■•' H("K''l»f'«'"'i'r", ««^SI;-V.'>''.''i'"7*VvT^ 



8 



The Weekly Florists^ Review* 



Mabch 26, 1908. 



BEST SIZE OF ROSE HOUSE. 



[A paper by W. H. Elliott, Brighton, Mass., 

 read before the American Rose Society at the 

 Chicago couveutlon, March 25 to 27.] 



"What is the proper size of a green- 

 house to grow roses for commercial pur- 

 poses?" This is the question assigned 

 to me. "What I think is really wanted 

 in this case is to know how large one 

 really thinks a greenhouse should be 

 built. My answer will be more on this 

 line. 



First, I wish to apologize for coming 

 as an eastern man to the city of Chi- 

 cago to answer a question of this kind, 

 for, if there is anyone who knows how 

 large greenhouses should be, it is the Chi- 

 cago man. I can, however, give you an 

 answer in few words. 



One Big House. 



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 commercial houses 

 might best be put in one house. I would 

 not hesitate to put 150,000 feet under 

 one roof. In fact, one could build a 

 greenhouse to good advantage as long as 

 it can be heated from one central sta- 

 tion. One can heat 1,000 feet each way 

 with a gravity system, provided you 

 have a fall of ten feet from the radiating 

 pipes to the water line of the boiler. 

 With a vacuum system I presume they 



admit that the well constructed ridge 

 and furrow ranges around Chicago are 

 as fine houses as I would expect to see 

 anywhere and I expect a strong argument 

 in favor of that style from those using 

 them. 



The Wide Single Roof. 



What influences me most in favor of 

 the single roof is the snow. A roof that 

 will clear itself or snow in midwinter, 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 bouses are less expensive to 

 heat. The variation of heat in the day- 

 time is not so great. They should be 

 easier to ventilate and handle. Larger 

 amount of air space inside the green- 

 house has proved to be an advantage 

 rather than the disadvantage most grow- 

 ers supposed it would be. Mr. Holmes, 

 in his address on rose culture before the 

 Gardeners' and Florists' Club of Boston, 

 stated, as his opinion, that forty per 

 cent of the improvement in rose growing 

 in the last twenty years was due to 

 the up-to-date greenhouse, 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 greenhouse than in a 

 small one. 



The Width. 



In regard to the width: It is hard 



A Glimpse of the National Rose Show, Chicago, March 25-27. 



might be carried a great deal farther. 

 Just how much, I 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 heat could be car- 

 ried 1,000 feet each way. 



Much can be said in answer to the 

 question of the advantages of the ridge 

 and furrow houses as compared with the 

 wide single roof. I shall speak in favor 

 of the wide single roof, although I must 



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 unlimited, as 

 the ventilation is taken care of as you 

 go along; but how wide do you sup- 

 pose greenhouses will be built and de- 

 pend upon a single run of ventilators to 

 ventilate them? We have already seen 

 them built up to 150 feet in width. Un- 

 fortunately, this wide house was not well 

 constructed and is not considered a suc- 



cess, but it is really not the width. It 

 is the question of construction. If a 

 house were thoroughly and properly con- 

 structed, could a house of this size be 

 handled to advantage? I have not seen 

 this wide house during the winter sea- 

 son. I have no idea how the stock is 

 growing. I looked this house over thor- 

 oughly at the time of the convention 

 last summer. It seemed to be considered 

 an impracticable house, but the only rea- 

 son given was the construction of the 

 house. The question really is, if the house 

 were strong and securely built, would a 

 house of that kind grow good stock? I 

 would say that in that house at the 

 time I saw it, was growing as nice a 

 lot of American Beauties as I could 

 find anywhere. If the house will grow 

 the stock, then that is really the vital 

 question. 



Economical Operation. 



The next question is, can a house of 

 that size be constructed and run as cheap- 

 ly as a narrower house? There are a 

 good many questions there that would 

 need more knowledge and experience than 

 I have to answer. 



I cannot recommend the construction of 

 houses of any such remarkable width. 

 Sixty feet wide, with a pitch of six 

 inches to the foot, I find to be thor- 

 oughly satisfactory. I would not hesitate 

 to increase that width considerably, but, 

 as soon as I increase that width, I must 

 splice my bars, which I have not done 

 on any of my large houses. Ventila- 

 tion seems to be good. The air in these 

 large, high houses always seems better 

 than in the small ones. I do not quite 

 understand why we need to ventilate 

 greenhouses, except to reduce 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 much more serious in 

 houses with much less air space? 



Some Disadvantages. 



I think it is only fair that I should 

 state what seem to be the most serious 

 drawbacks in the construction of these 

 large houses. In the first place, the 

 unequal expansion of ridge, purlins, 

 plates and sills. It is also a long dis- 

 tance to drive around them with a cart- 

 load of soil ; leakage is increased if roofs 

 are not kept in the best of repair. There 

 is also great danger from the wind, in 

 houses of this size. The movement of 

 so large a body of air as is contained 

 in these houses strains the glass much 

 more from the inside than in the smaller 

 houses. They need to be built strong and 

 glazed thoroughly. I have made up my 

 mind to double-nail the glass at the end 

 of these houses. 



G>st of Construction. 



Horticultural builders charge more to 

 cover the same ground with houses of 

 this kind than they do with a number 

 of smaller ones. They are right in this, 

 for they need stronger and more thorough 

 construction. I do not like the iron- 

 frame with heavy rafters for this con- 

 struction. 



We must guard carefully against the 

 enlarging of our houses without properly 

 strengthening all parts. My first large 

 houses were weak in the outside wal&. 

 Thorough and permanent construction is 

 what is needed, for many reasons. Not 

 alone on account of wind and weather, 

 but because this business has grown .to 

 be permanent and important enough to 

 have a place of its own and not built 

 up with the idea that it will some day 



