United States 

Department 

of Agriculture 

www.ers.usda.gov 

 A Report from the Economic Research Service

Edward Slattery, Michael Livingston, 

Catherine Greene, and Karen Klonsky

Characteristics of Conventional 

and Organic Apple Production 

in the United States

FTS-347-01

July 2011

Contents

Approved by USDA’s 

World Agricultural 

Outlook Board

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

U.S. Apple Acreage and 

Production Declining . . . . . . . . 5

Farm and Orchard 

Characteristics, 2007 . . . . . . . . 7

Managing Apple Pests and 

Orchard Fertility . . . . . . . . . . 14

Marketing and Prices in 

the U.S. Apple Sector . . . . . . . 20

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Abstract

While U.S. acreage and production of apples has declined in recent years, consumer 

demand has spurred a fast-growing organic apple sector. Apples managed under certifi ed organic farming systems now account for about 6 percent of total U.S. apple 

acreage. In 2007, USDA conducted the fi rst comprehensive survey of the production and marketing practices used by organic and conventional apple growers in the 

United States as part of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). In 

this report, we use data from ARMS and other sources to examine trends in the U.S. 

apple sector and compare production and marketing characteristics under organic and 

conventional farming systems. According to ARMS data, conventional and organic 

apple production systems shared many similarities in 2007, including the predominance of dwarf and semi-dwarf trees, tree density, and a focus on fresh-market apples. 

These systems do differ in the way pests and nutrients are managed, and a higher share 

of organic production comes from new varieties like Gala and Fuji. While conventional 

apple yields were higher than organic yields in 2007, organic apples commanded a 

price premium at every level—farm-gate, wholesale and retail—of the supply chain.

Keywords: Fresh apples, processed apples, production practices, pest management, 

pesticides, apple prices, organic price premiums

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge David Granatstein (Washington State University) 

for his insights and suggestions as we developed this report. We thank Agnes Perez, Pat 

Sullivan, Linda Calvin, and Molly Garber (USDA, Economic Research Service); and 

Sarah Johnston (New York Department of Agriculture) for their contributions. The report 

was cleared by John Love at the World Agriculture Outlook Board. The authors also 

thank Angela Anderson for editorial assistance and Cynthia A. Ray for layout and design.

The use of commercial 

and trade names does 

not imply approval or 

constitute endorsement 

by USDA.
2

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

About the Authors

Edward Slattery, Michael Livingston and Catherine Greene are agricultural 

economists with USDA, Economic Research Service. Karen Klonsky is a 

specialist in cooperative extension at the University of California-Davis, 

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 
3

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

According to USDA’s most recent Census of Agriculture, farms and ranches 

with some apple production were reported in all 50 States. The number of 

farms producing apples, however, has continued to slide over the last decade, 

falling from nearly 34,000 in the late 1990s to 25,600 farms in 2007. The 

number of acres with apple trees also fell over the last decade, and apple 

production continues to be concentrated in Washington State, New York, 

Michigan, and a few other States. About 40 percent of U.S. apple production is used to make juice, applesauce, and other processed products. Apple 

producers have faced greater import competition since the late 1990s, particularly for apple juice.

Despite the drop in production over the last decade, the U.S. apple sector has 

seen fast-growing demand for new varieties of apples and for organically 

produced apples that garner price premiums. Organic apples are one of the 

top three fresh fruits purchased by consumers of organic foods, and fresh 

produce is the largest category of organic food sales. Organic sales growth 

continued to outpace growth in overall food sales even during the recent 

economic downturn, and organic produce continues to show double-digit 

growth (Nutrition Business Journal, 2010). 

While consumers buy organic apples and other products for a variety of 

reasons, health is often cited as the primary reason (Organic Trade Association, 2009). The U.S. apple industry had its fi rst brush with consumer health 

concerns about chemical use in food production in February 1989, when 

media coverage focused on the use of the growth regulator Alar.1 Apple 

prices declined sharply after the media coverage and revenue fell by an estimated $140 million that season (Buxton, 1989). The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to cancel all food uses of Alar in May 

1989 after determining that long-term exposure could pose signifi cant health 

risks, and the manufacturer voluntarily halted Alar sales and distribution for 

food uses the following month (EPA, 1989). U.S. apple prices and revenue 

rebounded quickly the following year, and the United States continues to 

tighten pesticide regulations. The 2008-09 annual report of the President’s 

Cancer Panel recommended that individuals reduce their environmental 

cancer risk by choosing, “to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and washing conventionally grown produce to 

remove residues.” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National 

Institutes of Health, 2010, p. 112). 

Apple producers that adopt organic farming systems do so for a variety of 

reasons. Forty-fi ve percent of respondents to USDA’s 2007 Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey (ARMS) of organic apple producers indicated that they chose organic production systems primarily to increase farm 

income. Another 23 percent of the respondents indicated that they grow 

organic products primarily to protect the health of their family and the 

community, and 19 percent said they wanted to adopt more environmentally 

friendly practices.

1Alar is the trade name of a chemical 

plant growth regulator, Daminozide, 

that was sprayed on fruit to make harvest easier and to enhance color.

Introduction
4

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

In this report, we use data from ARMS and other sources to examine trends 

in the U.S. apple sector and compare production and marketing characteristics under organic and conventional farming systems (see box, “USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey”). We also examine policy changes 

that affect production practices and examine market and policy initiatives 

that may allow U.S. organic and conventional apple production to be more 

competitive with other types of fruits produced domestically or imported.

USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

The Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) is an annual survey of farm and ranch operators administered by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Economic Research Service (ERS). 

Survey data are collected on fi eld-level production practices, farm business accounts, and farm households. The 

data provide insights on many facets of the agricultural sector, including the organization and performance of 

farms, the income and well-being of farm households, and the economics of production practices used across 

commodity enterprises.

ARMS uses a three-phase, two-frame, stratifi ed, probability-weighted sampling design that involves a series 

of interviews with farmers about their farm business and household characteristics. In 2007, apples were the 

targeted commodity in ARMS and a large targeted oversample of certifi ed organic producers was included to 

produce statistically reliable estimates on this segment of the apple sector. Phase 1 of ARMS is conducted during 

the summer of the reference year, during which farmers in the sample are screened to verify their operating status 

and to determine which commodities they produce. 

Data collection begins with Phase 2, which is conducted in the fall and winter of the reference year. Randomly 

selected farmers passing the fi rst phase are interviewed to collect data on their production practices and input use 

on a randomly selected fi eld. In 2007, 1,060 usable Phase 2 questionnaires were completed by apple producers 

in the surveyed States. Phase 3 was conducted in the spring of the year following the reference year. All Phase 2 

respondents are asked to complete the Phase 3 survey, which requests information on farm-level costs and returns 

for the reference year. In 2007, 953 usable Phase 3 questionnaires were completed by apple producers; 782 of 

those producers provided usable data from the Phase 2 questionnaire. 

