Final report for OW23-381
Project Information
The domestic cut flower industry is growing, yet we lack key financial and profitability metrics. With few references of profitability to aspire to, new flower farmers have no sense of potential yield for individual crops, or sales and net margin goals.. Without this information, flower farmers are making business decisions based on trends and market pull, rather than knowledge of the profitability of their production and marketing systems.
This project expanded and improved upon my work done in 2022 as a F+R grant to address these problems. Through this Phase 2 as a P+P grant, I worked with a cohort of 11 established sustainable flower farms over two years to 1) track cost of production per crop, and 2) compile and analyze key financial metrics. These farmers learned to make smart decisions for their businesses by identifying their more profitable crops, and were able to compare their larger financial pictures to that of the other farmers in the study.
We produced subsequent case studies and benchmarks and shared them widely via conference sessions, journal articles, and a webinar, with the goal of encouraging cost of production studies as well as financial literacy and goal-setting on more farms. We hope that flower farmers at large will be better equipped to undertake sound production and financial planning, and build sustainable farms that improve their quality of life. This will allow the sustainable cut flower industry to strengthen and grow.
Part 1: Support a cohort of 11 flower farmers in a two-year cost analysis project, for three distinct flower crops per farm, using the Know Your Cost To Grow (KYCTG) program (developed by Oregon State University’s Center for Small Farms and Community Food Systems in partnership with Oregon Tilth). Through the process, train the farms to analyze their data and chart pathways to financial sustainability based on refinement of studied production processes and crop choices. This helps farms to prioritize the goals of sound ecological stewardship, quality of life for both the farm owners and their employees, and positive contributions to their local agricultural communities. This builds on the work I began in my 2022 F&R grant, and implement improvements I’ve found through conducting this year’s research as we worked to tailor the KYCTG program - originally created for vegetable farmers - to flower farmers.
Part 2: Create a financial benchmarking survey for small cut flower farms (1 - 8 acres), focusing on key metrics such as gross sales per acre, labor hours per acre, and overall net profit, and guide the 11 farms participating in the grant through filling out the survey using their financial records. This builds on the benchmarking we began in the 2022 F&R grant, is more extensive and complex. To this end, John Hendrickson acts as technical advisor in the construction of the survey and in ensuing reports. The results will help to build a body of knowledge for cut flower farmers on what is attainable from a financial standpoint, which will help to strengthen and grow the domestic, sustainable and regenerative flower farm industry.
Part 3: Use the results from parts 1 & 2 to compile a research report for both crop costs of production and whole farm financial metrics. These serve as the basis for the educational materials.
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Technical Advisor
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Technical Advisor
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
Objective 1: By March of 2025, supported the completion of two season’s worth of data collection, interpretation and analysis of the cost of production on three crops for each of eleven farms, conducted between April 2023 and March 2025.
Methods:
We did this by working together as a (virtual) cohort, facilitated by Lennie Larkin as the PI, using the Know Your Cost To Grow (KYCTG) program (developed by Oregon State University’s Center for Small Farms and Community Food Systems in partnership with Oregon Tilth).
Summary of Methods:
Each farm chose two to three crops that they tracked throughout two seasons. These were off an approved list of commonly-grown annual crops, with the goal of studying at least 3-7 crops total, by different farmers in the study. We discussed as a group over the first meeting to encourage farms to ‘group up’ on certain crops, and to choose an alternate if their first choice is a crop no one else has chosen.
We landed on 8 crops total, which were:
- Dahlias (6 farms tracked complete crop data)
- Ranunculus (4 farms tracked complete crop data)
- Sunflowers (3 farms tracked complete crop data)
- Tulips (3 farms tracked complete crop data)
- Lisianthus (2 farms tracked complete crop data)
- Zinnias (2 farms tracked complete crop data)
- Cosmos (1 farm tracked complete crop data)
- Strawflower (1 farm tracked complete crop data)
Each farmer followed up with one-two zoom meeting with the PI to address individual concerns and questions, and to make individual plans for data tracking. Each farm worked with the PI to determine the most practical means of tracking data over the year, whether on paper and clipboards placed in strategic locations on the farm, or on smartphone-based spreadsheets that are easily accessible.
