers dominated the fresh asparagus market, 

while growers in Washington State and Michigan focused on the processing 

market.16 In recent years, however, Washington State growers shifted to 

production for the fresh market. The minimum wage exceeds the Federal 

level in all three States—a serious problem for a labor-intensive crop, such 

as asparagus. In California, increased imports from Mexico resulted in lower 

prices and reduced early-season profi tability. In March 1990, Mexican asparagus accounted for 30 percent of total shipments (fi g. 7). Over time, Mexican 

asparagus volumes and the length of the season increased. By March 2007, 

Mexican asparagus dominated shipments with a 63-percent market share. 

Some California producers, who once harvested asparagus for up to 3 

months, now harvest only during a 6-week period when prices are highest. 

Many growers in California have stopped producing asparagus altogether. 

Between 1990-92 and 2005-07, California’s asparagus production declined 

37 percent. As the season shrinks, growers cannot justify allocating so much 

valuable land to a perennial crop. California producers now face competition 

for labor at the end of their season because they have to compete for workers 

against the expanding California cherry harvest, which begins in May.17

The Washington State asparagus season runs from early April through 

June, following the California season. The main Mexican asparagus season 

is over by the time the Washington State season begins, and imports from 

16 New Jersey and other States 

produce smaller amounts of fresh 

asparagus.

17 Since asparagus is one of the 

earliest crops harvested each year 

in California’s Central Valley, the 

industry generally has no trouble with 

labor supply at the beginning of the 

season.

Figure 7

U.S., Mexican, and Peruvian fresh asparagus shipments, 1990 and 2007

1,000 cwt

cwt = Hundredweight.

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Shipments.

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Dec.Nov.

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Dec.Nov.

Peru

Mexico

United States

1990 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700
36

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Mexico are low. Shipments from Peru are low but could increase, since Peru 

is the only country that exports fresh asparagus year-round. Traditionally, 

Washington State growers could not rely on the early season price premiums 

received by the California industry; they instead depended on high yields and 

concentrated on canned spears. Canned asparagus consumption, however, has 

been declining as consumers switch to fresh asparagus which is now available year round. Washington State’s asparagus harvest declined 59 percent 

between 1990-92 and 2005-07. Between 2003 and 2005, the three biggest 

canners (all multinational corporations) closed their Washington State operations and opened new plants in Peru, the main source of both canned and 

frozen asparagus. The now smaller Washington State industry has been 

forced into the fresh market. With lower production in the last few years, 

the price of fresh-market asparagus has risen during their season. Growers, 

as a result, must decide whether to increase acreage for a crop that has an 

uncertain future due to import competition and concerns about labor price 

and availability.18 Washington State growers, like their California counterparts, face strong competition at the end of their season for labor from cherry 

growers. As a result, some fi elds are abandoned prematurely at the end of the 

season. 

Michigan’s asparagus industry traditionally has focused on canned and frozen 

asparagus, particularly the product known as cuts and tips, which requires 

less hand trimming than whole spears. Michigan asparagus production 

declined only 5 percent between 1990-92 and 2005-07. Many of Michigan’s 

asparagus processing fi rms are small and locally owned, making them less 

likely to move to Peru than the large, multinational processors that used to 

operate in Washington State. 

Harvesting

Asparagus is harvested by hand, and it is diffi cult to build a mechanical 

harvester that can compete with the speed and accuracy of harvest workers. 

Asparagus shoots mature over several months. When the weather is particularly warm, asparagus fi elds must be harvested on a daily basis, and workers 

must be careful not to damage the spears that will be harvested at a later 

date. Growers in Michigan use a labor aid—a self-propelled cart—to support 

workers as they hand harvest asparagus, reducing worker fatigue and labor 

needs. The machine was developed by a local farmer and is now manufactured by a local fi rm. Michigan asparagus is harvested as a short spear in fl at 

fi elds. This labor aid has not caught on in California and Washington State, 

where asparagus is harvested as much taller spears and grown on ridges to 

accommodate furrow irrigation—characteristics that make the self-propelled 

cart diffi cult to use.

Asparagus is harvested in the fi eld and then transported to the packinghouse. Asparagus packing is also a labor-intensive activity, but mechanical 

grading equipment is available. One California grower reported cutting his 

packinghouse labor force by about half after adopting a mechanical grader 

that grades and sorts asparagus spears by diameter, length, shape, and color 

(Chadwell, 2008). Growers uncertain about their economic future, however, 

may be reluctant to invest in mechanical sorters.

18 Some Washington State fruit 

growers have expressed interest in 

producing early-season asparagus to 

offer workers an attractive extended 

work season as a means to ensure an 

adequate workforce later in the season 

for the fruit harvest (Lewiston Morning 

Tribune, 2008).
37

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The University of California conducted research on developing a nonselective mechanical asparagus harvester in the 1950s. Later research efforts 

were mostly small-scale private endeavors, and many of them focused on 

developing a selective harvester.19 In the 1960s and 1970s, there was still 

some interest in the development of a mechanical harvester for asparagus, 

but this interest declined in the 1980s (Clary et al., 2007). In the mid-1990s, 

the Washington Asparagus Commission used a grower check-off program to 

fund mechanization research, with no success. Since then, the commission 

has focused mostly on limited research on varieties and cultivation practices 

that would be necessary for the use of mechanical harvesters. Beginning in 

2001, Washington State University (WSU) and Michigan State University 

received $1.74 million in Federal funding for mechanization research, as well 

as other types of research, for asparagus. 

