Order Code RL33520
Specialty Crops: 2007 Farm Bill Issues
Updated January 17, 2007
Jean M. Rawson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Specialty Crops: 2007 Farm Bill Issues
Summary
Congress is expected shortly to begin consideration of omnibus legislation to
replace the expiring Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171,
the 2002 farm bill). Farm bill policies governing U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs on marketing, crop insurance and disaster assistance, protection
against pests and diseases, export promotion, and domestic food assistance, among
others, are important to the competitiveness of the specialty crop sector of U.S.
agriculture. The sector includes fruit, vegetable, tree nut, and nursery crop producers,
processors, manufacturers, wholesalers, importers, and exporters.
Although specialty crops are not eligible for direct support under USDA’s farm
commodity price and income support programs, the policies that Congress sets for
the major farm income and commodity price support programs affect them.
Congress inserted a provision in the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127, the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act) permitting program participants to plant
different crops on their program acres and still receive benefits. Before final passage
of that bill, however, Congress added another provision largely restricting
participants from planting fruits and vegetables on those acres, after specialty crop
interests expressed concern over the price volatility that the sector could suffer as a
result. Congress renewed the planting restriction in the 2002 farm bill.
The upcoming farm bill debate on the planting restriction provision, as well as
other key policies, will be affected by several new factors. Trade agreement concerns
could potentially require a relaxation of planting restrictions, and constrain policies
affecting the amount of spending for program crops. In addition, the specialty crop
sector is seeking greater federal investment in non-trade distorting programs that
would support its role as a high-value segment of U.S. agriculture. As an initial
effort in that regard, the 108th Congress passed the Specialty Crops Competitiveness
Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465). Among other things, the act authorized block grants to
states for research and promotion efforts, strengthened efforts to overcome
phytosanitary (pest and disease) barriers to exports, and provided mandatory funding
for a large competitive research grant program to address a broad spectrum of
specialty crop development needs.
This report discusses potential 2007 farm bill proposals affecting the specialty
crop sector, as foreshadowed by the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004
as introduced (H.R. 3242), and by a variety of proposals introduced in the 109th
Congress (H.R. 3562/S. 1556; S. 2487; H.R. 6193). The report will track
congressional consideration of the 2007 farm bill and will be updated as necessary.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sector Snapshot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2007 Farm Bill Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Planting Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Government Purchases for Nutrition Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The 2004 Act: Provisions for Further Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Block Grants to States, Mandatory Funding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Facilitating Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Protection from Diseases and Pests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Additional Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Figures
Figure 1. Value of Vegetables, Melons, Potatoes, and Sweet Potatoes as
Percent of Total Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold: 2002 . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Value of Fruits, Tree Nuts and Berries as Percent of
Total Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold: 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3. Value of Nursery, Greenhouse, Floriculture, and Sod as
Percent of Total Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold: 2002 . . . . . 12

---

Specialty Crops: 2007 Farm Bill Issues
Introduction
Specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, tree nuts and nursery crops) are not eligible
for direct support under USDA’s farm commodity price and income support
programs. Nonetheless, the policies that Congress sets for those programs
significantly affect the specialty crop sector’s economic well-being. Federal policies
on trade, conservation, credit, marketing programs, domestic food assistance, and
research also all affect the specialty crop sector.1
Congress sets the policies in these areas, for the most part, in an omnibus, multi-
year authorizing law commonly called the “farm bill.” Many of the provisions of the
most recent omnibus farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-171), expire in 2007. In the second session of the 109th Congress, the
House Committee on Agriculture held field hearings to gather information from
stakeholders in preparation for consideration of a new farm bill to replace the
expiring one.
Some stakeholders and policymakers are calling for specialty crop issues to
occupy a larger role in farm bill policy discussions than in the past. They note that
the traditional farm commodity support programs are under pressure from constraints
on the federal budget, as well as from developments in existing trade obligations and
from negotiations on further trade agreements.2 Policies covering U.S. agriculture
more comprehensively could provide a way to address those pressures while
increasing U.S. competitiveness, they argue.
In 2004, the 108th Congress passed the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act,
which addressed issues related to domestic marketing, exports, research, and
protection from invasive pests and diseases (P.L. 108-465; H.R. 3242). This act and
a number of additional proposals introduced (but not acted upon) in the 109th
Congress are expected to serve as the basis for consideration of specialty crop
provisions in the 2007 farm bill, and are the source of the policy options covered in
1 For background information on all federal programs affecting specialty crops, see CRS
Report RL32746, Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty Crops: A Primer on Government
Programs.
2 For information on the relationship between international trade negotiations and U.S. farm
policy, see CRS Report RS21005, Agriculture in the WTO Doha Round: The Framework
Agreement and Next Steps, and CRS Report RS20840, Agriculture in the WTO: Limits on
Domestic Support.

