Ohio Apple Production:

National Market Perspective

Utilization and Market Outlets

The percentage of apples consumed fresh versus processed has not changed in recent years, but there has been a change in the distribution of processed uses (Table 4). The biggest change is a substantial increase in juice preparations for both domestic and export markets. Juice preparations often use apples in combination with other fruit bases. The largest comparative decreases in processed products have been in canned apples and 'other' preparations, even though the tonnage of canned apples has actually increased. Vinegar and fresh slices for pie manufacturers are the main Other' uses. Part of the decline here is the decreased use of apples for vinegar, now made frequently from grain (Funt).

Table 4: Amount and Percentage Distribution of Apple Uses from Domestic Production, United States, Selected Years, 1973-1988.
	1973		1978		1983		1988
Utilization	Million pounds	Percent	Million pounds	Percent	Million pounds	Percent	Million pounds	Percent
Fresh Consumption	3515.4	56.5	4221.0	55.9	4619.8	55.3	5263.3	57.8
All Processed Uses:	2709.6	43.5	333.2	44.1	3732.6	44.7	3844.6	42.2
Canned	1254.5	46.31	1223.6	36.71	1200.8	32.2*	1399.1	36.4*
Juice/Cider	820.1	30.3	1494.8	44.9	1983.5	53.1	1818.1	47.3
Frozen	251.9	9.3	207.4	6.2	169.6	4.5	275.7	7.2
Dried	254.7	9.4	221.0	6.6	283.3	7.6	285.0	7.4
Other**	128.7	4.7	186.4	5.6	95.4	2.6	66.7	1.7
TOTAL	6225.0	100.0	7554.0	100.0	8352.4	100.0	9107.9	100.0
*Processing percentages add to 100.0 percent of processed utilization. **Includes vinegar, wine, jams, pie slices.
Source: Derived from Non-citrus Fruits and Nuts, annual summaries, Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS, USDA, January 1975, 1980, 1985, and July 1989.

Some growers produce expressly for the processed market, usually under contract to manufacturers, who specify certain cultivars because of their desirable performance characteristics for a particular manufacturing purpose. York Imperial, for example, is a processing apple; Northern Spy is popular for pie slices, and McIntosh and Golden Delicious are preferred sauce apples (Funt). Table 5 summarizes output for fresh consumption by states. The inverse of these figures is, of course, output for processing. Notice that growers in states like California, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia sell mainly to processing markets, and those in states like Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon and Washington produce mostly for fresh markets.

Table 5: Percentage of Utilized U.S. Apple Production Marketed Fresh, Selected States, United States, 1973,1978,1983,1988.
	Percent of Production Marketed Fresh
State	1973	1978	1983	1988
California	22.0	28.0	32.9	48.4
Idaho	65.4	63.6	65.6	63.0
Massachusetts	89.2	80.3	79.4	78.1
Michigan	34.0	42.7	36.0	27.7
New Jersey	55.0	60.0	50.0	33.3
New York	41.7	39.4	39.5	44.5
North Carolina	64.3	46.6	41.0	37.4
Ohio	76.0	86.2	79.0	73.7
Oregon	65.3	78.9	77.4	72.7
Pennsylvania	37.4	39.8	35.0	26.5
Virginia	37.0	28.3	24.4	48.0
Washington	75.5	78.2	73.8	73.1
West Virginia	41.8	34.6	26.8	30.2
All Other	75.4	77.3	72.9	72.5
Average US.	56.5	55.9	55.3	57.8
Source: Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, annual summaries and midyear supplements, Agricultural Statistics Board, NASH USDA, January 1975, 1980, 1986, 1989, and July 198Z

Note in Table 5 that other eastern states seem to be shifting production from fresh to processed markets, perhaps in response to the growing national dominance of Washington as a producer of apples for fresh consumption. Massachusetts and Ohio are the only eastern states in Table 5 that produce mainly for the fresh market. But, as noted, cultivars in Ohio that contribute a distinctive aspect to fresh market production (and provide some insulation from Washington competitive dominance) are declining in importance relative to production of Red Delicious (Tables 7 and 8).

Table 7: Percentage Distribution of Apple Production, by Cultivar, Top Three Apple- Producing States and Ohio, 1973 and 1981*.
	Washington		Ohio		New York		Michigan
Cultivar**	1973	1981	1973	1981	1973	1981	1973	1981
-Percent-
Cortland	-	-	4.5	3.0	11.0	7.6	1.5	1.7
Delicious	64.2	65.5	14.5	19.0	12.2	11.0	15.7	18.8
Golden Delicious	24.6	28.0	15.0	16.0	5.6	6.3	6.8	7.7
jonathan	2.3	0.4	17.5	15.0	-	-	32.3	24.2
McIntosh	-	-	5.5	6.0	31.9	29.9	14.4	14.1
Northern Spy	-	-	-	-	2.5	2.5	12.7	10.1
R.l. Greening	-	-	-	-	8.3	10.8	1.8	1.5
Rome Beauty	2.4	1.4	19.0	19.0	12.5	12.1	3.6	4.8
Stayman	-	-	8.5	11.0	-	-	3.6	3.3
Winesap	6.0	3.4	-	-	-	-	-	-
All Other	O.4	1.33	14.4	11.0	16.0	19.8	7.6	13.8
Total (percent)	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
(million pounds)	1860.0	2700.0	100.0	100.0	720.0	800.0	470.0	640.0
*Data series discontinued by USDA in 1981.
2 Two popular cultivars not produced by these states are Yellow Newtown (principally California) and York Imperial (principally Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia).
3 About half of this was Granny Smith, first reported by USDA in 1981.
Source: Derived from Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, annual summaries, Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS, USDA, January 1975 and 1983.