USDA uses two sampling frames to select farms—a list frame and an area frame. The list frame includes most 

large farms and farms expected to produce specifi c commodities and accounts for 100 percent of Phase 2 responses 

and 95 percent of Phase 3 responses. The area frame captures farms not included on the list frame and consists of 

randomly selected agricultural land segments.

The farm population is stratifi ed at the State level by revenue in the list frame and by land use or crop type in 

the area frame. Farms in different strata are sampled with a different probability of selection. For this reason, 

when using these data to estimate aggregate totals, means, and standard errors, observations must be weighted 

to account for the probability of farm selection, the extent of aggregation, and the calibration scheme. Calibration refers to modifying weights so that, for example, the weighted sums of apple-bearing acres reported by the 

survey respondents in different States equals the offi cial USDA estimate for those States during the reference 

year, obtained from other NASS surveys. USDA provides more information about ARMS and access to custom 

estimates through an interactive online interface, see www.ers.usda.gov/Briefi ng/ARMS/.
5

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Apple Acreage and Production 

 Declining

U.S. crop acreage devoted to apple production has declined nearly 25 percent 

since the peak in 1994. Most of this contraction has been in production for 

the processing sector—production of apples for juice and other processing 

markets is down by a third over the period (fi g. 1). Import competition for 

the U.S. juice market—particularly from China—has intensifi ed since the 

late 1990s, and the import share of the U.S. juice supply increased from 60 

percent to over 80 percent during this period.

Washington State currently produces over half the Nation’s domestically 

grown apples and has been the leading apple-growing State since the early 

1920s (Schotzko and Granatstein, 2005). In 2009, Washington State produced 

5.4 billion pounds of apples, and New York and Michigan produced over 1 

billion pounds each (fi g. 2). Apple production has been somewhat stable in 

Washington State, New York, and Michigan since the 1990s, but production 

in many other States has declined.

U.S. fresh-market apple consumption peaked at approximately 21 pounds per 

person in 1990. Per capita consumption has fallen steadily since then to about 

16 pounds per person. U.S. consumption of apple juice and cider has trended 

up during this period—from 1.5 gallons per person during the 1991/92 

marketing year to 2.1 gallons per capita in 2009/10—but imported products 

have met the increased demand in this market. Industry analysts point out 

that produce consumption is strong among certain fast-growing segments of 

the U.S. population—Hispanics and aging baby boomers—and overall sales 

have been growing. Overall per capita consumption of fresh fruits, however, 

has remained fairly fl at in the United States for several decades, and apples 

must now compete for market share with an increasingly wide variety of 

fresh fruits that are available year round. 

Figure 1

U.S. apple production peaked in the mid-1990s

Million pounds

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Fresh

Processed

1980 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts Summary, various issues.
6

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

One segment of the U.S. apple sector, however, has seen an increase in 

demand. Certifi ed organic acreage for apple production doubled between 

1997 and 2008 to approximately 18,000 acres—5 percent of the U.S. acreage 

devoted to apple production (USDA, ERS, 2010). Industry analysts estimate 

that U.S. certifi ed organic apple acreage exceeded 21,000 acres in 2009 

(Kirby and Granatstein, 2010), accounting for over 6 percent of total U.S. 

apple acres.

Washington State dominates U.S. organic (and conventional) apple production. Washington State apple producers managed approximately 13,000 acres 

under certifi ed organic production systems in 2008, followed by California 

producers with about 3,000 acres and Arizona producers with about 900 acres 

(USDA, NASS, 2010). The other top organic apple-producing States included 

New York, Colorado, Maine, and Michigan, with less than 500 acres each. 

In general, Eastern States tend to lag behind Western States in organic 

apple production.

Washington State’s arid climate, which benefi ts conventional apple production, is even more advantageous for organic apple production. Synthetic 

pesticides are not used in organic apple production, and organic pest management is much more challenging in the humid climates of Eastern States 

where pests and disease are more prevalent. Also, research centers, companies, and individuals in Washington State have been conducting intensive 

research on organic apple production systems over the past decade that has 

resulted in substantial improvements in the taste and appearance of organic 

apples (Black, 2007). Improvements in organic pest management, particularly for coddling moth, have been key in improving organic apple quality, 

although many challenges remain (Granetstein, 2010). 

Figure 2

U.S. apple production, by State

Million pounds

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

WA NY MI PA CA VA OR WV NC Other

States 

2007 2008 2009
7

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

In 2007, ARMS included a targeted survey of apple producers, including 

an oversample of organic apple producers, to gather data on farm production practices and economic characteristics (see box, “USDA Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey”). Survey responses were collected from 

1,060 organic and conventional apple producers in seven States—California, 

Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Producers in these States accounted for 81 percent of U.S. harvested 

apple acres and 87 percent of U.S. apple production in 2007.

Most of the apple production in these States was managed under conventional 

systems and most was sold into fresh markets. Conventionally produced 

apples accounted for 78 percent of the seven-State total in 2007, and fresh 

organic apples accounted for 5 percent of the total (table 1). Among all freshmarket apples produced in these States in 2007, Washington State accounted 

for almost 70 percent of conventional production and an even higher share—

over 90 percent—of organic production. 

U.S. conventional apple producers have been operating for 19 years, on 

average. Tenure is a little longer than average in California, New York, and 

Pennsylvania but is less than average in the other surveyed States (fi g. 3). 

Organic apple producers have been operating a farm for an average of 17 

years and have been certifi ed as organic for an average of 9 years—longer 

in California and Oregon and less than the average in Washington State and 

New York. Part of the difference between the average years of experience 

and the average years of certifi ed organic acres refl ects the 3-year transition 

Farm and Orchard Characteristics, 2007

Table 1

U.S. apple production and market share in surveyed States, 2007

Total 

production 

Conventional systems Organic systems

 Fresh-market Processing Fresh-market Processing

Tons Tons

Surveyed States1 4,081,482 3,173,404 706,093 191,330 10,655 

 Percent of total seven-State production

California 232,167 4 12 8 68

Michigan 389,162 8 21 <1 14

New York 664,404 14 31 <1 9

North Carolina 33,768 0 3 ** **

Oregon 52,159 2<1 <1 3

Pennsylvania 273,408 4 23  

Washington State 2,436,414 69 11 91 6

1Surveyed States accounted for over 87 percent of U.S. apple production.

Totals do not add to 100 due to rounding.

** =North Carolina and Pennsylvania had no respondents with certifi ed organic acres.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey, conducted by National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service; 

the 2007 Census of Agriculture; and the 2008 USDA Organic Production Survey.
8

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

period that most organic growers must undergo, and it also refl ects the long 

tenure of many growers as conventional growers prior to transition. While 

most organic producers—63 percent—operated orchards for 5 years or less 

before being certifi ed organic, a few (13 percent) operated orchards conventionally for more than two decades prior to certifi cation.