---

CRS-2
this report until the farm bill debate formally begins.3 Policy recommendations from
various stakeholder groups will be added to the report as they become public.
Sector Snapshot
Sales of fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts account for nearly one-third of U.S.
crop cash receipts and one-fifth of U.S. agricultural exports, according to USDA’s
Economic Research Service (ERS). When floriculture, greenhouse, and nursery
crops are included, specialty crops account for approximately 50% of all U.S. cash
receipts of farm crops.4
Despite their relatively large share of crop receipts, specialty crops occupy only
about 3% of U.S. harvested cropland. Although certain states and regions are
predominant, nearly every state has some commercial specialty crop production
within its borders. Figures 1, 2, and 3 (in Appendix A, pages 10-12) illustrate the
distribution, nationwide, of areas producing fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery
crops, shown as percentages of the total market value of agricultural products sold
(including livestock).5
About three-fourths of growers are considered specialized, which means that
they receive at least half of their gross value of production from the sale of fruits,
vegetables, tree nuts or horticultural crops. According to ERS survey data,
specialized farms account for 95% of the total value of U.S. specialty crop
production, although more than half of them have annual sales of less than $250,000
and identify off-farm income as their primary means of support. Specialized farms
may produce one or two other commodities in addition to their specialty crop,
according to ERS, and about 15% of them also participate in the major commodity
support programs.
The remaining 5% of the value of U.S. specialty crop production comes from
non-specialized fruit and vegetable farms, which may produce as many as four other
commodities (often including livestock) besides their specialty crop. Nearly half of
these farms grow one or more of the major commodity crops and participate in the
price and income support programs, according to ERS.
Vegetables, dry beans, and potatoes — for processing — are grown primarily
on large-acreage, non-specialized commercial farms. California is the overwhelming
leader in production, but certain states in the Northeast, Central and Upper Midwest,
and Pacific Northwest also are major producers.
3 The speciality crop-related proposals in the 109th Congress were H.R. 3562/S. 1556, S.
2487, and H.R. 6193.
4 Fruit and Vegetable Backgrounder (USDA, Economic Research Service, April 2006) is
the source for all the statistical information in this section. It is available online at
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/].
5 Note: The maps show the value of specialty crops as a percent of total market value of all
agricultural products sold, including livestock. Data from ERS’s Fruit and Vegetable
Backgounder, cited above in this section, compare specialty crop values to other crop
values.

---

CRS-3
2007 Farm Bill Issues
Planting Flexibility
A key issue for the some parts of the specialty crop industry is the continuation
of a 2002 farm bill provision that restricts the ability of participants in the farm
income and commodity price support programs to plant fruits and vegetables on acres
on which they receive benefits (base acres). Congress first inserted this provision in
the 1996 farm act (P.L. 104-127), after it had adopted a proposal to allow producers
of program crops to respond to market signals and grow different crops on base
acreage. The restriction was extended through 2007 by the 2002 farm bill.
Specialty crop producers, in general, have maintained since 1996 that allowing
program crop producers to switch even small numbers of acres to fruits or vegetables
would negatively affect markets, and thus growers’ annual income.
For a different reason, the 2002 extension of the planting flexibility restriction
caused problems for a number of farmers in the Midwest and Lake States
(Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) who traditionally grow vegetable crops on
contract for processing, in rotation with soybeans. The 2002 farm bill made soybeans
eligible for declaration as a “base” crop. Some producers found themselves unable
to continue their traditional vegetable rotation on their own land due to the planting
restriction. Others had difficulty finding rental farmland, as the owners feared losing
base acreage if the renter planted a vegetable crop after the soybean crop on the
rented acres. Bills proposing various solutions for this problem were introduced in
the 108th Congress and again in the 109th, but no action was taken on them.
In 2005, a World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge to U.S. farm commodity
programs raised questions concerning the use of the planting flexibility restriction
under existing trade commitments.6 Discussion on whether to extend the restriction
in the next farm bill thus will have an important trade policy aspect as well as
domestic market considerations.
In November 2006, ERS released a report examining the possible effects on
domestic fruit and vegetable producers of eliminating the planting restriction.7 The
analysis suggests that the market effects likely would be limited and confined to
specific regions and predominantly to lower-value commodities for processing (e.g.,
tomatoes, dry beans, potatoes). Certain producers would experience declining net
returns, the report states, but the markets likely would adjust within one or two years.
The report indicates that the regions most likely to experience an expansion of
specialty crops on base acres would be California, southeastern Washington, southern
6 For more detailed information and analysis of this issue, see CRS Report RS22187, U.S.
Agricultural Policy Response to WTO Cotton Decision; and CRS Report RL33697,
Potential Challenges to U.S. Farm Subsidies in the WTO.
7 USDA, ERS. Eliminating Fruit and Vegetable Planting Restrictions: How Would Markets
Be Affected? Report No. 30. November 2006. Available at [http://www.ers.usda.gov].