Farmers then continued to input all their information and task lists for the 2 year to the KYCTG tool. This acts as a list of all the activities on their farm, that they later conduct 'time studies' on. For example, they may list “Plow Field With John Deere Tractor”, or “Transplant Sunflowers”, which then creates a task for them to time that activity 2-3 times throughout the growing season. This covers each aspect of pre-harvest, harvest, and post-harvest labor and inputs for the two-three crops they choose to study.
(These methods were thoroughly planned based on shortcomings of the PI's 2022 grant phase 1. More time was allocated for check-ins between the PI and each farmer, including weekly check-ins and reminders as needed. The timeline corresponds to specific sections of the KYCTG tool and therefore is an attempt to both incorporate the actual section names but to also translate the methods to the grant board. )
Detailed Timeline For Above Methods:
April 2023:
- Group orientation meeting with PI and farmers (specifically, on ‘Record It’ Module of KYCTG tool). They got to know the tool, and began to input their farm data.
- Longer (1-hr +) One-on-one initiation meetings between PI and each farmer for this module
- This month began the weekly one-on-one check-ins between each farmer and the PI, where each farmer chose a consistent 30 minute time slot to touch base with the PI either by phone or zoom (more time as needed). PI updates notes and records for each farm on her end, which each farm is responsible for tracking their own data.
May 2023:
- Farmers finished gathering and inputting all their information and task lists for the year to the KYCTG tool.
May - November 2023:
- Farmers conducted time studies
- Farmers continued weekly check ins with PI as needed to stay on track and troubleshoot issues
December 2023:
- Farmers continued weekly check ins with PI as needed to stay on track and troubleshoot issues
- Farmers had longer one-on-one meetings with PI to troubleshoot and wrap up the year (specifically focused on ‘Calculate It’ module in KYCTG)
- End-of-year meeting with PI and farmers to interpret and share results (of ‘Calculate It’ module). During this meeting, we accomplished three main goals.
- 1) Lennie Larkin and Tanya Murray answered any outstanding questions farmers had that prevented them from obtaining complete cost of production numbers for their chosen crops during the 2023 growing season. These outstanding questions related mostly to machinery costs as well as estimates of activities that they failed to track. We also touched on how to arrive at appropriate estimates in the case of outstanding circumstances (i.e. one farmer's phone was stolen during the season, and she lost most of her data, another farm moved locations, another began to consider going out of business, another farm partnership ended in divorce and the responsibility for participating in the study was handed back and forth within the partnership).
- 2) Tanya Murray walked the farmers though two complete crop cost examples, using data collected from Killing Frost Farm on two different crops, sunflowers and sweet peas. The group discussed the different outcomes and reasoning.
- 3) Farmers were able to compare and contrast different methods for collecting data in the first year of the study, to best prepare for year 2.
January 2024:
- Farmers continued weekly check ins with PI each week to stay on track and troubleshoot issues
- Farmers had longer one-on-one meetings with PI to troubleshoot and wrap up the year (specifically focused on Analyze It’ module in KYCTG)
- End-of-season meeting with PI and farmers to interpret and share results (of Analyze It’ module)
- PI met with Tanya Murray to compile and interpret information.
March - December 2024:
- Process repeated for a second season.
- Farmers continued to track time studies for the activities related to their crops, incorporating these rates into their one average rate for each activity.
- Farmers continued to check in with the PI as needed.
January 2025:
- PI suspended check-ins with farmers as well as an additional large group meeting, due to funding stalls.
April - July 2025:
- PI reinstated check-ins with farmers to wrap up their 2nd year data, fill in missing data points, and in some cases to take last-minute time studies that didn't happen as planned in 2024 (for example, tracking the harvest rate for a dahlia crop).
August 2025:
- PI compiled each farm's results, which necessitated frequent emails, video calls, and screen-share videos in instances where a data point was missing or appeared inaccurate or incomplete.
- Farmers in the study had a final meeting to share salient results.
- Farmers in the study participated in a recorded webinar to share and discuss results.
---------------------------
Objective 2: By March of 2025, conduct two seasons/rounds of a financial benchmarking survey for the 11 flower farms, and compile results into a report. Update: We expanded the project to include not just two but three rounds of surveys, greatly improving our data set.
Note: Objectives 1 and 2 are two related but different projects, each run concurrently by the PI with the same group of 11 farms. Objective 2 is a much more finite project for the farms, consisting of just completing the 5 -7 page survey, one time for each of 2 seasons.