The Washington State Legislature also has invested in mechanizing the 

asparagus industry. Beginning in 2004, the legislature provided $1 million 

over a 3-year period to WSU to fund research on mechanical harvesters, but 

not on complementary research concerning new varieties or cultural practices. Since the university’s researchers did not have a machine-design shop 

of their own, they used the money to fund private-sector work on prototype 

machines.20 The researchers at WSU evaluated efforts around the world 

to develop a mechanical asparagus harvester and identifi ed 10 promising 

machines, some of which had been in development for many years. After 

initial assessments of the effi ciency of these machines, WSU provided some 

funding to four developers (all private fi rms—one from New Zealand and the 

others from the United States) and conducted fi eld-performance tests. None 

of these machines worked as the evaluators desired. 

In 2009, WSU researchers looked at a promising harvester that had not been 

in the evaluation program. This machine was produced by a small private 

fi rm in Washington State that has worked without any Federal or State 

support and only received some Washington Asparagus Commission funding 

in 2010 (Milkovich, 2010). The harvester represents the fi rm’s 15th prototype 

since 1971. The machine has an electronic eye that identifi es spears of the 

right size and selectively harvests just those spears. The estimated cost of this 

machine is about $250,000 and it would only be used during the short spring 

harvest season.

In 2004, the Washington State Legislature allocated $1.5 million to subsidize 

leases of packinghouse sorting machinery and another $500,000 for this 

purpose in 2006. After 5 years, the machinery would be declared surplus 

and packers could then buy it at a reduced price. Most packinghouses now 

use mechanized sorting machines, although all still use some hand labor. In 

2007, the legislature authorized $840,000 for a similar program to subsidize 

the lease and eventual purchase of mechanical harvesters, but only a prototype was available at that time. Since an organization could not be found to 

oversee the program, it did not go into effect and the funds reverted to the 

State general fund.

U.S. producers will receive some economic relief from the import situation 

from the Asparagus Market Loss Program, part of the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008. A total sum of $15 million will be distributed to 

producers of fresh, processed, and frozen asparagus based on losses incurred 

19 See Lund (2009) for an account 

of a small-scale, private research effort 

to develop a mechanical asparagus 

harvester. 

20 Due to the reduction of Federal 

funding for mechanization research 

during the 1980s, many university 

researchers lack machine-design 

shops.
38

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

from 2004 to 2007 due to increased imports. This fi nancial support is 

welcome relief, but concerns remain as to whether the industry can be revived 

when the larger problem of depressed prices due to increased foreign competition remains. The Peruvian and Mexican asparagus industries have established themselves as forces in the world asparagus market. Similarly, at some 

stage, additional private and public investment in mechanization research 

may come too late to gain a positive return.

Asparagus Outlook

With less land now devoted to asparagus, the demand for labor in the U.S. 

asparagus industry has peaked. An increase in labor costs would put further 

pressure on a declining industry; more land would probably switch to other 

crops and imports would increase. The California asparagus industry, experiencing intense competition from Mexican imports, is in a more precarious 

situation than its Washington State counterpart, which faces less import 

competition due to its late season harvest. Can mechanization advance fast 

enough to provide economic relief to the remaining U.S. asparagus growers? 

At some point, it may be too late for growers to adopt mechanical harvesters, 

as they may be unwilling or unable to afford to take a chance on an expensive, new technology that might make their industry profi table again. 
39

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Lettuce

Most U.S. lettuce is grown in California during the spring to fall season 

and in both California and Arizona during the winter. USDA’s National 

Agricultural Statistics Service reported that in 2007, 74 percent of lettuce 

was grown in California, 25 percent in Arizona, and less than 1 percent in 

Colorado and New Jersey. Small production in other States is not reported. 

Between 1990-92 and 2005-07, the lettuce crop increased 18 percent in 

volume (table 9). The types of lettuce produced in the United States have 

changed over time. Head lettuce (iceberg) production has been declining 

slowly (down 14 percent between 1990-92 and 2005-07), while production 

of leaf and romaine lettuces (including baby leaf lettuce) increased by 209 

percent over the same period. Bagged salad technology enables many fragile 

leafy greens, such as baby leaf lettuce, to be shipped long distances, making 

them an important part of the U.S. lettuce industry. In 2007, head lettuce 

accounted for 60 percent of U.S. lettuce production, romaine 27 percent, and 

leaf 13 percent.