---

CRS-4
Idaho, the area from North Dakota through the upper Midwest to northwestern New
York, and the coastal plain in the southeastern states.
Government Purchases for Nutrition Programs
USDA directly purchases and then donates a variety of non-price supported
commodities, including fruit, vegetable and tree nut products, for consumption
through domestic nutrition and food assistance programs. These purchases and
donations help groups of nutritionally vulnerable recipients (such as low-income
school children, participants at family child care homes, and others) to eat a healthy
diet and avoid hunger, while also helping to balance supply and demand for various
commodities.
Section 10603 of the 2002 farm bill included a provision setting a minimum
threshold of $200 million in Section 32 funds to purchase fruits and vegetables for
donation to schools.8 USDA subsequently interpreted the law to mean that the
minimum threshold applied to current purchases, whereas Congress and stakeholder
groups argued that it was intended to provide for an additional $200 million in fruit
and vegetable purchases above the existing program. Proponents of additional funds
said they were intended to support the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables to be
delivered to schools through a system especially suited to delivering small lots of
fresh produce (the majority of current program purchases are of canned, frozen, and
dried commodities, due to the volume purchased and their distribution nationwide).
As USDA is continuing to operate under its interpretation of the 2002 provision, this
issue is expected to arise during the 2007 farm bill deliberations.
The 2004 Act: Provisions for Further Consideration
Block Grants to States, Mandatory Funding? The key provision of the
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465) is the authorization,
through FY2009, of a program of block grants to states to support projects in
research, marketing, education, pest and disease management, production, and food
safety. In most states, the state Department of Agriculture administers this program.
The initial bill (H.R. 3242) called for an annual expenditure of $470 million in
mandatory funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to support the
specialty crop block grant program.9 The final bill instead authorized the program
subject to annual appropriations, and limited annual funding to $44.5 million in
FY2005-FY2009. Congress appropriated $7 million for the program for FY2006.
At the time the 109th Congress adjourned, the House-passed FY2007 USDA
8 Section 32 is a permanent appropriation that since 1935 has earmarked the equivalent of
30% of annual customs receipts to support the farm sector through a variety of activities, the
largest of which is purchasing food commodities for the child nutrition and other domestic
food programs. For more information on this program, see CRS Report RS20235, Farm and
Food Support under USDA’S Section 32 Program.
9 The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation within USDA with the authority to
have up to $30 billion in outstanding debt to the U.S. Treasury. The CCC repays the funds
it borrows primarily through its regular annual appropriation. It serves as the funding
mechanism for the farm commodity price and income support programs.

---

CRS-5
appropriations bill contained $15.6 million for the program, and the Senate-reported
measure contained $10 million.
Expansion of this program and a renewed effort to obtain mandatory funding are
expected to be subjects of considerable debate once the 2007 farm bill debate begins.
Proponents maintain that the block grants approach permits each state to tailor
activities to fit the particular needs of its specialty crop producers and processors.
Critics point to a similar, one-time, mandatory program in 2001, where it
subsequently was determined that some states were not as effective as others in
administering projects that had identifiable benefits.10
The larger issue, however, is whether the program should be supported with
mandatory or discretionary funds. Those favoring the former argue that the value of
the specialty crop industry to the U.S. farm sector warrants greater investment in its
economic well-being from the federal government. Specialty crop industry
representatives speak in favor of support for programs — like block grants — that
encourage private investment and drive demand and competitiveness in the United
States and globally, but are not perceived to distort domestic production or
international markets. Current high deficit levels, however, pose a problem for
increasing mandatory funding for agriculture without making offsets in the
commodity or nutrition programs. Producer groups and lawmakers from states where
commodity crops predominate are not in favor of redirecting money to support
specialty crop programs if that means reducing the current level of support for the
commodity programs. Reducing spending on domestic food assistance programs is
likewise controversial.
Facilitating Exports. Fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts now account for 17%
of the value of U.S. agricultural exports, according to ERS. Nonetheless, the industry
generally maintains that other countries’ requirements concerning the pest and
disease (phytosanitary) status of imported fruits and vegetables frequently pose a
significant challenge to expanding markets for U.S. specialty crops.
The 2004 act authorizes $2 million in additional appropriated funds for an
existing program, the Targeted Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program,
which supports projects aimed at overcoming specific non-tariff trade barriers.11
TASC currently receives $2 million annually in mandatory CCC funds. Other
specialty crop proposals in the 109th Congress would have authorized $10 million
annually in additional funds for the TASC program.
The 2004 act, particularly as introduced, contained a wide variety of additional
items intended to give specialty crops a higher profile within USDA export programs
10 House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, Hearing,
November 5, 2003, Serial No. 108-20, Review of Domestic Policies Affecting the Specialty
Crop Industry. Available at [http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house].
11 The TASC program is administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). For
background information on this and other USDA programs affecting specialty crops, see
CRS Report RL32746, Fruits, Vegetables and Other Specialty Crops: A Primer on
Government Programs.

