A new Illinois study examines how apple growers may change antibiotic use if bans occur and how those decisions affect disease control, profits, and long-term farm sustainability
Antibiotic resistance is widely discussed in human and animal health, but it also affects plant agriculture. In fruit production, antibiotics play an important role in controlling bacterial diseases, especially fire blight in apple and pear orchards. A recent study examined how apple growers might respond if antibiotics were banned in the future and how those choices could affect farm profitability.
Fire blight is a serious disease that causes flowers, leaves, and fruit to wilt and die. If left unmanaged, it can severely damage orchards. Growers commonly spray antibiotics, such as streptomycin, during bloom to protect trees. These treatments are costly, with growers spending hundreds of dollars per acre during severe outbreaks.
“The majority of antibiotics in plant agriculture are used on fire blight in pear and apple orchards. Growers face a dilemma, because they must treat their trees to protect them, but they run the risk of overusing the pesticides, so the disease develops resistance,” said lead author Khashi Ghorbani, doctoral candidate in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, part of the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at Illinois.
Currently, the United States does not restrict antibiotic use in fruit orchards. However, future regulations are possible. The study explored how uncertainty about a potential ban could influence grower behavior. Researchers created a model comparing two extreme strategies. One approach represents growers who continue business as usual, applying antibiotics at recommended levels without planning for future restrictions.
“The U.S. already has numerous federal and state restrictions on other pesticides and fungicides, so a ban on streptomycin is quite possible,” said co-author Shadi Atallah, associate professor in ACE.
The second approach represents proactive growers who increase antibiotic use before a potential ban, aiming to maximize disease control while the product is still available. The study found that proactive growers benefit only if a ban is enforced. If a ban does not occur, excessive use can reduce antibiotic effectiveness over time, leaving growers worse off.
The research also found that crop value plays a key role. Growers of lower-value apple varieties, such as Fuji and Gala, face greater financial risk under policy uncertainty. In contrast, higher-value varieties like Honeycrisp can better absorb these risks due to stronger returns.
Overall, the study highlights how policy uncertainty affects farm decisions and profitability. It also shows that crop selection and careful management can help growers reduce long-term economic and ecological risks linked to antibiotic use.