90 



TTie FIcMists' Review 



Max 15. 1018. 



GREENHOUSE mt 

 STANDARDIZATION 



By PHILIP J. McKEE, of the John C. Monineer Co., Chicago. 



STANDABD TYPES OF HQWiS- 



Are They Practicable? 



The standardization of greenhouse 

 materials is a subject that has undoubt- 

 edly been donsidered by every manu- 

 facturer of greenhouse materials and 

 prqbably by not a few greenhouse own- 

 ers. It is not a new subject, but one 

 that is of great importance both to the 

 makers and the users of greenhouses. 

 Until lately there has been no direct 

 cooperation among the manufacturers 

 of materials or among the greenhouse 

 owners. 



Is it possible to standardize green- 

 houses f I believe it is and that the 

 result of such standardization would be 

 of great benefit both to the manufac- 

 turer and to the purchaser. This is not 

 the result of snap judgment. Much 

 thought and study given to this sub- 

 ject during several years of actual ex- 

 perience in the greenhouse business 

 leads me to believe that standardiza- 

 tion can be accomplished by the coop- 

 eration of the manufacturers of tlus 

 class of material with the purchasers 

 of greenhouses. With a full realiza- 

 tion of all the facts, I say again that it 

 is my honest opinion that standard 

 types of greenhouses can be adopted, 

 manufactured, sold and used. Neither 

 one manufacturer alone nor one set of 

 growers can bring this condition about, 

 but it will be necessary for at least a 

 majority of the manufacturers to get 

 together and standardize their methods 

 of production, and greenhouse owners 

 must then buy the standard type. 



Is There Any Valid Objection? 



Is there any good reason why the 

 maker of greenhouses and the buyer 

 or user of greenhouses should not co- 

 operate? Is there any good reason why 

 the standardization of materials would 

 not be satisfactory both to the manu- 

 facturer and to the usert I believe not. 

 The making or using of standard types 

 of greenhouses will not in any way 

 affect the quality or quantity of stock 

 produced. As evidence of this, there 

 ;jare in this country today a large num- 

 ber of greenhouses, being used by the 



most successful growers, that are of 

 types and sizes that would be adopted 

 under the standardization plan. [Fig. I 

 shows a type of 27-foot ridge and lur- 

 rpw house that may be called almost 

 a standard construction in the middle 

 west.] These houses are giving just as 

 good service in every way as other types 

 that are not desirable from a standard- 

 ization standpoint. There are today 



ed 



The Kdltor Is pl« 

 wl&«n » Raader 

 prasent* bis Ideas 

 on any subject treated In 



,ytB«j. 



As ezperlenoe Is the best 

 t e ac her, so do 'we 

 leam fastest by an 

 exohanve of experiences. 

 Many valuable points 

 are brouarbt out 

 by discussion. 



Good penmanghip, spelling snd 

 rrammar. though desirable, are not 

 necessary. Write as you would talk 

 when doing your best. 



WX SHAIX BK aULD 

 TO HKAR FROM TOU 



in use greenhouses of every width pos- 

 sible to figure in feet and inches, from 

 eight feet to, I might say, 170 feet. 

 The variation is not always in feet, but 

 many times in inches and fractions of 

 an inch. Can any one say that a dif- 

 ference of two, three or four inches 

 or even a foot in a house would affect 

 the production of that house t Would 

 you believe such a statement if it were 

 made? Do vou think it could be backed 



by any good reason or by evidence of 

 any kind? 



What It Would Mean. 



The adoption of certain standard 

 types of greenhouses would make it pos- 

 sible for the greenhouseman to buy a 

 house for considerably less money than 

 he is able to buy it for today. Why? 

 Because the houses could be made in 

 stock, in sections — ^probably not a 

 year's supply in advance, but the idle 

 periods of the year could be normal 

 working periods and the factory at 

 these times would go humming along 

 as though it were the busy spring 

 months. Making houses in stock would 

 not only save much for the manufac- 

 turers in a manufacturing way, but 

 would help a great deal to reduce the 

 enormous stock of lumber, steel, cast- 

 ings, pipe, etc., that it is now necessary 

 to carry in every large, modern green- 

 house plant. Carrying a large stock 

 means vast sums of money idle, and the 

 interest on it must come out of the 

 pocket of the man who buys the green- 

 house. Without such a stock the man- 

 ufacturer cannot hope to get out even 

 a small order, for this may call for 

 just the things that happen not to be 

 in stock. It must all be on hand, ready 

 for every order, or business will be 

 lost. 



Economy in Numerous Details. 



There would be a still further saving 

 in the making of special plans, with 

 specifications, details, lengthy estimates, 

 much useless correspondence, etc. In 

 fact, there would be a hundred little 

 things on which there would be a sav- 

 ing. Even if the manufacturer should 

 take a little of this saving to himself 

 as extra profit, you could still get your 

 greenhouse for considerably less money 

 than it would otherwise cost. 



The florist or vegetable grower would 

 not only save money on the cost of the 

 material for the house or range, but it 

 would not be necessary to figure and 

 plan, and write, and examine estimates, 

 and sit up nights thinking about which 

 would be the best width of house, size 

 of bars, pitch of roof, and a hundred 



lf^:«e*--: 



.V~^«%r'-^ ■^•^- 



•w^v.-^;^^ 



Fi^. L A Type of 27-foot Houses Almost Standard Construction in the Middle West. 



