Vegetable Notes 2026 Vol. 38:2

The Economics of Growing Sunflowers: Three Case Studies

Over the past decade, consumers and farmers alike have discovered the benefits of local cut flowers. Consumers love that local flowers are more unique, delicate and sustainable than those shipped overseas. New flower farms have popped up to meet this demand, and many established vegetable and fruit growers have started growing cut flowers as both a high-value product and a way to draw consumers to their farm stands and market stalls. Even though most cut flowers sold in the US are still imported from Colombia and Ecuador (primarily roses, carnations and chrysanthemums, and lilies), the number of US cut flower producers has grown significantly in recent years, both nationally and here in Massachusetts. As a result, extension educators and flower growers from across the country have become interested in whether and how adding cut flowers can be profitable for small farms. 

Over the past few years, at UMass Extension, we’ve also been excited to increase our support for cut flower growers. As part of this work, we were curious to learn more about different production practices, as well as the economics of cut flower growing. In the summer of 2025, we asked three growers across the state to track labor, expenses and yield associated with sunflower production. We decided to track sunflowers because they were the most commonly grown cut flower among surveyed MA growers. We used this data, as well as information about growing practices, to compile a case study of each farm and compare production across all three farms. We will share what we learned in this report. We’d like to say a huge thank you to our case study farms, for all the work they did tracking labor, expenses and yields and answering all our questions! 

Data Collection and Analysis

For each farm, growers tracked labor, material inputs and yield for two sunflower plantings. We asked them to record labor and inputs associated with growing only and did not include labor or costs associated with postharvest handling or marketing. We calculated labor costs using each farm’s employee or manager wage, as well as a standard wage for farm owners (we applied the farm-owner wage only to work that required advanced expertise, like operating a tractor, and was therefore unlikely to be performed by a typical employee). We did not track actual sales; we used a combination of average yield and stem price to calculate estimated sales revenue. We noted the cost of equipment like tractors that were used across the farm; however, we did not track other overhead operational costs like rent/mortgage or electricity. At the end of the season, whenever possible, we averaged labor and sunflower yield data across the two tracked plantings.

Following the instructions in the book “Flower Farming for Profit” (see resources, below), we used the information we collected to calculate sunflower contribution margin by area and by stem for each farm. Contribution margin is the sales revenue remaining after deducting variable costs, like material inputs and labor. It represents the funds available to cover overhead farm costs like tractor maintenance, marketing, electricity and rent/mortgage, as well as profits. For more information about how to collect and synthesize this type of information for your farm, check out the resources at the end of this article. 

Case Study Farms

Farm 1 is the most mechanized of the three case study farms. It is a 2.56-acre vegetable and flower farm in northeast MA, with about an acre in cut flower production and half an acre in sunflowers. They use a John Deere tractor with a rototiller, seeder, and basket weeder, for most of their field work. This summer, they direct-seeded all sunflower beds. Their beds are more than twice as long as the other case study farms’ (210 ft), and they grow about 10 sunflower successions each year. They mostly rely on cover crops for soil fertility. Because of these factors, they had the lowest labor inputs, and the lowest material inputs, of all the case study farms. They also have the highest equipment costs (~$14k). They sell their sunflowers through their farm stand (~85% of sales), as well as wholesale (~15% of sales), and have an average price per stem of $1.93. 

Farm 2 uses no-till practices, which strongly influences their production methods. They are a 1.75-acre vegetable and flower farm in western MA, with about half an acre in cut flowers and ~0.04 acres in sunflowers. They grow in 50ft beds and frequently interplant. This summer, they transplanted all their sunflowers using a Japanese paper pot transplanter. For bed prep, they use tarps to kill the previous crop and a broad fork to prepare the soil and incorporate compost and other soil amendments. They lay down landscape fabric for weed control. This farm had much higher labor and material input costs than Farm 1. However, they have much lower equipment costs (~$1k).  They sell their sunflowers at the farmer’s market (65%), through their CSA (25%), and wholesale (10%) – and, similar to Farm 1, they have an average price per stem of $1.95. Unfortunately, the second planting they tracked was decimated by deer, so for this farm, we only used yield data from the first planting. 