Unlike organic producers in Europe, U.S. organic producers are allowed to 

run mixed operations, and many conventional producers transition slowly to 

all-organic production. In 2007, most of the certifi ed organic apple production in the surveyed States took place in orchards that were exclusively 

organic. Only 16 percent of the organic acreage was managed by respondents 

with conventional apple production as well. These mixed operations tended 

to have more acreage than conventional operations, while organic-only operations were the smallest.

Slightly over half the conventional and organic apple producers surveyed 

in 2007 grew only apples. About 36 percent of apple growers grew one or 

two additional fruit or nut crops. Peaches were the most common other crop 

grown by apple producers in Michigan, North Carolina, New York, and 

Pennsylvania. Pears were the most common other crop in Oregon—apple 

producers there have more pear than apple acres. Grapes were the most 

common other crop in Washington State and nuts were the most common 

in California. 

Apple Varieties, Tree Size, and Density. Although Red Delicious market 

share has declined in recent decades, it is still the top variety grown in the 

United States. In 2007, the top fi ve apple varieties—Red Delicious, Golden 

Delicious, Gala, Fuji, and Granny Smith—were the same in conventional and 

organic production, although the order differed between the two production 

systems. These fi ve varieties accounted for over two-thirds of conventional 

and organic apple production in the surveyed States (fi g. 4). Red Delicious, 

Gala, and Fuji are primarily fresh-market apples, while Golden Delicious and 

Figure 3

U.S. apple producers, by State and operating status

Mean years

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted by National Agricultural Statistics Service 

and Economic Research Service.

0

5

10

15

20

25

CA MI NY NC OR PA WA

Years operating (conventional)

Years operating (organic)

Years certified organic
9

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Granny Smith are “dual-purpose” apples that can be used in either fresh or 

processing markets. 

The top three varieties used by organic producers—Gala, Fuji, and Red Delicious—are all fresh-market apples, refl ecting this sector’s concentration in 

fresh-market production. Organic apples are produced mostly for the fresh 

market for several reasons: 

• Apple processing is concentrated in the Eastern States, which produce a 

smaller share of organic apples; 

• Processing markets are still developing for organic apples; and 

• Apple growers may target fresh produce markets for the additional 

organic price premium. 

Organic and conventional producers grow largely different apple varieties in 

addition to the top fi ve (table 2). For conventional apple producers, Rome—

another dual-purpose variety—McIntosh, and Empire account for 6, 5, and 

4 percent of harvested acres, respectively. For organic apple producers, Pink 

Lady—a relatively new variety—accounts for 7 percent of harvested acres 

and Braeburn and Pippin account for 4 percent each. 

Most commercial apple trees in the United States are grown from a cutting 

of the desired apple variety that has been grafted onto a rootstock that determines the size of the tree. Trees range in size from dwarf to semi-dwarf to 

full-size (standard) and can bear fruit for many decades. Semi-dwarfs are the 

most popular type of tree currently used in apple production. In both organic 

and conventional systems, semi-dwarf trees were planted on nearly half of 

harvested apple acres in 2007 (table 2). The quantity (pounds) harvested per 

acre varied by tree size, but these differences were not statistically signifi cant.

Figure 4

Top U.S. apple varieties, by type, 2007

Percent of harvested acres

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted by National Agricultural Statistics Service 

and Economic Research Service.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Red

Delicious 

Golden

Delicious

Gala Fuji Granny 

Smith

Other 

varieties

Conventional Organic
10

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 2

Characteristics of U.S. apple production in surveyed States, 2007

All surveyed States Surveyed States1

 Conventional Organic CA MI NY NC OR PA WA

All production

Tree size (percent of acres)

Standard 29 27 37 11 19 29 23 14 27

Semi-dwarf 50 48 54 64 61 60 51 74 46

Dwarf 19 25 9 25 18 10 26 11 25

Other 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2

Tree density (trees per acre) 324 346 140 210 177 144 334 155 446

Top varieties (percent of production)

Red Delicious 22 14 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Golden Delicious 14 11 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Gala 12 22 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Fuji 11 16 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Granny Smith 10 7 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Rome 6 <1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

McIntosh 5 <1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Empire 4 <1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Jonagold 3 <1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Pink Lady <1 7 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Braeburn <1 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Pippin <1 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Other 13 14 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Nutrient use (percent of acres treated) 

Commercial sources: Conventional production

Nitrogen 71 -- 41 58 79 56 66 45 81

Phosphate 24 -- 10 25 25 53 41 29 22

Potassium 35 -- 14 51 72 54 40 29 22

Commercial sources: Organic production

Nitrogen -- 57 (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) 67

Phosphate -- 26 (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) 27

Potassium -- 26 (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) 26

Noncommercial sources:

Compost 3 49 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manure 4 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- = Data not available.

(D)=Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms.

1Surveyed States accounted for over 87 percent of U.S. production.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted 

by National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service.
11

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Producers can plant more densely by using smaller trees. Conventional 

producers in Washington State plant their trees more densely than any other 

State, at nearly 450 trees per acre, on average, and up to 2,000 trees per acre. 

In the other surveyed States, average tree density ranged from 140 trees 

per acre in California to 334 trees per acre in Oregon. According to David 

Granatstein at Washington State University Extension, planting density may 

be a refl ection of orchard age, with older orchards having less density. 

According to USDA scientists, “dwarf lines draw the attention of orchard 

owners because they improve apple tree productivity, are easier to prune and 

pick, and lead to more effi cient use of pesticides” (Pons, 2003). Additionally, 

dwarf trees allow for earlier commercial harvest, and some apple producers 

now plant upwards of 1,000 trees per acre using high-density, supported 

production systems. Producers in one region may be able to maximize profi ts 

using higher tree densities than those in another region because of differences 

in climate, geography, and pest pressures. 

Yields. Yields of conventionally grown fresh apples were highest in Washington State and lowest in North Carolina in 2007 (table 3). Apple production 

areas in North Carolina were damaged by a freeze that year, reducing yields. 

In Washington—the State with the most organic production—organic yields 

for fresh-market apples were 18 percent lower than conventional fresh yields 

for fresh-market apples.

Washington State accounts for the largest share of apples sold to the fresh 

market and the processing market. Washington State producers have a large 

volume of processing apples as a by-product of production for the fresh 

market. In contrast, Eastern and Midwestern producers often target the 

processing market, growing dual-market or processing-market apple varieties; in most of these States, average processing-market apple yields in 2007 

were higher than average fresh-market yields. 

Table 3

U.S. apple yields for fresh and processing markets, 

by production system and State

State

Conventional yield Organic yield

Fresh Processed Fresh Processed

Tons per harvested acre

California 14.0 9.7 9.0 5.2 

Michigan 9.6 11.1 (D) (D) 

New York 14.6 15.6 (D) (D)

North Carolina 4.5 7.7 ** **

Oregon 10.6 (D) 3.6 (D) 

Pennsylvania 10.6 17.0  

Washington State 16.5 13.1 13.5 (D)

(D)=Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms.

