RISING COST OF ^ 



^ ROSE GROWING 



Have you figures on the production of your greenhouse crops, so that 

 you know ivhat each costs and tvhich are the profitable ones? Much enlight- 

 enment may he obtained by a study of such figures and their compariso^i 

 with those of other growers. Here are one rose grower's costs. 



VERY florist knows that 

 it costs more to grow a 

 rose now than it did three 

 years ago. Yes, whether 

 he be retailer, wholesaler 

 or grower, lie knows that. 

 And the public knows it, 

 too. The public has been 

 doing some complaining 

 about it from time to 

 time. Florists, on their part, have been 

 doing some explaining about it from 

 time to time, as well. But not many 

 knew just how to explain it, save in 

 general terms, because they had no 

 specific figures which proved their 

 statements. Not that anyone doubted 

 their statements; that's not the point. 

 But figures speak louder than mere 

 words and convince more people from 

 Missouri than does the most plausible 

 language a florist can wield. 



Statistics Convince. 



Charged with amassing enormous 

 profits through a near-monopoly of the 

 business, the meat packers have pub- 

 lished figures in the newspapers 

 throughout the coun- 

 try to counteract such 

 statements. Favorite 

 among their charts is 

 that of the dollar di- 

 vided according to the 

 costs of putting the 

 packers' products on 

 to the market. Only 

 a thin little slice — a 

 puny, tiny little slice 

 — is marked ' ' profits. ' ' 

 You and I have never 

 had a chance to verify 

 tliose figures. We have 

 never asked the pack- 

 ers if those com])uted 

 costs were really cor- 

 rect. But we have 

 seen that subdivided 

 dollar and glanced 

 over the figures so fre- 

 (luontly tiiat we are 

 disposed to praise the 

 packers, instead o f 

 abusing them, for creating a business 

 so enormous tliat they can give ns our 

 daily meat with so little profit for 

 themselves. Such is the achievement 

 of statistics! 



But there is more to a knowledge of 

 production costs than a means of de- 

 fense from criticism. They enable us 

 to know whither our money goes and 

 whence our i)rofits come. Moreover, 

 they would, if some florists had them, 

 tell why the profits didn't come, for 

 there are still some who ar;- m iking a 



To enable growers everywhere 

 to compare production costs and 

 derive the benefits to be obtained 

 from their study, the Editor of 

 The Review invites florists in 

 every state to send him figures 

 such as those presented here, on 

 other crops as well as roses, giv- 

 ing assurance that all such com- 

 munications will be treated as 

 strictly confidential. 



"living" when they ought, in view of 

 their investment and their efforts, to 

 make considerably more. The story is 

 still current of the Hebraic haberdasher 

 who sold his customer shirts, sox, ties, 

 pajamas, all at "less than they cost 

 ine wholesale." When asked, if he 

 sold all his goods for less than they 

 cost him, where he made his profit, he 

 replied, "On the paper and string." 

 Growers without figures on their pro- 



duction costs are no better iiiforiiuHl, 

 if they are veracious, as to where they 

 make their profit than was the price- 

 juggling Jew. 



The grower cannot say whether he 

 is getting a fair price for his product 

 unless he knows the amount of money 

 he puts into his greenhouses and the 

 amount of money he takes out, and 

 knows it in a detailed way. It is pos- 

 sible that one item shows a good profit 

 while another makes a decided loss. 

 Production cost figures would show 



how to increase the profits by discard- 

 ing the unprofitable varieties and 

 growing the most paying ones instead. 

 Such figures require more work of the 

 already overworked grower, says he. 

 But some growers could pay a book- 

 keeper to keep such figures with the 

 money he loses by not knowing them! 

 On this page appears a table showing 

 how the costs increased on certain 

 varieties at the range of a rose grower 

 in the middle west from 1918 to 1921. 

 He has a large range and ships all his 

 flowers to a commission house. He has, 

 no doubt, made changes in the three 

 years. His figures show it. He grows 

 fewer of the old varieties, since he has 

 added Premier and Columbia to his 

 plantings. Too close details of his 

 plantings cannot be given, for the 

 figures here used are given in confi- 

 dence, and it is not wished to identify 

 the grower without his willingness to 

 be known. 



Three Years' Rise. 



The table on this page shows that the 

 varieties of roses named, with the excep- 

 tion of the two not 

 grown in 1918, have 

 increased in wholesale 

 cost, on an average, 



71.6 per cent. The 

 range is from C.j.9 to 



83.7 per cent, accord- 

 ing to variety. Here 

 are figures that mean 

 something. How were 

 they obtained ? 



Tliis rose grower 

 keeps a record of liis 

 expenses, subdividing 

 tluMii into various 

 groups, HO that at the 

 end of the year, or at 

 any time during the 

 year, he is able to 

 know what he is buy- 

 ing in comparison with 

 previous years, in 

 j)rice and in cjuantity. 

 Such is the record of 

 his outgo. 

 As his roses are cut for shipment to 

 the wholesale house, count is kept of 

 each variety. At the end of the 

 month or year, he knows how many 

 blooms he has cut. Dividing the total 

 by the nuinljer of jilants of a variety, 

 he arrives at the yield per plant. Thus 

 he knows whether a variety is a large 

 or small producer, not in a general 

 way, but in actual figures. The price 

 the grower must receive for a certain 

 rose depends to a large extent upon its 

 yield of blooms per plant. 