(The benchmarking study was begun in 2022 by the PI but is a far more complex project than the PI can undertake without an expert. To expand and improve, technical advisor John Hendrickson was brought on to advise and to create a highly advanced, specific survey).
Methods:
May - June 2023:
- PI and technical advisor John Hendrickson created financial benchmark survey, based on PI’s draft survey created in 2022, and John Hendrickson’s vast knowledge of farm financial benchmarking. While a few financial benchmarking surveys exist for small farms, ours will be improved in addition to being tailored to flower farms.
March 2024:
- Survey for year 1 is shared with farmers to complete (2022 EOY numbers)
- PI conducts one-on-one meetings with farmers to troubleshoot, bringing in technical advisor John Hendrickson as needed
April 2024:
- PI and technical advisor compiled and interpreted results
June - August 2024:
- Survey for years 2 and 3 is shared with farmers to complete (2023 and 2024 EOY numbers)
- While the objective originally included tracking just two years of data, the team realized they could produce more robust results with a third year, this the 3 surveys instead of two.
- PI conducted one-on-one meetings with farmers to troubleshoot, bringing in technical advisor as needed
November 2024:
- PI and technical advisor compiled and interpreted results
December 2024 - January 2025:
- PI and technical advisor created reports with survey results of whole farm financials for flower farmers.
January - July 2025:
- PI and technical advisor compiled and interpreted information to finish case studies and a summary of the whole farm financials for flower farmers, based on results of 2023 and 2024 tracking.
Resulting reports from both objectives 1 and 2 are covered in the Education Plan.
Objective 1: By March of 2025, support the completion of two season’s worth of data collection, interpretation and analysis of the cost of production on two to three crops for each of eleven farms, conducted between April 2023 and March 2025.
We were able to get to the finish line with nine farms who were able to obtain complete crop cost of production data sets for 1-3 crops each. The resulting tables are below. For pie charts detailing each farm's cost and labor breakdowns for each crop, please see the attached fact sheets.
Key Findings:
Harvest remains the single largest direct crop labor category, almost across the board for all farms and all crops. This is consistent with previous research and with our intuition, but remains notable and important. This means that for cut flower farms seeking to improve their relative profit on a certain crop, a great place to begin scrutiny would be the harvest process. Gaining efficiency in harvest will typically lead to gains in profit, often more than any other potential change.
For bulb/ tuber crops, notably dahlias, ranunculus and tulips, the bulb cost remains significant. A few of our farms faced significant losses with these crops, due to crop failure and unstable markets. Farms would be well served to reexamine these costs as balanced by their typical yield and selling price, to make sure that these crops remain worthwhile additions to the crop plan.
Farmer Reflections:
Farmers reported that:
- This process has shifted their understanding of crop importance away from a gross sales perspective (which crop sold the most), to a crop profitability perspective (which crop has the largest contribution margin).
- Accountability helped them to stay focused on learning these new lenses through which to improve profits on their farms.
- This process improved team buy-in and morale on their farms.
- They learned to balance experimentation on the farm with a drive to improve profits.
- They're inspired to keep tracking crops on their farm, some with the KYCTG tool and some through simpler, self-managed methods.
For more takeaways from participating farmers, please refer to our fact sheets.
Summary Table:
The below table shows how each farm's crops are ranked according to their contribution margin per labor hour and per bed. They compared their studied crops against one another on their own farm, not across farms. Please note that each farm's circumstances, bed sizes, and units are different, so we are not to draw sweeping conclusions on which crop is "more profitable" across the board (or carries a higher contribution margin).