** =North Carolina and Pennsylvania had no respondents with certifi ed organic acres.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted by National Agricultural Statistics Service 

and Economic Research Service.
12

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Government Crop Insurance and Conservation Programs. In 2007, over 

half of the apple producers in the surveyed States—54 percent of organic 

apple producers and 63 percent of conventional producers—covered their 

apple crops with Federal Crop Insurance. Organic producers are required 

to pay a surcharge for organic crop insurance and have been unable to 

obtain coverage using organic crop prices. Congress included a provision 

in the 2008 Farm Act that required the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

(FCIC) to study ways to improve organic production coverage. USDA’s Risk 

Management Agency (RMA) made several changes for the 2011 production year, including organic price elections for a small set of crops (cotton, 

corn, soybeans, and processing tomatoes) and discontinuance of the organic 

surcharge for others (including Florida and Texas citrus fruits, pears, peppers, 

and prunes). RMA continues to accumulate data and works to improve 

production coverage for all crops, including apples (USDA, 2010). 

A small number of apple producers—5 percent of conventional and 6 percent 

of organic producers—received payments in 2007 from the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), one of USDA’s major conservation 

programs. Congress included a provision in the 2008 Farm Act that has 

increased use of this program by organic and transitioning producers. The 

Organic Transition Support provision makes conservation practices related 

to organic production and transition eligible for EQIP payments, subject to a 

$20,000 annual limit and an $80,000 cap over a 6-year period.

Organic Certifi cation Fees. Organic producers must pay the certifying 

agency a fee that covers the costs of inspections and other certifi er activities. 

Certifying agencies set their own fees in a somewhat competitive environment since producers can choose their own certifying agency. Fees are typically based upon either the value of sales from certifi ed acres or the number 

of acres certifi ed. 

In 2007, mean certifi cation costs for apple producers were approximately $30 

per acre in Washington State and California and approximately $70 per acre 

in Oregon. Differences in certifi cation fees may vary among farms and States 

because of differences in certifi cation fee structures, the number of acres 

certifi ed, or differences in revenues. USDA has administered a national costshare certifi cation program since 2002 that reimburses organic producers up 

to 75 percent of their certifi cation fees or up to $750 (see box, “U.S. Organic 

Regulations on Transition and Certifi cation”). 
13

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Organic Regulations on Transition and Certifi cation

In 2002—after decades of patchwork State regulations and voluntary 

private and State certifi cation programs—USDA implemented national 

organic standards and required that all farmers and processors with over 

$5,000 in annual sales of products labeled as organic must be certifi ed by 

a USDA-accredited group, see www.ams.usda.gov/nop. 

Organic production is defi ned as an ecological production system that 

integrates cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster 

resource cycling, ecological balance, and biodiversity. USDA organic 

standards prohibit many inputs and methods that are commonly used in 

agriculture. 

National organic standards address the methods, practices, and 

substances used to produce and handle crops, livestock, and processed 

agricultural products. Although specifi c practices and materials used 

by organic operations may vary, the standards cover every aspect of 

organic production and handling. These standards include a national list 

of approved synthetic and prohibited nonsynthetic substances for use in 

organic production systems. Seven criteria were established to evaluate 

substances for use in organic systems, including the toxicity and mode of 

action of the substance, the probability of environmental contamination 

during manufacture, use, and disposal, the effect on human health, and 

the effect on soil organisms, crops, and livestock.

In setting the soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice 

standard, USDA requires the producer to adopt practices that maintain 

or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and 

minimize soil erosion. The producer is required to manage crop nutrients 

and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the application of 

plant and animal materials. Producers are also required to manage plant 

and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter content 

in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or 

water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues 

of prohibited substances. 

To label products as organic in the United States, producers must follow 

USDA organic production standards and be certifi ed by a USDA-accredited 

certifi er. Certifi ers may be nonprofi ts or private companies, as well as State 

or local Government agencies. Producers are required to submit annual 

farm plans detailing what they will produce that year and how they will 

manage pests, nutrients, and other aspects of production. They must also 

undergo an annual inspection. Also, producers must use practices to prevent 

commingling of organic and nonorganic products and to prevent contact 

with prohibited substances throughout the supply chain.

A 3-year transition period is required for land used in organic production 

unless records prove that no prohibited substances were used in or near 

the production area during the previous 3 years. During the transition 

period, producers must use organic practices but cannot sell their produce 

as organic. The transition period is a signifi cant hurdle for many producers 

because yields may dip during this period and producers do not have 

access to organic price premiums.
14

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Apple growers routinely cope with a number of pests and diseases, and 

synthetic insecticides and fungicides have provided a straightforward, effective, and relatively inexpensive way to manage these pests since the 1950s. 

In the early 1990s, public concerns about the external effects of pesticides—

potential dietary, drinking water, worker, and environmental hazards—

spurred Congress to tighten pesticide regulations in the United States. 

In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) to 

strengthen existing pesticide regulations, which are administered by the 

EPA, and to set new standards for pesticide residues on food. The EPA was 

directed to consider dietary exposure from all food uses and drinking water, 

homeowner pesticide use, the susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide residues, and the cumulative effects of pesticides that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity when setting the amount of pesticide residue (tolerance level) that may be found on food (Osteen and Livingston, 2006). FQPA 

also required a reassessment of all existing pesticide residue tolerance levels, 

prioritizing those posing the greatest risk to public health.

Pesticides classifi ed as carcinogens, including those in the carbamate, 

organochlorine, and organophosphate families, were designated as high 

priority for reassessment. Many of the pesticides used in apple production 

are in the high-risk carbamate, organochlorine, and organophosphate families. Apple producers have reduced their use of some of these pesticides 

substantially over the last decade in response to regulatory changes. Certifi ed 

organic apple production has also increased, and use of biological pesticides 

in conventional apple production systems is growing.

Conventional Producers Are Reducing Pesticide Use

Although the use of several pesticides in the organophosphate family has 

declined substantially over the last decade, pesticides in this family were 

still used on more conventional apple acreage in the United States than any 

other type of pesticide in 2007. Approximately 81 percent of conventional 

apple acres received treatment with at least one organophosphate pesticide in 

2007 to control insect pests (table 4). Use of the pesticides in this family has 

declined over the last decade in response to EPA pesticide use restrictions 

and cancellations. U.S. apple acreage treated with the top two organophosphate pesticides—Azinphos-methyl and Chlorpyrifos—has declined from 82 

and 74 percent in 1997 to 62 and 59 percent in 2007 (USDA, NASS, 2008; 

USDA, NASS, 1998).