---

CRS-6
and in the context of multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations. Policy issues that
might arise during the farm bill debate could include (1) ways to expedite USDA’s
process for certifying that fruit and vegetable exports meet foreign countries’
phytosanitary regulations; (2) the development of a comprehensive foreign market
access strategy for specialty crops; (3) the creation of a position within the Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) that would be solely responsible for trade
matters related to specialty crops; (4) the establishment of a position within USDA
to coordinate the specialty crop-related activities of various agencies; (5) whether
existing export credit programs could be modified to increase exports; and (6)
commissioning a study to determine the effects of recent multi- and bilateral trade
agreements on the economic health of the domestic industry and on the lowering of
barriers to U.S. exports.
Protection from Diseases and Pests. The Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465) also addressed issues concerning
APHIS’s regulation of imported produce. Critics have charged that APHIS import
decisions, in particular, are made by agency scientists and officials who might not
always consult the fullest range of scientific information available on the potential
harm that an imported pest or disease could cause. P.L. 108-465 required APHIS to
enter into an agreement with the National Plant Board, a non-profit organization of
plant pest regulatory agencies in the states, to conduct a one-time peer review of the
procedures and standards under which APHIS considers specialty crop import and
export petitions.
The original bill called for a more comprehensive and permanent solution to the
critics’ charges: H.R. 3242 would have required APHIS to establish an independent
scientific and technical peer review process for the agency’s import (as well as
export) decisions that could be activated as necessary, depending upon a number of
triggering factors.
On the basis of the National Plant Board review, which was completed in July
2006, Congress may consider other policy options related to this issue. While the
National Plant Board recommends in favor of instituting a peer review system for
risk analysis, its foremost recommendations are that APHIS (1) consolidate its risk
management function so that resources can be redirected from lower- to higher-risk
situations (e.g., away from routine import requests and toward nursery stock and
noxious weeds); (2) improve risk communications to stakeholders to clarify how
scientific evidence is tied to risk management decisions; and (3) increase the
resources directed to risk analyses needed in support of export requests (among other
recommendations).12
The 2004 act also authorized $1 million to be appropriated annually to establish
a Pest and Disease Response Fund within the U.S. Treasury to support APHIS
emergency pest eradication and research activities. Congress has not made funds
12 Peer Review Report of the Procedures and Standards that Govern the Consideration of
Import and Export Requests Under the Plant Protection Act. A Report Presented by the
National Plant Board to the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Congress. July 2006.
Available online at [http://nationalplantboard.org/].

---

CRS-7
available to date for this purpose. The provision thus may come up for further
discussion, along with the level of funding for such an account. The provision in H.R.
3242 would have given the authority for annual appropriations of such sums as
necessary to achieve a $75 million balance at the beginning of each fiscal year.
Relatedly, H.R. 3242 would have moved the Office of Pest Management Policy
from USDA’s in-house science agency, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), to
the Office of the Secretary, and authorized $5 million in annual appropriations for its
activities. The final law does not contain this provision. The Office of Pest
Management Policy was established in 1997 to play a broad role in coordinating the
many USDA programs related to pest management issues. It was located in ARS to
facilitate the contribution of research findings to the regulatory process, among other
things. Proponents of moving the Office from ARS into the Office of the Secretary
say that it would highlight its importance and make it more effective.
Research. The 2004 act authorized an annual appropriation of $5 million to
support research on alternatives to the soil and crop fumigant, methyl bromide, which
is being phased out under an international agreement to reduce the use of gases that
damage Earth’s protective ozone layer.13 Under its regular appropriation, ARS used
$18.3 million in FY2006 for methyl bromide research. Federal dollars also support
research on methyl bromide alternatives at the land grant colleges of agriculture in
each state. In FY2005, an estimated $4 million supported such research. No
additional funds have been appropriated to date under the authority granted in the
2004 act.
The final bill did not include a larger research provision in the original measure
that would have authorized USDA to spend $30 million annually in mandatory CCC
funds for a National Specialty Crops Development Initiative. Under the initiative,
USDA would award grants on a competitive basis to projects addressing short-,
intermediate-, and long-term needs in production technology, mechanization,
marketing, product development, food security, and food safety, among other things.
Congress traditionally supports agricultural research through annual
appropriations of discretionary funds. Previous legislative attempts to gain
mandatory funding for research have had very limited success. For the most part,
appropriators have blocked the use of mandatory funds authorized for previous
agricultural research initiatives and used the savings to support existing programs.
Additional Proposals
In addition to the policy options discussed above, P.L. 108-465 as originally
introduced contained additional provisions in areas that the final bill did not address
at all. Some of these proposals, and others, appeared in other legislation that was
introduced in the 109th Congress. Each could potentially come under consideration
during the 2007 farm bill debate. Briefly, they are as follows:
13 For complete information on ozone depletion rules and regulations and the phase-out of
methyl bromide, see [http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/index.html].