Farm 3 is both a farm and wedding venue, which influences their production practices and pricing. This 200-acre central MA property includes a farm store, ~20 acres of orchard, a 2/3-acre vegetable garden and a 1/3-acre cut flower garden. They plant three 50ft beds of sunflowers every year, in both the flower and vegetable gardens. This farm tracked one sunflower bed in the flower garden (supervised by the flower manager) and one sunflower bed in the vegetable garden (supervised by the vegetable manager). Because the growing practices were different between the two gardens, we decided to keep them separate in our analysis. 

The sunflowers in the flower garden are managed largely by hand (hand-transplanting, broad fork to prep beds, hand-weeding, hand-harvesting) and maintained to look nice for events. It had the highest labor inputs among all the plantings that we tracked, but the lowest equipment costs (~$300). 

The sunflowers in the vegetable garden also rely heavily on hand labor, but a BCS 2-wheeled tractor and power harrow is used to aid bed prep, and the flowers are direct-seeded using a walk-behind seeder. The sunflowers maintained in this garden required less labor, but had relatively high equipment costs, mostly due to the BCS and implements (~$10k). 

This farm sells their sunflowers through their farm store and pick-your-own (open to the general public), as well as on-site weddings. They have a very high average price per stem of $4.25, which is largely driven by weddings ($6/stem). It is important to consider that the property itself (including the land, buildings and upkeep), is a financial asset that allows this farm to charge a premium for its flowers.

Results

Conclusions

• Labor is the biggest contributor to growing costs. Harvest time was relatively consistent, but bed prep and weeding time varied dramatically between farms, depending on whether they used equipment (like a basket weeder, or landscape fabric) or hand labor. Transplanting was also time-consuming, though farms may still choose to transplant due to production constraints (like no-till) or opportunities (e.g. the ability to get sunflowers in the ground earlier).
• There is a clear trade-off between equipment and labor costs. As any farmer would expect, mechanization reduces labor. However, equipment is also expensive. Different farms have different constraints and goals that lead them to purchase equipment or rely on hand labor.
• Markets dramatically change prices and production goals. While Farms 1 and 2 kept production costs lower, Farm 3 was still able to make a profit because they used the sunflowers for weddings and were therefore able to charge a much higher price per stem. In fact, their higher production costs may be due, in part, to maintaining the sunflower plots in an aesthetically pleasing way. It is also important to note that because we did not track post-harvest labor, we were not able to capture the time (and associated cost) that the farms spend on postharvest floral design – including the time that Farm 3 spends on wedding florals.    

Resources

• The Organic Farmer’s Business Handbook by Richard Wiswall
  • This book contains a lot of information about tracking crop expenses, including techniques for incorporating overhead farm expenses like utilities and marketing into crop budgets.
• Flower Farming for Profit by Lennie Larkin
  • This book also explains how to track crop expenses and calculate profit - and is specifically geared towards flower growers! 

--Written by Hannah Whitehead, UMass Vegetable Program

Basil Downy Mildew Resistance

Basil downy mildew (BDM) is a disease of field and greenhouse basil that causes interveinal chlorosis (yellowing between the veins of the leaves), which corresponds to fuzzy gray sporulation on the undersides of leaves after high humidity periods. Infected leaves will eventually turn brown, desiccate, and fall off.  The pathogen first appeared in the US in 2007 and is now the most damaging basil disease in the country. Generally, the pathogen is not active in the Northeast until mid-July. However, we have observed it earlier in the growing season in indoor production systems and garden centers, moving with potted plants. BDM survives on living plants in regions with extended basil production periods, such as Florida or, less often, in climate-controlled greenhouses—it does not overwinter without a living host, as many other pathogens do. It has been reported to be infrequently seedborne, although the importance of infested seed to disease spread and development is not well understood.

Basil downy mildew is caused by the oomycete pathogen Peronospora belbahrii. Oomycetes, a group that includes Phytophthora, Pythium, and the downy mildews, are challenging to control. The downy mildews are particularly stubborn due to their persistent survival on living plant material and polycyclic disease cycle, meaning many infection events can occur and recur in a single growing season. Downy mildews are biotrophs, which means they can only survive by extracting nutrients from living hosts. This is in comparison to plant diseases like Alternaria or Septoria leaf spots that survive on and extract nutrients from dead plant tissue—these are called necrotrophs.