Table Key:
| Farm | Crops Studied | Crop Unit | Price Per Unit | Variable Cost Per Unit | Contribution Margin Per Marketable Unit | Contribution Margin Per Direct Labor Hour | Contribution Margin Per Bed |
| Longer Table Farm |
sunflower |
bunch |
$6.13 |
$1.04 |
$5.09 |
$144.85 |
$1,730.02 |
| Longer Table Farm |
ranunculus |
bunch |
$8.00 |
$4.11 |
$3.89 |
$48.49 |
$1,646.42 |
| Longer Table Farm |
dahlia |
bunch |
$8.94 |
$6.31 |
$2.63 |
$21.07 |
$720.65 |
| Even Pull Farm |
ranunculus |
stem |
$1.20 |
$0.51 |
$0.69 |
$57.43 |
$1,924.88 |
| Even Pull Farm |
dahlia |
stem |
$1.50 |
$0.75 |
$0.75 |
$41.24 |
$582.64 |
| Do Right Farm |
lisianthus |
stem |
$215 |
$0.93 |
$1.22 |
$86.10 |
$1,217.74 |
| Do Right Farm |
dahlia |
stem |
$1.20 |
$0.65 |
$0.55 |
$38.90 |
$1,062.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whipstone Farm |
dahlia |
bunch |
$12.00 |
$3.88 |
$8.12 |
$144.38 |
$2,434.80 |
| Whipstone Farm |
sunflower |
stem |
$1.70 |
$0.27 |
$1.43 |
$154.91 |
$1,147.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Raindrop Farms |
ranunculus |
stem |
$1.60 |
$0.58 |
$1.02 |
$98.04 |
$1086.88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bluma Farm |
cosmo |
stem |
$0.80 |
$0.19 |
$0.61 |
$116.03 |
$619.75 |
| Bluma Farm |
zinnia |
stem |
$1.00 |
$0.27 |
$0.73 |
$88.15 |
$582.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mossy Gate Flower Farm |
dahlia |
stem |
$1.20 |
$0.30 |
$0.90 |
$95.22 |
$618.79 |
| Mossy Gate Flower Farm |
sunflower |
stem |
$1.25 |
$0.24 |
$1.01 |
$145.72 |
$348.50 |
| Mossy Gate Flower Farm |
ranunculus |
stem |
$0.71 |
$0.45 |
$0.26 |
$44.54 |
$261.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rainwater Ranch |
strawflower |
stem |
$0.80 |
$0.14 |
$0.66 |
$174.45 |
$5,583.26 |
| Rainwater Ranch |
lisianthus |
stem |
$1.12 |
$0.21 |
$0.91 |
$145.63 |
$3,742.71 |
| Rainwater Ranch |
tulips |
stem |
$2.00 |
$0.65 |
$1.35 |
$144.96 |
$2,835.61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Indigo Gardens |
tulips |
stem |
$1.30 |
$0.86 |
$0.44 |
$146.50 |
$2625.35 |
| Indigo Gardens |
zinnias |
stem |
$0.83 |
$0.17 |
$0.66 |
$103.16 |
$1388.34 |
Challenges In Data Collection:
The challenge of a 2-year project was compounded by the large number of farms participating. Anecdotally, it seems as if only a minority of farms in the study avoided huge professional and personal challenges and upsets over the course of 2+ growing seasons. These challenges ranged from farm name changes, to changes in farm ownership, land loss and farm moves, and personal and professional partnership breakups, just to name a few. This led to many different data collection struggles, lapses in enthusiasm, follow-through, and participation. Our resulting fact sheets therefore only include results from the farms who ended the study with complete data sets of at least one crop each (nine out of twelve farms), though most of the final farms were able to maintain data collection of 2-3 crops.
Objective 2: By March of 2025, conduct two seasons/rounds of a financial benchmarking survey for the 11 flower farms, and compile results into a report.
We were in fact able to achieve three years of this annual financial survey, which will greatly improve the averages as well as allow us to consider any outlying data points and include more realistic and accurate results.
Though farmer participation waned, we were able to gather meaningful results for nine farms.
The data points collected were as follows, through a series of targeted questions and significant follow up from both the PI and the technical advisor.
Data Points Collected:
- # farm owners
- years farming
- age of farm business
- owner flower labor hours
- other enterprise hours (vegetables or other crops beyond flowers)
- value of productive assets
- payroll hours
- number and description of sales channels
- total flower sales
- other farm income
- flower production as % of total
- cost of land
- debt
- flower payroll
- all other flower expenses
- net flower income
- hours/acre
- gross sales / acre
- net / gross %
- net / acre
- gross to assets factor
- payroll % of gross
- net per owner hour
- hired labor cost per hour
The results yielded complete data sets from nine farms, and the salient metrics are presented below. These numbers represent each farm’s average over three years of analysis. Note: we also included an average across all farms, excluding one outlier as noted.