In 2001, the EPA completely phased out use of Methyl Parathion, an organophosphate that was used on 30 percent of U.S. apple acres in 1997 (USDA, 

NASS, 1998). The EPA is currently phasing out use of Azinphos-methyl, 

which the agency says poses unacceptable risks for farmworkers and has 

caused fi sh kills when sprayed over water. Use of Azinphos-methyl will 

be banned after the summer of 2012 (Agro-News, 2009). Pesticides in the 

organochlorine family were used only on 9 percent of conventional apple 

Managing Apple Pests and Orchard 

 Fertility
15

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Pesticides used in U.S. apple production in major apple-growing States, 2007

Conventional production Organic production

U.S. bearing acres, surveyed States1 273,767 17,025

Percent of acres treated

Insecticides: Carbamate (e.g., Carbaryl) 35 0

Insect growth regulator 31 0

Nicotinoid 54 0

Organochlorine (e.g., Endosulfan) 9 0

Organophosphate (e.g., Azinphos-methyl, Chlorpyifos) 81 0

Pyrethroid 29 0

Materials allowed in organic systems:

Biological (e.g., Bacillus thuringensis, Spinosad)2 22 52

Horticultural oil 60 70

Kaolin clay 2 13

Sulfur 2 3

Fungicides: Aliphatic nitrogen 3 0

Carbamate 19 0

Conazole 48 0

Dicarboximide 34 0

Dithiocarbamate 44 0

Pyrimidine 20 0

Strobilurin 31 0

Materials allowed in organic systems:

Antibiotic 18 (D)

Biological (e.g., Bacillus subtilus, Bacillus pumilus) 428

Copper and sulfur 33 40

Polysulfi de (e.g., lime-sulfur solution) 15 69

Potassium bicarbonate 1 3

Herbicides: Dinitroaniline 5 0

Phenoxy 10 0

Phosphinic acid (e.g., Glyphosate) 47 0

Pyridazinone 4 0

Quaternary ammonium (e.g., Paraquat) 12 0

Triazine 10 0

Urea 7 0

(D)=Insuffi cient reports to publish data.

1California, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.

2Does not include pheromone traps and lures.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted 

by National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service.
16

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

acres in 2007. The top pesticide in this family used in apple production 

in 2007 was Endosulfan. Acres treated with this pesticide have declined 

by more than half since 1997, and all uses are scheduled to be phased out 

completely by 2016. Carbamates, which are also on EPA’s high priority list 

for reassessment, were used on 35 percent of total conventional apple acreage 

in 2007 (see table 4). 

Horticultural oils—usually refi ned petroleum oils combined with an emulsifying agent and sometimes plant-derived oils—are also widely used in apple 

production. In 2007, 60 percent of conventional apple acres were treated with 

horticultural oils (see table 4) to control insect and mite pests, down slightly 

from 65 percent of acres treated in 1997. The advantages of these products 

include safety to humans, effectiveness, and limited effects on benefi cial 

insects, although they can injure plants if not used carefully (Cranshaw and 

Baxendale, 2010). The only other type of pesticide used on more than half of 

conventional apple acres in 2007 was nicotinoids. 

Organic Producers Use Biological and Other Materials

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 required the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for 

use in organic agriculture. The list identifi es synthetic substances that may be 

used and the nonsynthetic substances (natural) materials that are prohibited 

for use in organic production. In 2007, three of these approved materials were 

used on over half the organic apple acreage in surveyed States—horticultural 

oils to manage pests, lime-sulfur solution to manage disease, and biological 

controls to manage both insects and disease (see table 4). Other materials 

used to manage pests in organic apple production in 2007 include sulfur and 

copper, which are used under restrictions that prevent bioaccumulation in 

the soil. Horticultural oils, copper, sulfur, and lime sulfur are not considered 

carcinogenic, and the EPA has exempted them from a “pesticide residue 

tolerance”—the maximum amount of pesticide residue that may legally 

remain in and on foods (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). 

Approximately 13 percent of organic apple acres and 2 percent of conventional acres were also treated with a relatively new material—kaolin clay—to 

manage insect pests in 2007. Kaolin clay is an edible mineral that has long 

been used as an anticaking agent in processed foods, toothpaste, and other 

products and was developed for pest control about a decade ago (Ames, 

2001). Kaolin clay is a nontoxic particle fi lm spray that creates a barrier 

between the pest and the apple crop. The spray was developed by researchers 

at the USDA/ARS Experiment Station in Kearneysville, WV, in cooperation 

with the Engelhard Corporation (ATTRA, 2001).

Alternative Practices Used by Organic and Conventional Producers 

 In both organic and conventional production, a variety of pest monitoring, 

prevention, and suppression tactics are also used. Pest monitoring behavior 

did not differ appreciably under conventional and organic production systems 

in 2007, nor did the use of diagnostic laboratory services for pest identifi cation or soil plant tissue pest analysis (table 5). Most conventional and organic 

acres were deliberately scouted for pests. Some conventional and organic 
17

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

acres were scouted for pests while personnel performed other duties in the 

fi eld, and only a small amount of acreage (1-2 percent) was not scouted 

for pests. 

Some pests affect apples in all regions of the United States. Most conventional and organic acres, for example, were scouted for weeds, coddling 

moth, aphids, thrips, apple scab, powdery mildew, and fi re blight, and 

estimates of the shares of producers using this practice are not statistically 

different by production system. Only about half of conventional acres and 

organic acres were also scouted for fl yspeck/sooty blotch. Signifi cantly more 

conventional (41 percent) acres, however, were scouted for plum curculio 

than organic acres (18 percent). Plum curculio mostly affects apple producers 

Table 5

Pest management practices in U.S. apple production, 1994-95 and 2007

Item

1994-95 2007 2007

All production Conventional

production Organic production

Percent of acres

Prevention practices: 

Cultivate block for weed control* . 8 77

Protect benefi cial organisms* 80 60 74

Maintain benefi cial insect or vertebrate habitat* . 49 73

Clean implements after block work . 52 62

Remove crop residue, leaf litter, or prunings . 67 58

Practice water management** . 19 37

Use fl amer to kill weeds* . 2 26

Choose crop variety for pest resistance 10 8 16

Use nonchemical controls for deer . 11 5

Monitoring practices: 

Deliberate scouting activities 84 89 84

Weather monitoring . 86 68

Soil/plant tissue analysis to detect pests 31 18 30

Scouting by general observation . 10 14

Block was not scouted . 2 1

Suppression practices: 

Pheromones and fl oral lures* 15 63 81

Biological pesticides (Bt, Neem, insect growth regulators)* . 43 79

Ground cover or physical barriers . 70 77

Buffer strips or border rows* . 14 65

Benefi cial organisms** . 11 26

. = Not available in previous surveys.

* =Difference between organic and conventional is statistically signifi cant at the 1-percent level.