Biotrophs like downy mildews have complex systems that allow them to grow into plant cells undetected to extract nutrients. The plant hosts, in turn, develop systems over time to detect and exclude the pathogen. Eventually, the pathogen evolves to evade the plants’ defenses again, and so the cycle continues, with the plant developing resistance to the pathogen and the pathogen overcoming the plant resistance. This back-and-forth results in the “race” system—strains of the pathogen are given a race number, and crop varieties are identified as being resistant to specific races of the pathogen. This system has been developed for cucurbit downy mildew, where different races infect different cucurbit crops, and spinach downy mildew, where different races infect different spinach varieties.

Necrotrophs, by comparison, release toxins and other molecules that kill plant cells and allow the pathogen to enter to extract nutrients. This “brute force” method is more difficult for the plant to defend against and thus plant resistance is less common, and the race system does not develop.

Researchers are actively working to establish a “differential panel” in order to formally distinguish between BDM races. A differential panel is a set group of varieties of a single crop that can be inoculated in the lab with a single isolate of a pathogen. The pattern of which varieties develop disease or not tells us what race the isolate is.

Currently, the only well-established race for BDM is race 1, which is defined as anything that infects Prospera®, regardless of how the isolate behaves on other varieties. In other words, the original Prospera® series is susceptible to BDM race 1. UMass research has shown that the Rutgers variety Passion and Eleonora have intermediate resistance to multiple race 1 isolates.

BDM races will develop over time based on what resistant varieties BDM isolates are exposed to. A spore that lands on Prospera® and happens to have mutated to overcome the Prospera® resistance will not necessarily also have overcome the resistance in Prospera® Active, Passion, Thunderstruck, Obsession, Devotion, or Eleonora. Resistance will continue to be bred into basil varieties, the pathogen will continue to evolve to overcome that resistance, resulting in a new strain that may or may not be officially numbered by researchers. Inevitably, this will lead to many strains of the BDM pathogen. Basil growers should have this on their radar and start keeping up with the newest varieties of basil released and current production recommendations.

Below is an overview of currently available BDM-resistant basil varieties. This information is informed by isolate testing conducted by Dr. Kelly Allen in the Ma Lab at UMass, and by field trials conducted by the UMass Extension Vegetable Program.

• Eleonora, Emma, Everleaf: the oldest BDM-resistant varieties, largely discounted as they no longer confer significant resistance. However, in Ma Lab research, Eleonora has shown some split resistance to BDM, meaning that when Eleonora plants are inoculated with BDM, some plants develop symptoms and others do not. This may indicate instability of the Eleonora line.
• Devotion, Passion, Obsession, Thunderstruck: From Rutgers basil breeding program, 2018. These four varieties originated from the same parent cross—their parents, going back many generations, are a Fusarium wilt-resistant sweet basil and ‘Mrihani’, a BDM-resistant, frilly-leaved, licoricey basil relative native to Zanzibar [photo]. Many plant generations later, the Rutgers breeders selected four distinct basil varieties, all with resistance to BDM that originated from the ‘Mrihani’ parent. Because of the way that genes are combined and passed down to offspring, these four varieties have distinct resistance genetics; i.e. the resistance genes in Obsession are not identical to those in Passion. All of the Rutgers varieties have multi-gene resistance to BDM. Multi-gene resistance is generally harder for pathogens to overcome than single-gene resistance. In Ma Lab trials, Rutgers varieties (particularly Passion) have been shown to potentially have partial resistance to multiple BDM races.
• Prospera® F1 series: From Genesis Seeds, 2018. This series originated from an interspecific hybrid cross between an undisclosed sweet basil variety and an undisclosed BDM-resistant wild American basil (a different species from sweet basil). Once the resistance was established by this cross, the breeders selected for growth habits and other desired characteristics, resulting in 5 Prospera® varieties – Cut Genovese (CG1), Italian Large-Leaf (ILL2), Potted Large-Leaf (PL4), Potted Small-Leaf (PS5), and Red. In comparison to the multi-gene resistance present in the Rutgers varieties, the resistance in the Prospera series is controlled by a single dominant resistance gene, but is susceptible to BDM race 1.
• Amazel Basil, Pesto Besto: From Proven Winners, developed at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Science. The source of BDM resistance in these varieties is not known, but they have performed similar to the Prospera® series in UMass trials.
• Prospera® Active series: From Genesis Seeds, 2024. This series has the same BDM resistance as the original Prospera® series plus a second source of resistance that gives it resistance to race 1 isolates.
• Evi, Giuletta: From breeder Olaf Kunzemann at Enza Zaden. These two varieties stood up well in a UMass Extension Vegetable Program field trial in[MG2]  2023 (Figure 1). In this trial, Giuletta had no BDM 2.5 weeks after BDM was first observed on susceptible varieties in the trial, and Evi had only very low levels of BDM. Not much is known about the source of BDM resistance in these two varieties, just that it is from a combination of BDM breeding lines and wild basil species. These two varieties have not been evaluated in the rigorous way that the Rutgers and Prospera varieties have been, but they are interesting new prospects.