| Farm # | Flower Acres | Total Flower Sales | Flower % of Total | Net Flower Income | Hours / Acre | Gross / Acre | Net / Gross | Net / Acre | Payroll % of Gross |
| 1 | 2.8 | $354.322 | 97% | $80,008 | 3320 | $131,625 | 24% | $31,742 | 48% |
| 2 | 1,7 | $49,889 | 97% | -$10,228 | 1919 | $29,442 | -39% | -$6,106 | 35% |
| 3 | 0.8 | $174,103 | 23% | $67,611 | 7905 | $230,037 | 38% | $88,738 | 51% |
| 4 | 12.0 | $586,834 | 100% | $183,280 | 1361 | $48,903 | 32% | $15,273 | 38% |
| 5 | 5.0 | $198,428 | 67% | $11,177 | 1645 | $39,686 | 6% | $2,235 | 55% |
| 6 | 2.8 | $116,461 | 100% | $2,802 | 1577 | $41,828 | 2% | $813 | 39% |
| 7 | 0.25 | $215,819 | 99% | $98,521 | 17035 | $863,275 | 44% | $394,084 | 20% |
| 8 | 0.4 | $17,499 | 6% | $11,584 | 1709 | $54,428 | 64% | $37,016 | 9% |
| 9 | 4.0 | $179,239 | 27% | $26,168 | 1570 | $44,810 | 15% | $6,542 | 34% |
| Average | 3.31 | $210,288 | $52,325 | 4227 | $164,893 | 21% | $63,371 | 37% | |
| Average | (excluding | farm 7) | 2626 | $77,595 | $22,032 |
Understanding These Results:
There are some outliers worth noting. Farm 7, the smallest farm, brought in significantly higher gross sales per acre, but this was due to the high percentage of that farm's gross sales stemming from highly marked up floral design for weddings and events. This farmer would also add that the reality on the ground had complications not indicated in these high numbers, and would not suggest that this model is one to emulate.
Conversely, Farms 2 and 6 faced significant struggles due to land access, shifting models, and a farm move, and their low numbers illustrate these trends. If we were to exclude these farms from the averages along with Farm 7, we would be left with an average gross sales per acre of $91,581, and average net per acre of $30,257. These numbers represent more accurate and realistic averages.
Observations:
Gross Sales:
- Flower sales were trending up for 5 of the 9 farms but trending down for 4 of the farms.
- Extremely impressive gross sales are possible with cut flowers both in absolute terms and on a per acre basis.
Enterprise Diversity:
- Many of the farms in this study pursue a diverse array of marketing channels as a risk management strategy although the majority seem to be on a pathway of simplification and are in the process of market enterprise reduction.
Floral Design as an Enterprise:
- When value added sales occur via highly market-up bouquets and designing flowers for weddings and other events, sales per acre can reach levels that appear extremely impressive. However, the reality of this high revenue model is complicated by high labor costs and, anecdotally, intense management demands for the farm business owner. It’s also difficult to compare these numbers to those of farms selling exclusively at wholesale levels. The outlying farm #7, growing on less than one acre, shows extremely high gross sales per acre when projected to that size plot. However, approximately 50% of these sales are from designed flowers and event work that is marked up multiple times more than flower sales from the other farms in the study.
Gross / Acre As Related To Farm Size:
- Consistent with other studies, smaller farms tended to have higher gross incomes per acre AND higher labor inputs per acre although there were outliers to this represented in our study which reflect both the space intensive nature of most cut flower production and the high labor demands of this type of enterprise.
Labor and Payroll:
- Payroll costs increased over the 3 years for all but one farm and that operation was in the process of down-sizing and closing during this study. Minimum wage increases and the elimination of overtime exemptions for farms was cited as one cause. Many small farms try to keep labor costs to 30 to 40% of gross as a “healthy” target range. Payroll as a percent of gross was above 40% nearly half of the time (13 of 27 cases).
- Significant increases to labor costs were reflected in declining net to gross ratios for nearly all the farms in the study. In most cases the net to gross percentage dropped each year and by more than 30% from year 1 (2022) to year 3 (2024). This is a troubling trend and reflective of how difficult it is to earn a livelihood from farming.
For the more extensive table containing 3-year averages of all data points, see below.
Research Outcomes
Sustainable cut flower production is highly complex and labor-intensive endeavor. Most small flower farms are highly diverse, as their business models typically include sales of both bunched wholesale flowers as well as value-added bouquets. They typically sell through a complex web of sales channels, and grow upwards of 50 varieties of crops, trying to appeal to the nuanced demand of each different sales channel.