** =Difference between organic and conventional is statistically signifi cant at the 10-percent level.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted 

by National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Economic Research Service; the 1994 and 1995 Chemical Use and Pest Management 

Practices Surveys conducted by NASS. 
18

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

in the Eastern United States, and most U.S. organic apple acres are in the 

Western States.2

The biggest difference in prevention practices between organic and conventional systems is for weed management. Conventional producers use a 

number of chemical herbicides to manage weeds in tree rows (see table 

4), while organic producers cultivate the rows and use other strategies to 

suppress, control, and kill weeds (see table 5). A fl amer was used to kill 

weeds on 26 percent of organic acreage, signifi cantly higher than use on 

conventional acreage (2 percent). Weather data were used on a greater 

percentage of conventional acres (87 percent) than organic acres (68 percent) 

to determine the need for or the timing of pesticide applications. The effectiveness of pesticides applied to conventional acres may be more dependent 

on specifi c weather patterns than those applied to organic acres. 

Crop residue, leaf litter, and pruned tree parts were removed from most 

conventional and organic acres to eliminate sources of insects and disease. 

Water management practices, such as irrigation scheduling, controlled 

drainage, or treatment of retention water, were used on a greater percentage 

of organic than conventional acres to control for pests. Other prevention practices include the use of tree varieties resistant to specifi c pests (with signifi -

cantly higher use among organic producers) and cleaning equipment and fi eld 

implements to prevent the spread of disease and weed seeds. 

Biological pest management practices and products were used extensively in 

organic and conventional apple production systems in 2007 to suppress insect 

and other pest populations (see table 5). Pheromones and fl oral lures were 

used on a higher percentage of organic apple acres than on conventional acres 

in surveyed States in 2007. Benefi cial insects or vertebrate habitats were also 

used as a pest prevention practice on a higher percentage of organic than 

conventional acres (see table 5). Similarly, benefi cial organisms were a factor 

in pest control decisions on a greater percentage of organic than conventional 

acres. Finally, benefi cial organisms, including insects, nematodes, and fungi, 

were applied or released on a signifi cantly greater percentage of organic than 

conventional acres.

Conventional and organic apple producers also reported differences in 

other pest suppression practices. Buffer strips or border rows were maintained to isolate organic apples from nonorganic apples or land on a much 

higher percentage of organic than conventional acres. Organic producers are 

required to maintain a buffer strip between their organic crop acreage and 

land that receives treatment with prohibited substances, including neighboring farms that use conventional production practices. Some conventional 

growers that reported using buffer strips may have used them because they 

also have organic acreage.

A USDA survey conducted in the mid-1990s also asked apple producers about 

their pest management practices. A comparison of data from this survey data 

reveals that the only practice to increase substantially between the mid-1990s 

and 2007 was the use of pheromones and fl oral lures (see table 5). 

 2Plum curculio are tree fruit weevils 

native to regions east of the Rocky 

Mountains. They cause large scars and 

bumps on the fruit from where they 

feed. Most fruit are damaged when the 

pest burrows into the fl esh, causing the 

fruit to drop prematurely.
19

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Organic and Conventional Producers Use Different Nutrient Sources 

Although the nutrient sources are different, most organic and conventional 

apple producers in the United States use nitrogen on their crops (see table 

2). Commercial phosphate and potassium are used on less acreage—about 

a third of organic and conventional acres. Nutrient sources used by conventional producers include both synthetic fertilizers and organic sources, such 

as commercially prepared manure or compost. 

Purchased nitrogen inputs were used by both conventional and organic 

producers—synthetic nitrogen was used on 71 percent of conventional apple 

acres in 2007 and nitrogen from natural sources was used on 57 percent of 

organic apple acres. Nearly half of organic acres were treated with noncommercial compost, compared with only 3 percent of conventional acres. A 

relatively small amount of apple acres were treated with animal manure—8 

percent of organic acres and 4 percent of conventional acres—although 

these estimates are not statistically different. Poultry manure was the source 

for most of these treatments. For conventional producers, the U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued voluntary food safety guidance, 

recommending that growers consider incorporating raw manure into the 

soil prior to planting to reduce pathogens and that growers avoid applying 

raw manure to produce fi elds during the growing season (FDA, 1998). For 

organic producers, USDA organic regulations require that raw manure be 

composted before use in crop production, unless it is incorporated into the 

soil not less than 120 days prior to harvest of a product whose edible portion 

is in contact with the soil or 90 days prior to harvest if the edible portion does 

not touch the soil (USDA, AMS, NOP, 2000). 

A soil test for phosphorous and nitrogen was performed on a higher 

percentage of organic apple acres (83 percent) in 2007 than on conventional 

acres (31 percent). Similarly, a nitrogen test was performed on 86 percent 

of treated organic acres and only 43 percent of conventional acres. In addition, a plant tissue test, or leaf analysis for nutrient defi ciency, was performed 

on a much higher percentage of organic (71 percent) than conventional (28 

percent) acres. Not surprisingly, nitrogen was applied based on the results 

of a soil or plant tissue test on a signifi cantly higher percentage of treated 

organic acres (76 percent) than treated conventional acres (40 percent). 

Nitrogen application decisions were based on recommendations of crop 

consultants on 67 percent of treated organic acres and 33 percent of treated 

conventional acres. 
20

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Apples are one of the most popular fruits in the world and, along with grapes 

and oranges, are still one of the top three fruits consumed in the United 

States. Although consumption of fresh apples in the United States has trended 

down for several decades, demand from other countries for fresh apples from 

the United States has expanded during this period, and U.S. apple exports 

are substantially higher than apple imports. Approximately 25 percent of the 

domestic supply of fresh apples is exported to Mexico, Canada, Taiwan, and 

other countries, up from a 12-percent share during the 1980s. Fresh apple 

exports, which were 697 million pounds in the 1980/81 marketing season, 

reached a record high (1.72 billion pounds) in the 2008/09 marketing season 

(USDA, ERS, 2009). Approximately 7 percent of the fresh apple supply in 

the United States is imported, mostly from Chile, New Zealand, Canada, and 

Argentina (Huang and Huang, 2007). 

In January 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce added codes for selected 

organic products, including fresh apples, to the U.S. trade code system, and 

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has begun reporting trade statistics on these products. During the fi rst quarter of 2011, the U.S. exported 

fresh organic apples to Canada, Mexico, and 11 other countries, accounting 

for 4 percent of U.S. apple export value. The U.S. imported organic apples 

from three countries during this period—Canada, Chile, and Argentina—

accounted for 5 percent of total apple import value. FAS expects organic 

trade data to improve as shippers adjust to these new codes and as coverage 

of organic products expands.

In general, U.S. apple producers sell their higher-quality apples for freshmarket consumption at higher prices and sell their lower-quality apples to 

processors at lower prices. Many apple producers, however, especially in 

Eastern and Midwestern States, target markets for applesauce, juice, cider, 

and other processed apple products, including pre-sliced apples. The share 

of U.S. apples sold for juice has dropped as low-cost producers, particularly 

China, have entered the market. 