Table 8: Apple Production as a Percent of (Red) Delicious Production, by Cultivar, Top Three Apple Producing States and Ohio, 1973 and 1981*.
	Washington		Ohio		New York		Michigan
Cultivar**	1973	1981	1973	1981	1973	1981	1973	1981
-Percent-
Cortland	-	-	31.0	15.8	90.2	69.1	9.6	9.0
Delicious	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Golden Delicious	38.3	42.7	103.4	84.2	45.9	57.3	43.3	41.0
Jonathan	3.6	0.6	120.7	78.9	-	-	205.7	128.7
McIntosh	-	-	37.9	31.6	261.5	271.8	91.7	75.0
Northern Spy	-	-	-	-	20.5	22.7	80.9	53.7
R.l. Greening	-	-	-	-	68.0	98.2	11.5	8.0
Rome Beauty	3.7	2.1	131.0	100.0	102.5	110.0	22.9	25.5
Stayman	-	-	58.6	57.9	-	-	22.9	17.6
Winesap	9.3	5.2	-	-	-	-	-	-
All Other	0.6	1.9	99.3	57.9	131.1	180.0	48.4	73.4
Total (percent)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
(million pounds)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
*Data series discontinued by USDA in 1981.
**Two popular cultivars not produced by these states are Yellow Newtown (principally California) and York Imperial (principally Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia). Source: Derived from Table 7.

Growers who consider fresh consumption their primary market sell mainly to grocery wholesalers or direct to chain store warehouses, frequently marketing through a cooperative selling agency operated by the grovers (Figure 2). In states with high population density (like Ohio), roadside markets also are an important point of sale for fresh consumption.

Producers for the fresh market tend to regard processors as a residual market, used for apples that are wholesome but lack visual appeal because they are small or uneven in color or shape, or have been damaged by weather or insects (Funt, Uchida).

The relative emphasis placed by growers on different market outlets for different purposes was examined in a recent Ohio study (Uchida). Ohio growers sold mainly to the fresh market although other nearby states sold primarily to processors (Table 3). Ohio growers exhibited some divergence of opinion about the merits of various markets, but part of the reason for this divergence appeared to be related to whether they did or did not own apple waxers (which served as a proxy indicator of the market outlet they viewed as primary).

Both groups of growers regarded the fresh wholesale (grocery) market as a primary source of income (Table 6). Growers without waxers tended also to regard this market as an outlet to absorb surpluses, rather a low-status role for a market which waxer owners held in a more respectful regard. Roadside markets were regarded as a viable option by both sets of growers, although they were given somewhat higher importance by the growers without waxers-the same ones with the tendency to regard groceries as surplus outlets. Both sets of growers saw pick-your-own arrangements as low-cost operations with good income generating possibilities, although the non-waxer group saw it as an outlet with a wider range of viable options. Cider was regarded as a source of supplementary income with a wide-range of options, including surplus and salvage. Both sets of growers regarded processing as a salvage operation or a surplus outlet. This is an attitude entirely different from that held by growers in other states who are contracted to manufacturers.*

Table 6: Index of Reasons for Using Different Market Outlets for Apples, by Grower Groups, Based on Waxer Ownership, Ohio, 1983.*
Market Used	Supplementary Income	Primary Income	Low-Cost Operation	Surplus	Salvage
Fresh Wholesale
Own Waxer	100	48	21	40	8
No Waxer	100	51	39	83	21
Roadside Market
Own Waxer	94	100	80	29	23
No Waxer	100	86	64	60	24
Pick-Your Own
Own Waxer	59	100	82	18	9
No Waxer	76	84	100	47	14
Cider
Own Waxer	56	100	28	66	31
No Waxer	21	100	30	62	52
Processing
Own Waxer	8	21	29	40	100
No Waxer	13	43	18	63	100
*Forty-three growers each ranked five reasons (1, highest, through 5, lowest) for the use of each type of market shown at the left. Responses were scored by using reciprocals of each rank (5 through 1) so that highest ranks received the highest scores. Respondents were divided into waxer and no-waxer categories (whether growers used waxer/sizer lines in their packing operations served as a proxy for their commitment to the fresh wholesale grocery market). Scores for each category of respondents were then totalled (consider any horizontal row, for example) and the highest score was divided into all the other scores, yielding a set of indices in which the most important reason equals 100. This reveals a level of importance attached to secondary or tertiary reasons that rank alone does not identify, and exposes differences in priorities perceived by the two classes (waxer/no-waxer) of growers.
Source: Uchida, S.A., and TT. Stout, "The Wholesaling of Fresh Ohio Apples," ESO 1506, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Ohio. 1989.

In all categories treated in Table 6, nowaxer growers exhibited less commitment to their choices than did waxer owners, who tended to be more affirmative about a particular market for a specific purpose. For example, waxer owners saw no other reason even half as important as primary income in explaining their regard for the fresh wholesale market. Non-owners (of waxers) were more open to a wider range of possibilities; their commitment to any particular market was less specific, more casual.