Since the United States produces lettuce year round, imports have never 

supplied a large share of U.S. lettuce consumption. In 2005-07, imports 

accounted for only 2 percent of U.S. lettuce consumption. In 2007, 75 percent 

of U.S. lettuce imports came from Mexico, and 24 percent (mostly hydroponic 

lettuce) came from Canada.21 Changes in the U.S. lettuce market, however, 

are providing an additional incentive to import lettuce. Bagged salads are 

frequently sold under annual or multi-year contracts that specify weekly 

quantities to be delivered. Some large fi rms are growing lettuce in Mexico to 

enable them to fulfi ll bagged-salad contracts in the event that bad weather or 

some other issue restricts the availability of U.S. lettuce, particularly during 

the winter months when cold weather can adversely affect production in the 

21U.S.-Mexican lettuce trade is 

small; the United States exported 63 

million pounds of lettuce to Mexico in 

2007 (only 8 percent of total exports 

but the second largest market after 

Canada) and Mexico exported 171 

million pounds to the United States.

Table 9

U.S. lettuce industry statistics, 1990-92 to 2005-07

 Unit

Average Percent 

1990-92 2005-07 change

Total lettuce production Million pounds 8,362 9,889 18

Head production Million pounds 7,160 6,174 -14

Leaf/romaine production Million pounds 1,203 3,715 209

Head per capita consumption Pounds 27 20 -25

Leaf/romaine per capita consumption Pounds 4 11 167

Head imports Million pounds 20 128 547

Leaf/romaine imports Million pounds 9 63 613

Head import percent of consumption Percent 0 2 639

Leaf/romaine import percent of consumption Percent 1 2 118

Head exports Million pounds 457 389 -15

Leaf/romaine exports Million pounds 159 467 193

Head export percent of production Percent 6 6 -3

Leaf/romaine export percent of production Percent 13 13 -5

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Vegetables and Melons Situation and Outlook Yearbook.
40

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Yuma, Arizona, region. Most Mexican lettuce destined for the U.S. market is 

grown in central Mexico, where frost is less of a risk than in Yuma, but rain 

is more of a problem. Total production costs in Yuma and central Mexico are 

similar. While wages are lower in Mexico than in the United States, yields 

in Mexico are also lower. Central Mexico may enjoy a slight advantage over 

Yuma in freight costs when shipping to certain areas of the United States. 

Harvesting

Harvest methods vary by how the lettuce will be used. Head, leaf, and 

romaine lettuce wrapped individually for fi nal consumer sale are all hand 

harvested and fi eld packed. Workers cut and trim the lettuce by hand. 

Typically the harvesters are working with a harvest platform—a large labor 

aid—that moves slowly through the fi eld. The harvesters place the cut and 

trimmed lettuce on the harvest platform. Other workers, walking behind the 

platform, wrap and pack the lettuce in boxes that are stacked and palletized 

on another part of the platform. Using the harvest platform minimizes heavy 

lifting for the harvesters and cuts down on injuries and workman compensation costs. 

One of the main challenges to harvesting lettuce mechanically for sale as 

individual heads is that the crop does not mature evenly, and growers want 

uniformity in head density and size. With a mechanical once-over harvest, 

about 25 percent of the lettuce would be immature and wasted. It is possible 

to produce lettuce that will mature more evenly, but cultural costs are higher. 

Growers and machinery manufacturing fi rms are experimenting with ways to 

mechanize the lettuce harvest. Hand harvesters can identify defective heads 

of lettuce and either not harvest them or remove the defects before packing 

them. If a machine harvester was not as discriminating, additional hand labor 

might be needed for sorting and quality control. 

Lettuce, except for baby leaf lettuce, destined for bagged salads is also hand 

harvested but the process is different. Workers place the lettuce on a conveyor 

belt that empties into bins. The bins are transported to the processing plant, 

where the lettuce is washed, cut, and packed. These fi elds are often harvested 

only once since head size and shape are not as critical for this product as they 

are for lettuce sold to consumers as individual heads. 

Baby leaf lettuce, which is almost always bagged, lends itself to mechanical harvest. Since all baby leaf lettuce plants are immature, they can be 

harvested in one pass through the fi eld, and the variation in product size will 

be small. The fi rst harvester was developed by a baby leaf lettuce grower.

The mechanized harvest of baby leaf lettuce began in the late 1990s, and 

by 2008, an estimated 70-80 percent of the crop was harvested mechanically. Some smaller growers and short-season growers still rely on hand 

harvesting. Without mechanization, baby leaf lettuce production might not 

have expanded as quickly as it did. There is a range of machines appropriate 

for many different growing operations. One brand of harvester costs about 

$240,000, and the manufacturer estimates that the machine can cut 13,000-

15,000 pounds an hour, equivalent to a harvest crew of 140. For a small 

operation, small push machines can be used that cost about $10,000 and cut 

300 pounds an hour. Even with a mechanical harvester, some labor is still 

required to minimize debris uptake as the harvester moves across the fi eld. 
41

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Large growers, shippers, and salad processors have been innovators in their 

industry, developing systems that cool lettuce in vacuum tubes, packaging 

fresh salads in bags, and transplanting seedlings to obtain 2-3 harvests per 

year from a single plot of land. Machinery manufacturing fi rms are developing harvesters for mature lettuce, but none have been widely adopted. 