This strategy of 'casting a wide net' leads to highly inefficient farming, as each crop has different needs, labor requirements, yields and price points. Crop cost of production analysis is of the utmost importance for farms who seek to increase profits. Once a farm is able to accurately identify which crops are losing them money and which are making them money, they can make strategic decisions with crop planning.
This project will encourage flower farmers to dig into their crop selection and give them a new lens to do so. Once farmers become aware of this lens, whether or not they partake in deep research as the farmers in our study did, or they learn of our project through our dissemination efforts, they start to evolve as business owners and gain a new understanding of the importance of their crop selection. By making little tweaks and at times big changes to their crop mix, they are able to increase profitability in an industry with very slim profit margins. This will lead to larger financial returns for sustainable cut flower production, and therefore will strengthen the industry as a whole.
Recommendations For Future Research:
Crop Cost of Production
This study is just the tip of the iceberg for crop cost of production research. Flower farmers continue to grow an incredibly vast assortment of crops, without a solid understanding of which ones are increasing the profitability of their overall business, and which ones are draining the business. Future research is warranted, with more crops and more farms.
The Know Your Cost To Grow program is the leading tool for this kind of research for annual crops. It's high-level, specific, and accurate. However, the interface consistently proves challenging for farmers to both learn and then keep up with during the busy farming season. It doesn't require them to login every week, and if many weeks pass between logins, the farmers tend to lose familiarity and agility with the platform, causing them to almost have to re-learn it each time. This become cumbersome and they end up putting off the data entry even longer.
For future studies, it's my recommendation that the PI handle the data entry within the KYCTG platform. This would entail logging in and out of multiple farm accounts, but that's just a little clunky and not a huge barrier. The farmers could in fact learn the program in the winter season as they did with this project, and enter initial information, but after that, the PI could take over.
Additionally, I would suggest a one-year study rather than two years. So much changes on a farm in one season, much less two. It became challenging to keep farmers motivated to check in with this project through all these personal and farm business ups and downs. One season is more of a manageable commitment.
In sum, I recommend continued analysis on cut flower crops using the KYCTG platform, but with a one-season study, and a heavier requirement on the PI to conduct all of the data entry.
Further research is also necessary to continue developing a more DIY version of this crop costing method that is accessible for farmers at earlier stages.
Financial Benchmarking
The data compiled in the financial benchmark portion of this project is a long time coming for the cut flower industry. This part of the project can and should be replicated with an almost identical process as was followed here. This would be easy to build upon. The PI and technical advisor on this part of the grant are motivated to seek additional funding to continue this research.
The one salient challenge is getting the farm owners to accurately track their own labor hours. Though we provided templates for time tracking, many of our farmers indicated that this data point is an educated guess. While this doesn't significantly disrupt the accuracy of our data overall, it's a place for improvement. It's my believe that if this were a stand-alone study, and the farmers weren't also involved in time tracking for individual crops for the first part of the project, they'd have more bandwidth to track their overall labor hours. I'd recommend mandatory monthly, or perhaps even weekly, updating of a time tracking spreadsheet for accountability.
Education and Outreach
Participation Summary:
In August of 2025, we used the below methods to share 1) the information we gathered on crop cost of production as well as farm financial metrics, and b) insights and tips on the process of these analyses, to over 500 flower farmers and farm advocates, via print, video, and social media means. To do this we did the following:
1) Produced a series of 9 informational two-page farm case studies, including the year-end numbers gathered from each farm, showing the production costs for each step of crop production. This sheet will include easy-to-read charts along with explanations.
This are geared towards producers, available online, and were emailed to the 2,000 members of the Association of Specialty Cut Flower Growers as well to a network of agricultural professionals across the country.
2)We adapted the above fact sheets to ingestible social media formats, were shared via instagram stories in a series of stand-along graphics and short, casual live videos.
3)Lennie Larkin led a recorded panel webinar with John Hendrickson and several of the participating farmers. In this session we shared the results of the financial benchmarking survey, and moderated the farmers as they shared what they learned and how they are using their results, as well as tips for farmers seeking to learn their own crop costs. The replay link was distributed widely to the ASCFG and other farming groups. By recording this and allowing anyone who wants to access it for free, we hope to reach underserved farmers who have no resources or connection to farming business courses. We plan to eventually gain at least 500 views on this session, and it is now available on Youtube for viewing into the future.
