Disease management in organic apple orchards in Vermont is focused on controlling diseases with sulfur fungicides. The objective of this two year study was to evaluate the target and non-target effects of an organic disease management system containing agricultural biostimulants compared to two sulfur-based systems on foliar and fruit diseases, pest and beneficial arthropods, tree growth, yield and fruit quality on four cultivars, `Ginger Gold', `Honeycrisp' and `Liberty' and `Zestar!'. Trees were arranged in a complete randomized design of five three-tree replications in a certified organic orchard. The two sulfur-based systems differed in the number of applications; in the third system, sulfur was replaced with biostimulants including pure neem oil, liquid fish, an activated microbial inoculant plus equisetum and stinging nettle teas. Each biostimulant application also included kelp meal, unsulfured organic molasses and yucca extract emulsifier. The biostimulant system did not successfully manage apple scab and rust diseases as well as the sulfur-based fungicide systems, and had variable results with other diseases. No differences were observed among the three systems in tree growth parameters; however, the length of the study may not have been sufficient to determine effects. Differences in the incidence of disease among the three systems were reflected in extrapolated figures for gross income per hectare which takes into account fruit yield and quality. In the higher fruit-bearing year of the study, it was estimated that the gross income per hectare of the biostimulant system would be significantly lower than the reduced-sulfur system and the full-sulfur system by at least $5,800 and $12,000, respectively. In that same year, it is estimated that the full-sulfur system would have generated approximately $6,500 more gross income per hectare than the reduced-sulfur system suggesting the number of sulfur sprays can influence fruit quality and income. The use of the agricultural biostimulants had very limited non-target effects and when present, they were beneficial in suppressing insect pest incidence and/or damage on foliage compared to one or both of the sulfur-based fungicide systems. However, many insect pests or their damage were not observed on the foliage or had incidence of less than 1% in any of the systems. The biostimulant system did appear to suppress European red mites in both years compared to both sulfur-based systems when data were averaged across cultivars. On fruit, no differences in non-target impacts on arthropod pests were observed among the three systems except for surface-feeding Lepidoptera and San Jose scale damage. In a separate phytophagous mite study on the cultivar `Zestar!' leaf samples were evaluated for the number of motile phytophagous mites every 14 days from 1 July through 26 August each year. When there were differences, the biostimulant system had less mite incidence per leaf than one or both of the sulfur-based systems in both years. The difference in the number of sulfur sprays did not have a major effect on the mite populations. In summary, the use of the biostimulant system resulted in insufficient disease management which led to lower estimated gross income compared to the sulfur-based systems. These results show more research and further evaluation of new organic disease management tools, including the use of agricultural biostimulants, are necessary before growers consider replacing the use of standard sulfur fungicides for disease management in Vermont orchards.