April 11, I'.'dS 



ttORTICULTURE 



483 



WHAT IS THE PROPER SIZE OF 

 A GREENHOUSE TO GROW 

 ROSES FOR COMMER- 

 CIAL PURPOSES? 



(Paper read before tbe Americao Itose So- 

 ciety by W. H. Elliott, Brightou, Mass.) 



This is tho question assigned to me. 

 What I thinl< is really wanted in this 

 case is to l<now how large one really 

 thinks a greenhouse v^hould be built. 

 My answer will be more on this line. 



First, I wish to apologize for com- 

 ing as an Eastern man to the city of 

 Chicago to answer a question of this 

 kind, tor, if there is anyone who 

 knows how large greenhouses should 

 be, it is the Chicago man. I can, how- 

 ever, give you an answer in very few 

 words. A greenhouse, for commercial 

 purposes, should be as large as a man 

 has money to build. That is, whatever 

 money he is going to invest in com- 

 mercial houses might best be put in 

 one house. I would not hesitate to 

 put 150,0110 feet under one roof. In 

 fact one could build a greenhouse to 

 good advantage as long as it can be 

 heated fiom central station. One can 

 heat 100 feet each way with a gravity 

 system, provided you had a fall of ten 

 feet from the radiator pipes to thii 

 water line of the boiler. With a va- 

 cuum system I presume they might be 

 carried a great deal further. Just how 

 much 1 could not say, as I have not 

 used that system. The continuous 

 ridge and furrow houses need only 

 be limited by the money to be laid out 

 as the ridge could be carried 1000 fe.-jt 

 each way. Much can be said in answer 

 to the question of the advantages of 

 the ridge and furrow liouses as com- 

 pared with the wide single roof. I 

 shall speak in favor of the wide single 

 roof, although I must ; dmit that the 

 well constructed ridge and furrow- 

 ranges around Chicago are as fine 

 houses as 1 would expect to see any- 

 where, and I expect a strong argument 

 in favor of that style from those using 

 them. What influences me most m 

 favor of the single roof is the snow. 



Advantages of the Single House. 

 A roof that will clear itself of snow in 

 mid-winter, at a time when the days 

 are short, and prices high, is certainly 

 to be desired. Another advantage to 

 the single house is that it is easier to 

 fill and empty; also that high houses 

 are less expensive to heat. The varia- 

 tion of heat in the day time is not so 

 great. They should be easier ventilated 

 and handled. Larger amount of air 

 space inside the greenhouse has proved 

 to be an advantage rather than the 

 disi^dvantage most growers suiiposed 

 it would be. Mr. Holmes, in his ad- 

 dress on "Rose Culture," before the 

 Gardeners' and Florists' Club of Bos- 

 ton, stated as his opinion that 40 per 

 cent, of the improvement in rose grow- 

 ing in the past twenty years was due 

 to the up-to-date grenhouse, and I 

 think he was right. It is one of the 

 facts that we must accept that better 

 stock can be grown in a large green- 

 house than in a small one. 



As to Width. 



In regard to the width: It is hard 

 to predict how wide greenhouses 

 will be built in the next twenty-five 

 years. Of course, with the ridge and 

 furrow plan, the width is really un- 

 limited, as the ventilation is taken 



MaKSHALI. p. Wll.DEK 



Courtesy Llivang^r cr tiarry. 



care of as you go along; but how wide 

 do you suppose greenhouses will be 

 built and depend upon a single run of 

 ventilators to ventilate them? We 

 have already sen them built up to 150 

 feet in width. Unfortunately, this 

 wide house was not well constructed 

 and is not considered a success, but it 

 is really not the width. It is the ques- 

 tion of construction, it a house was 

 thoinuehly and properly constructed 

 could a bouse of this size be handled 

 to advantage? 1 have not seen this 

 wide house during the winter months: 

 have no idea how the stcck is growing. 

 I looked this house over thoroughly at 

 the time of the Convention last 

 summer. It semed to be con- 

 sidered an im])raclicabie house, 

 hilt the only reason given was 

 the construction of the house. 

 The question really is, if the house 

 was strong and securely built would 

 a house of that kind grow good stock ? 

 1 would say that in that house at the 

 time I saw it was grov.'ing as nice .(. 

 lot of ."American Beauties as I could 

 find anywh^ie. If the house will grow 

 the stock, then that is really the vital 

 question The next question is, can 

 a house of that size be constructed 



and run as cheaply as a narrower 

 house? There are a good many ques- 

 tions there that would need more 

 knowled.ge and experience than I have 

 had to answer. I cannot recommend 

 the constiuction of houses of any such 

 remarkable width. Sixty feet wide, 

 with a pitch of six inches to the foot, 

 I find io be thoroughly satisfactory. I 

 would not hesitate very much to in- 

 ciease that width considerably, but, 

 as soon as I increase that width, I 

 must sjjlice my bars, which I have not 

 done on any of my large houses. Ven- 

 tilation seems to be good. The air 

 in these laige. high houses always 

 seems better than in the small ones. 

 I do not quite understand why we need 

 to ventilate greenhouses except to re- 

 duce the heat. 



Should the air in a greenhouse keep 

 pure and good without being renewed? 

 If not, what is it that spoils it and 

 should it not be uiuch more serious in 

 houses with much less air space? 

 Some Drawbacks. 



1 tliink it cnly fair that I should 

 state what seems to be the most serious 

 drawbacks in the construction of these 

 large houses. In the first place, the 

 une(|ual expansion of ridge, purlins, 