The UMass Extension Vegetable Program trialed 18 basil varieties this past summer, to evaluate resistance to downy mildew in the field. The varieties we trialed included all 6 of the Prospera® Active varieties and several of the original Prospera® series, 4 varieties in development, Rutgers’ Passion, Enza Zaden’s ‘Evi’ which has shown some BDM resistance in our past trials, the old variety ‘Eleonora’ that we now consider to be only moderately resistant, and Enza Zaden’s ‘Keira’ which carries no BDM resistance. Five-week-old basil seedlings were planted out in the field on July 1, into raised beds covered with white-on-black plastic mulch with 2 lines of drip tape each. Trial plots consisted of 3 bed-feet with 2 rows of basil planted at 8-inch in-row spacing. Each plot had 8 plants, and there were 3-foot unplanted buffers between plots within the bed. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design. Downy mildew was assessed weekly from July 28 through September 19, by visually assessing the percent of infected tissue per plot.

BDM was first observed on August 15 on ‘Keira’, ‘Eleonora’, and ‘BA194’, followed by Prospera® OG  on August 22 and Prospera® Active ‘Yuval’ and ‘Passion’ on August 29. Low levels of BDM were observed on some replications of Prospera® Active ‘Noga’ on September 12. Many varieties never developed any BDM despite being exposed to the pathogen for many weeks (Figure 2), although the trial ended early due to severe lodging after a rainstorm. This may explain why Prospera® ‘OG’ developed symptoms but not Prospera® ‘PS5’ and ‘Premium’, given that they are reported to have the same single dominant resistance gene, and why the Prospera® Actives ‘Yuval’ and ‘Noga’ developed symptoms but not ‘Mia’, ‘Lihi’, ‘Doron’, or ‘Aya’. The Enza Zaden variety ‘Evi’ did not develop BDM this year but did develop symptoms in our 2024 and 2023 trials.

Best practices for managing basil downy mildew:

• Grow multiple resistant varieties for mid- and late-season basil. The best defense may be to grow Prospera® and/or Passion, and introduce a Prospera Active variety later in the season.
• Grow your favorite BDM-susceptible varieties early in the season (before mid-July).
• Increase protection with fungicides (conventional growers) after mid-July. The materials in the table below have been shown to effectively control BDM. Azoxystrobin (e.g. Quadris) and fenamidone (e.g. Reason) are primarily active against true fungi but also happen to have efficacy against some downy mildews including BDM. All other materials in the table are oomycete-specific and quite effective when a regular spray program is followed. Apply on 7-day intervals. Resistance to mefonoxam (e.g. Ridomil) has been recorded. No OMRI-listed materials have been shown to be effective.

--Written by Genevieve Higgins, UMass Vegetable Program, and Kelly Allen, PhD. Plant Pathologist working on USDA-NIFA-funded Basil Consortium Project (2022-51181-38448).

Label Updates for the Endangered Species Act

You have probably heard about changes to pesticide labels in response to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but may not be sure what is going on. This article is focused on what those changes are and how they may affect you. Please keep in mind that this is an evolving process, but here’s the information as it currently stands.

ESA Impacts on Product/Label Reviews:

To manage risk to an endangered species, EPA is making changes to pesticide labels as products go through the registration review process or as new products become registered. 