The lettuce industry is concentrated in production; in 2007, 8 percent of 

the lettuce farms in the United States controlled 97 percent of total lettuce 

acreage (USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009). This concentration means there are many large fi rms that can invest in new technologies. 

The bagged-salad processing industry is also highly concentrated because 

of the large capital requirements for processing plants. In 1997, fi ve fi rms 

accounted for 88 percent of retail sales of bagged salads (Calvin et al., 2001), 

and concentration has increased since then.

Currently, there are no collective efforts by the industry to fund research on 

harvest mechanization. The California Leafy Greens Research Program—a 

California State marketing order that collects assessments from handlers—

has funded research on machines to thin lettuce plants, plant breeding, pest 

management, and cultural practices.22 

Labor Situation 

California’s central coast lettuce-growing season is 7 months long and relies 

on well-established, stable, and skilled work crews. In this area, the H-2A 

guest worker program is not used to obtain seasonal workers, both because 

farmworkers are available and because of the high cost of providing the 

free housing required by the program. The Yuma, Arizona, lettuce production region has a shorter growing season, just 4 months. Traditionally, most 

Yuma farmworkers were “green-card commuters”—Mexican citizens with 

U.S. immigrant visas who lived in Mexico and commuted daily to the Yuma 

fi elds. Green-card commuters are aging, however, and some of the younger 

workers joining the harvest crews are unauthorized, relying on false documents to get hired. With increased border security, unauthorized workers who 

successfully cross the border tend to seek employment further north where 

they may not be as vulnerable to detection. Some growers have turned to the 

H-2A program in Yuma to obtain authorized farmworkers. One large lettuce 

fi rm recruited 200 workers from Mexico for the 2008-09 harvest and housed 

them in two apartment complexes in Yuma that it had bought and refurbished 

(Neyoy, 2009). 

Lettuce Outlook

The baby leaf lettuce harvest is largely mechanized. Private machinery 

manufacturing fi rms are working to develop prototypes for mechanical 

harvesters for the rest of the lettuce crop. The industry does not face substantial competition from imports, so it could pass on some costs to consumers 

if wages rose. A substantial increase in wages would likely spur increased 

mechanization, including a nonselective harvester for mature lettuce. 

22 Like the processed tomato 

industry, the lettuce industry was 

concerned about the labor situation 

when the Bracero Program ended. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, agricultural 

engineers from USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Service and the University 

of California at Davis worked on a 

mechanical harvesting machine that 

would identify mature lettuce heads 

and selectively harvest them. This 

research ended, however, following a 

lawsuit over the mechanical processing 

tomato harvester. The California 

Lettuce Research Board (an earlier 

version of the California Leafy Greens 

Research Program) wanted to support 

this research, but the then governor 

of California would not allow it to do 

so. Most research efforts on harvest 

mechanization for lettuce now focus 

on a once-over harvest instead of a 

selective harvester. In contrast, the 

emphasis in asparagus harvest research 

has gone in the opposite direction.
42

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

The authors of this report reviewed labor use in the U.S. produce industry 

and assessed how producers of specifi c commodities would fare if labor rates 

increased. The case studies of selected fruit and vegetable commodities, none 

of which are completely mechanized, show that the U.S. produce industry’s 

ability to respond to rising labor costs varies across commodities and across 

growers within each commodity. 

Changes in labor rates have an immediate impact on growers since labor 

costs account for a high share of total production costs for most fruit and 

vegetables. Moreover, whenever profi tability is reduced by other factors, 

such as decreased consumer demand, increased competition in trade, or new 

diseases, the incentives to reduce labor costs increase. Even if a grower 

cannot reduce labor costs, other changes can compensate and keep total costs 

of production steady. For example, increasing yields may reduce costs per 

unit of output. Of the case studies, yields increased for apples, strawberries, 

asparagus, and lettuce (table 10). 

If wages increase, growers have various options they can employ to manage 

labor costs. Growers can use less labor, although this frequently involves 

settling for a lower yield. In the case of apples, growers may only make 

one harvesting pass through an orchard instead of making several passes to 

select apples at peak maturity. Asparagus growers may stop harvesting a fi eld 

before the end of the season if the labor cost is too high relative to the price 

of asparagus. Growers can use labor more effi ciently by adopting labor aids. 

Some apple and strawberry growers have recently adopted labor aids, such as 

platforms and conveyor belts. 