---

CRS-8
! Raise the limit that an individual specialty crop producer may
borrow in direct operating loans from $200,000 to $500,000
! Raise the limit that an individual specialty crop producer may
borrow in government guaranteed operating loans from private
banks from $700,000 to $1.5 million
! Increase the amount that fruit and nut growers can receive under the
Tree Assistance Program from $75,000 to $150,000 annually in the
event of natural disasters
! Expand the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) insurance pilot program
permanently to cover any county nationwide where crops, including
specialty crops, are produced
! Establish an office in USDA solely to encourage the development
and protection of intellectual property rights in plants and to serve
as an advocate for the interests of specialty crops in domestic and
international intellectual property rights matters
! Amend current patent law to facilitate obtaining patents for new
plant varieties in order to improve enforcement of suspected
infringements
! Allow marketing orders to include implementation of certain food
safety programs, such as Good Agricultural Practices, Good
Handling Practices, ISO 2000, etc.
! Reimburse producers and processors who obtain certification under
standardized food safety programs
! Establish a program to educate consumers and handlers of fresh
produce on proven practices for reducing microbial contamination
! Authorize the use of $5 million annually in mandatory CCC funds
to establish a network of “National Clean Plant Centers” to produce,
store, and make available disease- and pest-free materials for public
and private laboratories and nurseries
! Remove the income limitation for eligibility under the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
! Provide education and technical assistance to assist specialty crop
growers applying for conservation programs
! Require USDA to give priority in eligibility for conservation
programs to specialty crop producers who follow voluntary
sustainable practices guidelines
! Require USDA to use $9 million in mandatory CCC funds in
FY2007 to provide timely price information on specialty crops, and
in subsequent years provide increased funding indexed to inflation
! Add fish and shellfish to the definition of specialty crop.

Outlook
Since the enactment of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act in 2004,
spokespersons in public forums and at congressional hearings have continued to state
that the specialty crops sector wants greater federal investment in research,
marketing, pest and disease protection, nutrition programs, conservation programs,
disaster assistance, crop insurance, and export development. These approaches, they

---

CRS-9
maintain, do not distort production with respect to U.S. and global markets, but
together would provide a safety net for producers and open the door to future growth.
Consideration of a 2007 farm bill is expected to provide a forum in which the
above policies will be debated, and observers note that new factors are likely to shape
the discussion. The future of the restriction on planting fruits and vegetables on
program base acres is as linked to WTO-related issues as it is to the economic well-
being of specialty crop growers, for example. Any changes in current policy are
likely to increase pressure to consider new, non-trade distorting mechanisms not only
to support the specialty crop sector but perhaps also the producers of program crops.
Also likely to be at issue is whether a significant federal investment in programs
of benefit to specialty crops could be made with mandatory funds. Had P.L. 108-465
passed as originally written, $508 million in mandatory funds would have supported
specialty crop programs annually. Although previous proposals to redirect
commodity program funding toward other types of support have not succeeded, trade,
budget, and equity factors are shaping a context for 2007 farm bill consideration that
appears to differ significantly from 2002.

---

CRS-10
Appendix A.
Figure 1. Value of Vegetables, Melons, Potatoes, and Sweet Potatoes as Percent
of Total Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold: 2002

---

CRS-11
Figure 2. Value of Fruits, Tree Nuts and Berries as Percent of Total Market Value
of Agricultural Products Sold: 2002

---

CRS-12
Figure 3. Value of Nursery, Greenhouse, Floriculture, and Sod as Percent of Total
Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold: 2002

---