As always—you need to carefully read and follow the use directions on each label before mixing and applying a pesticide. As you read labels, there are several potential updates you might see. Briefly, those changes include:

1. Required mitigation measures to prevent/minimize drift that may include minimum buffer zones between sprayed fields and protected areas.
2. Required mitigation measures to prevent/minimize erosion and pesticide runoff.
3. Required access to EPA’s website, “Bulletins Live! Two”. On this website there may be additional use restrictions based on the time of year, location, and pesticide you plan to use. When absolutely necessary to adequately protect endangered species, you might not be able to use a product during certain times of the year.

EXAMPLE EXERCISE: 

Here we will walk through changes recently made to the herbicide, “Liberty Ultra” as part of the ESA updates. Click here to see the label.

1. Mitigation measures to prevent/minimize drift

The “Mandatory Spray Drift Management” section of a label will be expanded to include information about how to further reduce drift during applications (Fig. 1). Updates required in this section will ensure that the pesticide is only being applied to the field and not leaving the application site through drift.

Field border land-use such as agricultural fields, roads, mowed areas, buildings, managed vegetative strips, and contained water sources like an irrigation pond (that doesn’t leave the farm) may automatically count towards the buffer strip size (Fig. 3). So, it’s possible that many of your fields are already adequately buffered.

If a wider buffer strip is needed, this updated label section will include any actions that may be taken to reduce the required buffer width (Fig. 4). These actions will include options such as:

• Adding an adjuvant to reduce drift
• Applying with a hooded sprayer or drop nozzles
• Planting a windbreak or shelterbelt (Fig. 5)

 

 

If the label has a section called: “Mandatory Runoff Mitigation”, this product will require a certain number of mitigation points to apply the pesticide. This section will indicate the number of points required (Fig. 6). Mitigation points are earned through:

• Inherent field properties that influence runoff vulnerability (e.g. slope, soil type, average rainfall), and/or
• Actions taken to reduce erosion. The options for erosion reduction actions are listed in EPA’s Mitigation relief tables: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/mitigation-menu#mitigation-options.

If the field has characteristics that make it inherently at lower risk of runoff or erosion, many mitigation points are achieved before even needing additional mitigation measures. 

For example, you may automatically earn points based on the county location of the field(s.) (Fig. 7). These points count towards the total number of mitigation points the label requires.

3. Accessing EPA’s website, “Bulletins Live! Two”

The final updated section of the label is the: “Endangered and Threatened Species Protection Requirements” (Fig. 8). This section will direct you to check EPA’s website called Bulletins Live! Two (Fig. 9): https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/bulletins-live-two-view-bulletins.

This label section is designed to protect species that are at high risk only at certain times and locations (for example when mating or when migrating through an area). These transient areas are designated as: “Pesticide Use Limitation Areas” (PULAs). 

Since PULAs change over time, the Bulletins Live! Two website is a dynamic tool to only require extra safety precautions or prohibitions at times when an endangered species has a chance of being on your farm at a high-risk time. If a label indicates that you need to go to Bulletins Live! Two, you then need to locate the application field on the website’s map, enter the planned application month, and then enter the EPA registration number(s) of the products you plan to apply (Fig. 10).

If there is:

• a species at risk
• that may be in the vicinity of your application site
• on that date
• that is susceptible to a planned pesticide

then there will be additional mitigation measures that you need to follow. These measures will be indicated on the website as a PULA (Fig. 11). If there is no PULA indicated on the Bulletins Live! Two website after entering your planned application information, then you won’t need to include any additional mitigation measures. Either way, you need to print out the results by clicking “Printable Bulletin” (Fig. 10). This serves as evidence you followed the label and consulted Bulletins Live! Two. Accessing Bulletins Live! Two must be done within 6 months before your planned application. Keep this print-out as part of your pesticide application records.

Moving Forward

Eventually all approved labels will contain these sections. Updates will be incorporated onto labels as pesticides are up for registration review, which happens every 15 years. Newly registered pesticides will also include these updated sections.

Unfortunately, there is no system currently in place for announcing or tracking which pesticides have received new labels with ESA updates. This illustrates the need to read the label—no matter how familiar the use directions may be.

If this feels confusing or overwhelming, feel free to reach out to the UMass Extension Team or the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture (MDAR). We hope to help you through the process. MDAR wants applicators to be compliant with the new requirements and are ready to facilitate compliance. Please be on the look-out for training sessions offered by UMass Extension, MDAR and/or other service providers.