Growers can mechanize the harvest if there is an economical alternative to 

hand labor. Some growers of raisin grapes, processing oranges, and baby 

lettuce have mechanized their harvests. Developing a viable mechanized 

harvest system usually depends on breakthroughs in three areas: machinery, 

varieties, and cultural practices. Results from all three lines of research 

may not emerge at the same time. For example, the DOV harvest system for 

raisin grapes was not successful until an earlier-maturing grape variety was 

developed. The adoption path, however, can be unpredictable. In the case of 

processing oranges, mechanization appears to have stalled while growers 

wait for the development of a complete mechanization system and not just the 

mechanical harvester. Specifi cally, the Florida processing-orange industry 

hopes to obtain regulatory approval of an abscission compound that would 

enable mechanical harvesters to be used on the entire processing-orange 

crop, not just the early season oranges. Raisin mechanization was at 45 

percent of production in 2007, but adoption may have slowed because current 

economic conditions (higher raisin prices) have made mechanization less 

urgent. With a viable mechanical alternative available, individual growers 

will adopt as their economic conditions dictate. Most large or extendedseason producers of baby lettuce already use mechanical harvesters, but 

other lettuces do not yet have economical mechanical harvesters. The apple, 

fresh-market orange, strawberry, and asparagus industries do not yet have 

mechanical harvesters either.
43

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Growers do not automatically adopt a complete mechanized harvest system 

as soon as it becomes available. Many factors infl uence the individual adoption decision. Growers may be reluctant to adopt mechanical harvesters if 

they have any economic alternative; the quality of mechanically harvested 

commodities is usually lower and mechanical harvesters may damage plants, 

particularly perennials, such as orange trees. In addition, the long-term 

economic viability of some new harvest systems is often a concern, and there 

is the risk that early adopters will invest in the wrong technology. Some 

mechanical harvesters, such as processing orange harvesters, are very expensive, and economic incentives tend to favor adoption by larger growers who 

can spread the cost over a larger volume of product, potentially impacting the 

structure of an industry. For smaller growers, hiring someone else to harvest 

a crop is an alternative to buying the machinery outright, but there are 

often concerns about the timeliness of harvest when someone else owns the 

Table 10

Economic conditions for case study commodities 

Oranges

Apples

Freshmarket Processing Raisins Strawberries Asparagus Lettuce

Million dollars

Average value 2005-071

Fresh 1,932 660 NA NA 1,416 91 2,080

Processed 229 NA 1,539 355 140 16 NA

Percent

Import share of consumption 

Fresh produce 8 7 NA NA 8 76 2

Processed produce 81 NA 30 12 32 60 NA

Export share of 

 fresh production 24 29 14 41 12 19 9

Change in production 

 from 1990-92 to 2005-07 

Fresh 202 -4 NA NA 81 -28 18

Processed NA3 NA 14 -4 NA3 -71 NA

Change in consumption 

 from 1990-92 to 2005-07 

Fresh -11 -21 NA NA 75 91 1

Processed 32 NA -12 -15 41 -36 NA

Change in yield from 

 1990-92 to 2005-07 19 -7 -7 -1 63 12 7

Mechanization No No Partial Partial No No Partial5

Current industry support 

 for mechanization R&D Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No

NA=Not applicable.

1Farmgate value for all but citrus; equivalent packinghouse-door returns for citrus.

2Production declined 7 percent from the average of the 1998-2000 harvests.

3Production is used in both the fresh and processed market but all production is shown as fresh. 

4Production declined 35 percent since the 1997-98 season.

5Only baby leaf lettuce is mechanized.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook and Vegetables and Melons Yearbook.
44

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

machine. Mechanical harvesters for some crops, like baby leaf lettuce, come 

in a variety of sizes appropriate for all types of growers.

If total production costs increase with labor rates, farmers will generally 

produce less and prices will increase. Growers may switch to more profi table 

crops or sell their farmland. In some cases, U.S. consumption needs might be 

supplied by imports instead of domestic production. International competition 

for a commodity affects the ability of growers to respond to higher production costs. Even if wages do not increase in the United States, imports can 

often put economic pressure on U.S. growers to reduce labor costs. Among 

the case studies, the strawberry industry has the lowest short-run vulnerability to increased labor costs, as U.S. growers face little competition from 

imports and domestic per capita consumption is growing (see table 10). If 

strawberry labor costs rose, growers would likely be able to pass along some 

of the higher costs to consumers. Although there are no immediate prospects 

for the mechanization of strawberry harvesting, some in the industry have 

adopted a labor aid that has reduced the demand for labor in some regions. 

By contrast, the U.S. asparagus industry has perhaps the greatest short-run 

vulnerability to an increase in labor costs. U.S. growers face strong competition from imports from countries with substantially lower labor costs, and 

domestic acreage has declined. A prototype mechanical harvester is currently 

being tested that may reduce some pressure; at best, it will be a race for the 

U.S. asparagus industry to fi nd an economical mechanical harvest system 

before the U.S. industry declines further. Several commodities sold as both 

fresh and processed products, like Washington State apples and California 

strawberries, have experienced import competition in just the processing 

market, but this also puts additional economic pressure on growers.

R&D is critical to the development of new labor aids and mechanical 

harvesters. Individual growers, grower organizations, researchers in private 

machinery manufacturing fi rms (ranging from one person to many), universities, and the Government have all invested in these new technologies. 

Private investment in R&D implies that private benefi ts exceed private costs. 