Almost two-thirds of U.S. apple production is now sold in markets for fresh 

apples, up from an average of 56 percent in the 1980s. Although prices for 

apples used in processing have remained essentially fl at for several decades, 

grower prices for fresh apples have gradually trended up (fi g. 5). The farm 

share of consumer expenditures on fresh apples has also edged higher in the 

last several years, reaching 31 percent of consumer expenditures in 2008. 

Apple producers in the United States typically sell their harvested apples 

through packers, shippers, brokers, and other market intermediaries. Some 

producers also pack their own apples and have their own shipping operations. 

A small but increasing number of producers also sell their apples directly to 

consumers. Over 6 percent of U.S. farmers reported selling agricultural products directly to consumers in 2007, up from 5 percent in 2002 (USDA, ERS 

2009). Among those apple producers using direct markets in 2007, direct 

sales were mostly through farmers markets or consumer-supported agriculMarketing and Prices in the U.S. Apple 

 Sector
21

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

ture (CSA) arrangements in Western States and onfarm or roadside-stand 

sales in other States.

Price premiums for organic apples exist across the supply chain, likely 

refl ecting higher production and handling costs than for conventional apples 

as well as rising consumer demand. At the producer level, organic systems 

tend to have higher labor costs (that are not offset by lower chemical costs) 

than conventional systems and must also cover the higher costs incurred 

during the 3-year transition period (Greene et al., 2009). Organic producers 

and handlers also incur extra costs for certifi cation, inspection, additional 

paperwork, and product segregation. Although retailers are not required to be 

certifi ed, they are required to maintain purchase records, segregate organic 

products from conventional products in warehouse and display areas, and 

produce records upon demand by USDA. These activities may create additional costs at the retail level.

Most of the U.S. apple harvest is transported to warehouses for grading, 

packing, and storage before being sold into markets for fresh apples. In 

2007, 72 percent of conventional apples and 82 percent of organic apples 

sold through market intermediaries in the surveyed States were sold for fresh 

consumption. Apples for the fresh market are generally bagged or boxed for 

sale to grocery stores, warehouse stores, and exporters. 

The rest of the U.S. apple harvest is sold to processors for applesauce, apple 

juice, and other processed apple products. The market for “peelers”—apples 

used to make applesauce, pies, and canned fruit—claimed 11 percent of the 

organic apples and 14 percent of the processed conventional apples sold 

through market intermediaries in 2007 (table 6). The juice market accounted 

for 15 percent of the conventional apple packout, but only 6 percent of the 

organic packout.

Figure 5

U.S. grower prices for fresh apples trend up

Cents/pounds

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts Summary, 

various issues.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Fresh apple price

Processed apple price

1980 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08
22

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Organic Premiums Highest at the Producer Level

The average price for all uses of organic apples sold through market intermediaries was substantially higher than that for conventional apples in 2007 

(table 6). For fresh apples, growers received $0.55 per pound, on average, 

for organic apples, compared with $0.25 per pound for conventional apples; 

growers received $0.16 per pound for organic apples for juice, compared with 

$0.09 per pound for conventional apples. 

Organic apple markets are still developing and are not easily accessible to 

growers in all parts of the country. As a result, many organic apples are sold 

as conventional apples. Approximately 23 percent of the organic apples 

produced in the surveyed States were sold as conventional apples in 2007. 

Although Washington State is the market leader in organic apple production, 18 percent of its organic apples were sold as conventional apples. 

Other States had an even higher level of organically produced apples sold 

in conventional markets—Oregon (29 percent), New York (37 percent), 

and California (49 percent). In 2001, over a third of the respondents to a 

nationwide survey of organic producers conducted by a California nonprofi t 

indicated that they sold some of their organic product into the conventional 

market (Organic Farming Research Foundation, 2001). Over half of these 

respondents indicated that they sold organic product into the conventional 

market because an organic market was unavailable. Almost a third indicated 

that the conventional price was good or high, 16 percent said that they sold 

their culls as conventional product, and 15 percent said the organic price was 

too low.

Organic Prices Track Conventional in Wholesale Markets

Although the proportion of produce shipped directly from growers is 

increasing, terminal markets, such as the San Francisco Terminal Market, still 

serve as a hub for spot market purchases of fruits and vegetables. USDA has 

tracked wholesale prices at terminal markets for some organic produce items, 

including organic apples, for a number of years. Although much of the apple 

harvest and the production of other fruits and vegetables now goes directly 

to retailer distribution centers rather than through wholesale markets, organic 

Table 6

Farm-level organic price premiums varied by market, 20071

Organic 

production

Conventional 

production

Average price Organic premium Market All apples Organic3 Conventional3

Market sales (percent of harvest 2) $/pound Percent

Fresh apples 82 72 0.28 0.55 0.25 120 

Peelers (sauce) 11 14 0.09 0.16 0.09 72 

Juice 6 15 0.09 0.18 0.08 119

1Seven surveyed States accounted for over 87 percent of U.S. production.

2Excluding sales made directly to consumers.

3Organic and conventional price differences are statistically signifi cant.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted 

by National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service.
23

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

and conventional price trends can be more easily compared using data 

from wholesales.

Since 2005, Fuji, Gala, and Red Delicious have been among the most consistently reported organic apple varieties in the San Francisco Terminal Market. 

Organic price premiums for Fuji and Red Delicious apples were fairly stable 

and averaged at about 60 percent for 2005-09 and for the fi rst half of 2010 

(fi g. 6). Organic price premiums for Galas averaged at about 55 percent for 

2007-09 and the fi rst half of 2010. Prices were higher for the new varieties—

Gala and Fuji—than for Red Delicious in both conventional and organic 

markets. For all three apple varieties, organic wholesale price movement has 

tracked conventional price movement since 2005 (fi g. 6).

ERS analysis of retail prices for organic and conventional fruits and vegetables using 2005 Nielsen Homescan data from a nationally representative 

panel of consumers also shows consistent organic retail price premiums for 

apples (Lin et al., 2008). The organic premium as a percent of the corresponding conventional price was less than 30 percent for over two-thirds of 

the 35 fresh fruits and vegetables examined. The organic premium for apples 

in 2005 was 34 percent, higher than for most of the other fresh fruits and 

vegetables. ERS examined organic retail price premiums in several earlier 

years using Nielsen Homescan panel data and found that the organic price 

premium for apples was 28 percent in 2001 and 36 percent in 2004 (StevensGarmon et al., 2007).
24

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 6

Price movement similar for organic and conventional apples

Dollars per container

 *2010 estimate includes January-June prices.

1

Cartons, tray pack, or cell pack (approximately 40 pounds).

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, average annual prices, San Francisco 

Terminal Market News Report.