4)Lennie Larkin used the information from the above webinar to develop a ‘Lessons Learned and Best Practices’ guide, containing specific insights on things that helped or hindered success in the process. This is geared towards other farmers and distributed to the same channels as the above fact sheets.
5)Lennie Larkin pitched a 3 page article, documenting the process and results of both components of the grant, to Growing For Market magazine.
6) Lennie Larkin is scheduled to present the findings of the financial benchmark survey at the January 2026 ASCFG annual conference in New Mexico.
While we sought an extension for this project and therefore had to shift a few of our planned educational and outreach objectives, we have achieved success in effectively communicating our results through the following methods.
1) Presenting a recorded webinar. This served as an additional final meeting with participating farmers to review results, as well as a chance to share project background and key takeaways with viewers. This has been well received as evidenced by website analytics, email replies, and brief survey results following viewing. Notably, many producers have in fact been waiting for these results since we enabled a 'wait list' beginning two years ago upon completion of Part 1 of this project. Farmers are watching! According to our analytics, in a short period in August 2025, 67 farmers have watched the webinar, of whom 43 have reported intent to change their practices based on our results. 11 agriculture professionals have watched, and 11/11 have reported intention to adopt some of these practices in working with farmers. These are early numbers and lower than we'd hoped, but considering the extended timeline of the project, we expect these to grow substantially.
2) Instagram stories and posts asking for questions and engagement have been able to reach a broader audience with more casual language and visuals.
3) Our upcoming presentation at ASCFG 2026 (to replace Oregon Small Farms in 2025) will reach heavy hitters in the flower farming space.
4) Emailing fact sheets to interested parties has proven an effective way to reach them directly.
The combination of these methods has succeeded in reaching a broad audience with different learning styles.
Education and Outreach Outcomes
With this project, we chose two main pathways for disseminating our results. The first pathway involved active/live delivery methods, including a recorded webinar shown during allotted times, instagram stories and posts asking for questions and engagement, and an (upcoming) conference presentation. The second pathway involved more passive, evergreen delivery methods, including a hosted home online for the results and fact sheets, and two upcoming journal articles. We believe that this diversified strategy has the best chance of reaching the most producers, who have different learning styles, bandwidth and availability throughout the year.
Especially among flower farmers, there seems to be an informal divide between those who are tuned in to larger agricultural spaces, and those who don't yet identify as agriculturalists and are more removed. Of the first group, they may be very tuned-in with larger agricultural discussions and issues, and are likely to read journal articles and attend conferences and webinars. Farmers in this group were eager to read our results and have been following along since the first iteration of this project, as evidenced from interaction on the PI's mailing list. The second group is a bit more siloed and came into agriculture through the back door - beginning to garden as a hobby, and before they knew it, they were building a business. These farmers are better reached through social media, and eventually through email newsletters as well. We've had success shifting the tone of our results dissemination to be more bite-sized, less academic, and more conversational. Striking a balance between results that is too nuanced ('The contribution margin was higher for zinnias vs. dahlias per labor hour," and broad summaries with sweeping claims ("Zinnias are more profitable than dahlias") is an ongoing process.
Our recommendations are to not stay tone-deaf to the different audiences, and to continue to fine-tune the approach to results dissemination through both active and passive methods, using both technical and more casual languages depending on the audience. In an increasingly online world, there is more opportunity to share results and therefore positively impact sustainable agriculture through social media. For future grant projects, it seems advisable to have a team member (or at least a smaller contractor) who speaks this language.
Our project has affected stakeholders' understanding of agricultural sustainability by shining a light on both the impact that crop selection can play in overall farm profitability, and also by encouraging farmers to get real about their farm finances. When business is suffering, it can be tempting to just put one's head down and keep farming as in years prior. This project forced the participating farmers to face some difficult (as well as encouraging) numbers, to look up from the field, and to take stock of just how financially sustainable and viable their businesses are. As shows through the previous iteration of the project as well as this one, this kind of analysis and 'getting real' from this group of leaders in the flower farming space is trickling down to those watching from the sidelines (whether though social media or through articles and conference presentations) and encouraging them to seek more lasting financial sustainability.