The Government may invest in R&D if private investment does not yield a 

socially optimal level of research. 

For processing oranges and raisin grapes, developing a mechanical harvester 

involved a range of private and public investment. The mechanical harvester 

for baby lettuce was developed entirely by private initiatives. The lettuce 

industry is the largest, in terms of value, among the case studies and includes 

many large producers capable of funding private research. Several mechanization fi rms are currently experimenting with new protoypes. The asparagus 

harvester prototype, now in testing, was also developed by a private initiative. In terms of value, asparagus is the smallest industry of the case study 

commodities. The lettuce and asparagus examples demonstrate that the size 

of the industry (and potential market) alone does not determine investment in 

mechanization. 

Private interest in mechanization research has varied over time. Industry 

interest in labor-saving research tends to rise and fall with the supply, or 

anticipated supply, of labor. Unfortunately, the pace of mechanization is 

unpredictable. The harvest of some commodities was mechanized much 

sooner than many observers had expected, while other industries still are not 
45

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

mechanized despite predictions that they would be. As the case of asparagus 

demonstrates, a mechanical harvester may not be available in time for the 

industry to compete successfully against imports from countries with much 

lower labor costs. 

Grower organizations fund research with assessments on grower output, but 

their willingness to do so depends on the industry’s economic condition. 

Growers who are doubtful about their long-term economic prospects, perhaps 

due to import competition, may be less willing to support mechanization 

research when benefi ts are likely to accrue only in the long term. Events, such 

as freezes or diseases, can reduce an industry’s ability to invest in long-term 

research initiatives. Grower organizations for apples, fresh-market oranges, 

strawberries, and asparagus are currently funding mechanization R&D; 

grower organizations for raisins, lettuce, and Florida’s processing oranges are 

not currently funding harvest mechanization research but have in the past. 

For raisin growers, a viable mechanical harvester is already on the market 

and the grower organization funds complementary research, such as developing optimal trellis design. For lettuce, private machinery manufacturing 

fi rms are actively working on harvester prototypes and the grower organization funds other types of research. For Florida oranges, a commercial 

harvester is available and grower organization funds now support work on the 

abscission compound. 

Federal Government funding for mechanization R&D has also varied over 

time. For most of the past three decades, USDA has provided no direct 

funding for research to mechanize fruit and vegetable production. In 2008, 

USDA resumed such funding, which can sustain the basic research for the 

innovations that eventually lead to mechanization. This funding requires 

100 percent non-Federal matching funds. The fi rst round of awards funded 

projects involving apple and orange harvest mechanization research. Other 

related Federal funding has contributed to the success of mechanization. For 

example, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service contributed to the success of 

raisin mechanization by developing new varieties of grapes. 

Adapting to higher labor costs is a complex issue. Labor is only one component of fi rm profi tability, and growers have various strategies for responding 

to higher labor costs. These case studies demonstrate that fruit and vegetable 

commodities would not all respond in the same way nor would all growers 

within a commodity. 
46

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Alston, Julian, and Phil Pardey. “Public Funding for Research into Specialty 

Crops,” HortScience 43(5): pp. 1461-70, 2008.

Angulo, O., M.W. Fidelibus, and H. Heymann. “Grape cultivar and drying 

method affect sensory characteristics and consumer preference of raisins,” 

Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 87: pp. 865-70, 2007.

Blanco, German, and Fritz Roka. “Cost/Benefi t Analysis of Abscission 

Registration for Citrus Mechanical Harvesting,” paper presented at the 

Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, 

Georgia, January 31-February 3, 2009. 

Bolda, Mark, Laura Tourte, Karen Klonsky, and Richard De Moura. 2004 

Sample Costs to Produce Strawberries, Central Coast Region, University 

of California Cooperative Extension, ST-CC-04, 2004, http://coststudies.

ucdavis.edu/fi les/strawcc2004.pdf.

Brase, Ron. California AgQuest Consulting, personal communication, 2009.

Bryant, Dan. “USDA’s improved raisin cultivars,” Western Farm 

Press, February 22, 2010, http://westernfarmpress.com/grapes/

raisin-cultivars-0222/. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture. Asian Citrus Psyllid Fact 

Sheet: Questions and Answers about the Asian Citrus Psyllid in San 

Diego and Imperial Counties, February 24, 2009, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/

phpps/acp/docs/factsheets/ACP_Quarantine_FactSheet_022409.pdf.

Calvin, Linda, Belem Avendaño, and Rita Schwentesius. The Economics 

of Food Safety: The Case of Green Onions and Hepatitis A Outbreaks, 

VGS-305-01, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, p. 23, December 2004, http://www.publications/vgs/nov04/

vgs30501/vgs30501.pdf.

Calvin, Linda, and Veronica Barrios. “Marketing Winter Vegetables from 

Mexico,” Vegetables and Specialties, VGS-274, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 1998, http://www.ers.

usda.gov/Briefi ng/Vegetables/vegpdf/MarkWintVegMex.pdf.