Average annual Fuji apple prices, San Francisco Terminal Market1

0

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*

Fuji organic price 

Fuji conventional price

0

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

2007 2008 2009 2010*

Average annual Gala apple prices, San Francisco Terminal Market1

Gala organic price

Gala conventional price

Dollars per container

0

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*

Average annual Red Delicious prices, San Francisco Terminal Market1

Red Delicious organic price 

Red Delicious conventional price

Dollars per container
25

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

The U.S. apple industry—orchards, crop acreage, and production—has been 

declining for well over a decade as domestic consumption of fresh apples 

declined and foreign competition for the processed apple market increased. 

Apples have faced increased competition for the U.S. fresh fruit market in 

the last several decades—per capita consumption of fresh strawberries and 

pineapples, for example, has more than doubled—but overall consumption of 

fresh fruits has remained nearly fl at and is well below recommended levels 

(U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007). If successful, recent 

public health initiatives aimed at reducing childhood obesity and improving 

the health of Americans by increasing the consumption of and access to nutritious food could spur increases in the fresh fruit market and help counter the 

decline in fresh apple consumption. 

Although overall consumption of fresh apples has declined, consumption 

of varieties other than Red Delicious has increased substantially in recent 

years. According to researchers at Washington State University, Red Delicious accounted for as much as 70 percent of the apples grown in Washington 

in the mid-1990s, but the share has declined as consumer demand for other 

varieties has risen. Two other markets have continued to show strong growth 

during this period—export markets for fresh apples and domestic markets 

for organically grown apples. World demand for organic products is still 

expanding, and export markets also have strong potential for U.S. organic 

apples. 

Conventional and organic production systems shared many similarities 

in 2007, including the predominance of dwarf and semi-dwarf trees, tree 

density, and a general focus on apples for the fresh market. These systems 

differed primarily in their pest and nutrient management strategies, which can 

be costly and diffi cult to implement in organic systems. Adoption of organic 

systems is much higher in Western States, partly refl ecting the lower pest 

pressure in those States. 

Strong price premiums have attracted growers to organic production systems. 

According to ERS analysis, grower prices for fresh organic apples and 

organic apples for juice in 2007 were more than twice as high as grower 

prices for fresh conventional apples and conventional apples for juice. 

Increased funding for organic pest management research could facilitate 

organic production in Eastern States, and also play a key role in helping 

growers reduce costs as organic production increases. In surveys of organic 

producers, insect management, disease management, and weed control are 

consistently identifi ed as the top research priorities. Increased research on 

organic pest management would also benefi t conventional growers as the 

United States implements tighter pesticide regulations.

Conclusions
26

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Agro-News. “Pesticide Guthion will be phased out after 2012,” IPR 

2009-9-21. 

Ames, Guy. Considerations in Organic Apple Production, Organic Matters 

Series, ATTRA National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, 

National Center for Appropriate Technology, July 2001.

Black, Jim. “Organic Has Arrived,” Good Fruit Grower, May 1, 2007.

Buxton, Boyd. “Economic Impact of Consumer Health Concerns About Alar 

on Apples,” Fruit and Tree Nut Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, 1989.

Cranshaw, W.S., and B. Baxendale. Insect Control: Horticultural Oils, Fact 

Sheet No. 5.569, Colorado State University Extension, 2010. 

Granatstein, David. “Tree Fruit Production with Organic Farming Methods,” 

California Fresh Fruit Industry Directory: Pest Control, 2010, http://

www.myfreshfruitdirectory.com/index.php?n=27&id=27. 

Greene, Catherine, Carolyn Dimitri, Biing-Hwan Lin, William McBride, 

Lydia Oberholtzer, and Travis Smith. Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic 

Industry, EIB-55, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, June 2009. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/

Huang, Sophia, and Kuo Huang. Increased U.S. Imports of Fresh Fruit 

and Vegetables, Outlook Report No. FTS-328-01, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2007, http://www.

ers.usda.gov/Publications/fts/2007/08Aug/fts32801/fts32801.pdf. 

Kirby, Elizabeth, and David Granatstein. Status of Organic Tree Fruit in 

Washington State—2009, Washington State University, March 2010.

Lin, Biing-Hwan, Travis Smith, and Chung Huang. “Organic premiums of 

U.S. fresh produce,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(3): pp. 

208-16, 2008.

Organic Farming Research Foundation. National Organic Farmers’ Survey 

Results, Organic Farming Research Foundation: Santa Cruz, CA, 2001.

Organic Trade Association. 2009 U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes & Beliefs 

Study, Greenfi eld, MA, June 2009.

Osteen, Craig, and Michael Livingston. “Pest Management Practices,” 

Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2006 Edition, 

EIB-16, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

July 2006, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/eib16/.

Pons, Lois. “Short Apple Trees, Faster and Healthier,” USDA Agricultural 

Research Magazine Vol. 51, No. 11, November 2003.

References
27

Characteristics of Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States / FTS-347-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Schotzko, R. Thomas, and David Granatstein. A Brief Look at the Washington 

Apple Industry: Past and Present, SES 04-05, Washington State 

University, School of Economic Sciences, 2005. 

Stevens-Garmon, John, Chung L. Huang, and Biing-Hwan Lin. “Organic 

Demand: A Profi le of Consumers in the Fresh Produce Market,” Choices

22(2): pp. 109-15, 2007. 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 

Consumption among Adults—United States, 2005,” Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report Vol. 56, No. 10, pp. 213-17, 2007. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Organic Price Elections Planned for 

Cotton, Corn, Soybeans and Processing Tomatoes,” Press Release No. 

0431.10, August 30, 2010.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. “National 

Organic Program; Final Rule, 7 CFR Part 205,” Federal Register, 

December 21, 2000, www.usda.gov/nop.

U.S, Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Fruit and Tree 

Nuts Outlook, FTS-339, September 29, 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/fts/2009/Sep/FTS339.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. U.S. Organic 

Production, 2010, www.ers.usda.gov/data/organic.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

2007 Census of Agriculture: Organic Production Survey (2008), Volume 

3, Special Studies, Part 2, AC-07-SS-2, February 2010.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Agricultural Chemical Usage 2007 Field Crops Summary, May 2008, 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsFruits/

AgriChemUsFruits-05-21-2008.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Agricultural Chemical Usage 2007 Fruit Crops Summary, May 1998.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration. Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial 

Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Food Safety 

Initiative Staff, HFS-32, Center For Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 

Washington, DC, 1998.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of 

Health, National Cancer Institute. Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: 

What We Can Do Now, President’s Cancer Panel, 2008-09 Annual Report, 

April 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offi ce of Pesticide Programs. Index 

to Pesticide Chemical Names, Part 180 Tolerance Information, and Food 

and Feed Commodities (by Commodity), July 19, 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Daminozide (Alar) Pesticide 

Canceled for Food Uses, press release, November 7, 1989.