Although there is a similarity in year-t()-}-ear fluctuations in production, 

 the long run trend in apple production for the United States has been 

 decreasing while New Hampshire and Xew England production has l)een 

 increasing. This divergency in production patterns is of importance to our 

 ;uaalysis of the future outlook for the industry. 



Upon examination of the supply patterns of various regions throughout 

 the United States, it was found that the year-to-year production fluctua- 

 tions common to New Hampshire and the Uniterl States also existed for 

 (ther regions. * 



The number of a])ple farms and of apple trees in the United States has 

 declined continually since 1930. Numbers of trees dropped from 1 16,303.353 

 in 1930 to 50.559.124 in 1950. Numbers of farms growing api^les during 

 this time interval dropped from 2.297,074 in 1930 to 1,556.71 6 in 1950. 

 However. the rate of decline in the number of apple trees and farms for 

 tlie United States has recently slowed down. 



Proc'uction in New Hampshire 



New Hampshire has followed the general pattern of farm and tree re- 

 duction which is characteristic of the United States as a whole. Since 

 1930. both farm and tree numbers have been declining as shown in Table 

 1. The decrease in numbers of farms and trees during 1940-1950 as corn- 

 Table 1. Trends in Apple Far.-ns and Tree Numbers in the United States and New Hampshire, 



1930-1950 



Source : Based on data taken from the United States Census of Agriculture, United 

 States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1930, 1940, 1950. 



1 The number of growers dependent on apples as their major source of income is 

 e.stimated at 700 to 750. 



pared with 1930-1940 however has slowed down remarkably. The reduc- 

 tion of numbers of farms giving up apple production during 1940-1950, 

 however, as compared with 1930-1940 might be an underestimation be- 

 cause of a redefinition of farm size in the 1950 census. 



The percent of farms moving out of apple production in New Hampshire 

 is considerably larger than the percent reduction of farms for the United 



* See Appendix, Figures 5, 6, 7, 8. 