Calvin, Linda, and Roberta Cook (coordinators); Mark Denbaly, Carolyn 

Dimitri, Lewrene Glaser, Charles Handy, Mark Jekanowski, Phil 

Kaufman, Barry Krissoff, Gary Thompson, and Suzanne Thornsbury. 

U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, 

Trends, and Issues, AER-795, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, January 2001, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

aer795/.

Carroll, Daniel, and Russell Saltz. “NAWS Findings: 1989-2007,” presentation at the conference on Immigration Reform: Implications for 

Farmers, Farm Workers, and Communities, Washington, DC, May 8, 
47

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

2008, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/fi les/conference_may_2008/carroll_

saltz-naws_fi ndings_1989-2007.pdf. 

Carrol l, Daniel, Russell Saltz, and Susan Gabbard. “The Changing Farm 

Workforce: Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey,” 

presentation at the conference on Immigration Reform: Implications for 

Farmers, Farm Workers, and Communities, Washington, DC, May 21, 

2009, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/fi les/2009-may/Carroll-SaltzNAWS.

pdf. 

Chadwell, John. “Mechanized harvest allows grower to expand,” The Packer, 

March 18, 2008.

Christensen, Peter L. “Current Developments in Harvest Mechanization and 

DOV,” Raisin Production Manual, University of California Agricultural 

and Natural Resources Publication 3393, pp. 252-63, 2000.

Clary, C.D., T. Ball, E. Ward, S. Fuchs, J.E. Durfey, R.P. Cavalieri, and R.J. 

Folwell. “Performance and Economic Analysis of a Selective Asparagus 

Harvester,” Applied Engineering in Agriculture Vol. 23(5): pp. 571-77, 

2007.

Cline, Harry. “New three-year raisin contract marks grape industry turnaround,” Western Farm Press, April 2, 2008, http://westernfarmpress.

com/grapes/raisin-contract-0407/.

Cook, Roberta, and Linda Calvin. Greenhouse Tomatoes Change the 

Dynamics of the North American Fresh Tomato Industry, ERR-2, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2005, http://

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err2/err2.pdf.

Federal Register. Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California: Final 

Free and Reserve Percentages for 2008-09 Crop Natural (Sun-Dried) 

Seedless Raisins, Vol. 74, No. 44, pp. 9951-56, March 9, 2009.

Federal Register. Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California: Use 

of Estimated Trade Demand to Compute Volume Regulation Percentages, 

Vol. 72, No. 185, pp. 543-47, September 25, 2007.

Futch, S. H., J.D. Whitney, J.K. Burns, and F.M. Roka. Harvesting: From 

Manual to Mechanical, University of Florida, Horticultural Science 

Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences, 2005, http://edis.ifas.ufl .edu/document_hs218.

Hayami, Yujiro, and Vernon Ruttan. Agricultural Development, Baltimore: 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Huffman, Wallace. Demand for Farm Labor in the Coastal Fruit and Salad 

Bowl States Relative to Midland States: Four Decades of Experience, ISU 

Economics Working Paper #07013, Iowa State University, June 26, 2007, 

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_12827_07013.pdf.
48

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Khan, Akhtar, Philip Martin, and Phil Hardiman. “Expanded production 

of labor-intensive crops increases agricultural employment,” California 

Agriculture, pp. 35-9, January-March 2004, http://californiaagriculture.

ucop.edu. 

Lewiston Morning Tribune. “Asparagus growers are expecting high prices but 

worry about labor shortage,” Agriculture: Spring 2008 Section, Lewiston, 

Idaho, February 24, 2008.

Lucier, Gary, Susan Pollack, Mir Ali, and Agnes Perez. Fruit and Vegetable 

Backgrounder, VGS-313-01, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, April 2006, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/VGS/

apr06/vgs31301/vgs31301.pdf. 

Lund, William. “New Farming Invention: Inventing a Selective Asparagus 

Harvester,” http://www.inventionspatents.com/asparagus_harvester.htm. 

Martin, Philip. Importing Poverty? Immigration and the Changing Face of 

Rural America, Yale University Press, 2009. 

Martin, Philip, and Bert Mason. “Labor in California Raisins,” presentation 

at the conference on Immigration Reform: Implications for Farmers, Farm 

Workers, and Communities, Washington, DC, May 21-22, 2009, http://

migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/fi les/2009-may/Martin-RaisinLMs.pdf.

Martin, Philip, and Alan Olmstead. “The Agricultural Mechanization 

Controversy,” Science Vol. 227, No. 4687, pp. 601-6, February 8, 1985.

Mason, Bert. “The Raisin Grape Industry,” Changing Face Vol. 4, 

No. 4, September 1998, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/comments.

php?id=124_0_2_0.

Mason, Bert, R. Keith Stiegler, and Gregory T. Berg. Alternatives to 

Immigrant Labor? Raisin Industry Tests New Harvesting Technology, 

Washington, DC, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, No. 2-97, 

June 1997.

Milkovich, Matt. “Mechanical Asparagus Harvester Almost a Reality,” 

Vegetable Growers News, January 2010, http://www.vegetablegrowersnews.com/inthemagazine.html?ns=1560. 

Muraro, Ron, Thomas Spreen, and Marcos Pozzan. Comparative Costs 

of Growing Citrus in Florida and Sao Paulo (Brazil) for the 2000-01 

Season, University of Florida, Department of Food and Resource 

Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences, February 2003, http://edis.ifas.ufl .edu/

document_fe364. 

National Agricultural Workers Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, http://

www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm. 
49

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Neyoy, Cesar. “Hundreds of temporary hires are new faces around town,” 

Yuma Sun, January 24, 2009, http://www.yumasun.com/news/temporary47365-around-town.html. 

Passel, Jeffrey, and D’Vera Cohn. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants 

in the United States, Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, April 2009, 

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=107.

Pollock, Dennis. “Raisin Grape Exports Promising,” Western Farm 

Press, October 26, 2009, http:// westernfarmpress.com/grapes/

raisin-grape-exports-1026/.

Roka, Fritz. Personal communication, 2009a.

Roka, Fritz. “Farm Labor Issues Facing Florida Tomato and Orange 

Producers,” presentation at the conference on Immigration Reform: 

Implications for Farmers, Farm Workers, and Communities, Washington, 

DC, May 21-22, 2009b, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/fi les/2009-may/

Roka.pdf.

Roka, Fritz, J. Burns, J. Syvertsen, and T. Spann. “Mechanical Harvesting 

& Abscission Agent Implications to Florida Citrus Production,” white 

paper as part of the U.S. EPA CMNP abscission registration submission 

package, 2009.

Rosenberg, Howard. “Many Fewer Steps for Pickers—A Leap for 

Harvestkind?” Choices, 1st Quarter, 2004, www.choicesmagazine.org.

Sarig, Yoav, James Thompson, and Galen Brown. Alternatives to 

Immigrant Labor? The Status of Fruit and Vegetable Harvest 

Mechanization in the United States, November 2000, www.cis.org/

FarmMechanization-ImmigrationAlternative.

Schimmelpfennig, David, and Paul Heisey. U.S. Public Agricultural 

Research: Changes in Funding Sources and Shifts in Emphasis, 1980-

2005, EIB-45, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, March 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB45/.

Seavert, Clark, Jenny Freeborn, and Steve Castagnoli. Enterprise Budget: 

Apples, Medium Density, North Central Region, EM8821, Oregon State 

University Extension Service, August 2007, http://oregonstate.edu/dept/

EconInfo/ent_budget/PDF/EM8821.pdf.

Sun-Maid Growers of California. New Raisin Production Techniques, 2002 

Supplement, Sun-Maid Growers of California, Kingsburg, California, 

2002.

The Packer. “Machines cut berry picking expenses,” p. B4-5, Lenexa, 

Kansas, September 22, 2008.

U.S. Apple Association. Production and Utilization Analysis, 1991.

U.S. Apple Association. Production and Utilization Analysis, 2008.
50

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Establishment Data: Historical Hours and 

Earnings, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb2.txt. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Shipments, various years, http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&page=FVMar

ketNewsMovementReports.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and 

Extension Service. Workshop Report: Engineering Solutions for Specialty 

Crop Challenges, 2007, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/pdfs/

specialty_crops_engineering.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Fruit and Tree 

Nuts Situation and Outlook Yearbook, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/

MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1377.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Vegetables and 

Melons Situation and Outlook Yearbook, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/

usda/ers/89011/89011.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Peoples 

Republic of China—Citrus Annual 2008, GAIN Report Number CH8110, 

December 1, 2008, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfi les/200812/146306642.

pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

2007 Census of Agriculture, 2009, h ttp://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Citrus Fruits 2007 Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/

CitrFrui//2000s/2008/CitrFrui-09-25-2008.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, various issues, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.

edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1113. 

University of California Cooperative Extension. Sample Costs to Establish 

a Vineyard and Produce Grapes for Raisins, Continuous Tray Dried 

Raisins, Harvest Equipment Purchased New, San Joaquin Valley, 2006a 

http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/fi les/grraisctneweqsjv06.pdf.

University of California Cooperative Extension. Sample Costs to Establish 

a Vineyard and Produce Grapes for Raisins, Tray Dried Raisins, San 

Joaquin Valley, 2006b, http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/fi les/grraistdsj06.

pdf.

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Citrus 

Mechanical Harvesting Program, http://citrusmh.ifas.ufl .edu/index.

asp?s=2&p=2.
51

The U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global Economy / ERR-106 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Vasquez, Stephen, and Matthew Fidelibus. Dried-On-Vine Raisin Cultivars, 

2003, http://cefresno.ucdavis.edu/fi les/15136.pdf.

Wilhelm, Steve. “Prototype machine to speed apple picking, cut labor costs,” 

Puget Sound Business Journal Vol. 29, No. 42, p. 6, January 30-February 

5, 2009, http://pickertechnologies.com/resources/PSBJ+Full+Article+sm.

pdf.