18 



The Fbrists' Review 



Max 22, 1918. 



dens. On the other hand, their new 

 camellia, Fred Sander, should prove 

 popular. It was a great attraction; 

 the bright red, semi-double flowers, 

 with fringed petals, gave it a distinct 

 and pleasing appearance. 



W. A. Manda, South Orange, N. J., 

 was awarded a gold medal for Dracaena 

 Mandaiana, Polypodium Mandaianum, 



Anthericum Mandaianum, Asparagus 

 elongatus, etc. 



When the man in the show was asked 

 his opinion about novelties, 'Jt« invari- 

 ably referred to the yellow pl4|(^. This 

 was PsBonia hybrida La Lorran«, from 

 Lemoine & Son, Nancy, France. It was 

 a lovely hybrid Moutan variety, ob- 

 tained by crossing P. lutea and P. 



Moutan Queen Elizabeth, a salmon 

 tinted variety. The Lemoines have 

 been successful in obtaining a distinct 

 pretty flower, of a light salmon buff 

 passing to yellow. The flowers are 

 double and about four inches in diam- 

 eter, with high centers, and were pro- 

 claimed by nine men out of every ten 

 as the novelty of the show. Bee. 



GREENHOUSE 



9g 



STANDARDIZATION 



By PHILIP L. McKEE, of Ihe John C. Moninger Co^ Chicago. 



STANDARD WIDTHS OF HOUSES. 



Difflcultiee to Be Overcome. 



It would not be a hard matter for 

 any one firm to compile a list of stand- 

 ard widths that would be acceptable 

 to a large majority of the growers; 

 the trouble would be to get the other 

 manufacturers of material to accept 

 it. This does not mean that there is 

 any desire on the part of any manufac- 

 turer to be arbitrary, but rather a de- 

 sire on his part to preserve the indi- 

 viduality of his own particular type 

 or types of construction or to keep the 

 widths of houses which he may have 

 set up himself as standard widths. It is 

 hard for us to get away from those 

 things which we ourselves have cre- 

 ated and which for many years we 

 have been accustomed to regard as al- 

 most perfection. This applies to every- 

 thing in life. Most of us have our 

 convictions, our principles and our be- 

 liefs, and a determined effort on the 

 part of anyone to stand by these is a 

 sure indication of character. It may 

 be said that the making of any par- 

 ticular article used in commerce is in 

 many respects like a habit. Habits, 

 good and bad, are hard things some- 

 times to overcome, and the habit of 

 making a certain article in a certain 

 way is likewise many times hard to 

 get around. 



It is a fact that for many years it 

 has keen customary among manufac- 

 turers of greenhouse material to fur- 

 nish houses of any width called for. 

 The question of the width of the house 

 was, in almost every case, left to the 

 customer. 



Suggestions as to Widths. 



Taking all things into consideration, 

 it seems to nie the following widths, 

 with a few changes and modifications, 

 should be adopted by manufacturers 

 and growers alike, if concerted action 

 on a standardization scheme is possi- 

 ble, and I think it is. Omitting the 

 propagating house and all extremely 

 narrow widths, I would start with 

 what is commonly known as the short- 

 roof house. The width of this house, 

 with -&11 materials working to go0d 

 advantage and without its bein^ neces- 

 sary to use upright supports for the 

 roof other than the wall posts, should 

 be fourteen feet nine inches. Going 

 from this width, the next one we come 

 to would be a house twenty-one feet 

 wide. It is not »«Anomical to build 



The first part of this article, published in Tbe 

 l{eview of May 15, treats of the practicability 

 uf greenhouse standardization, draws attention 

 to some of the advantages that would be secured 

 by such a system and states some of the prin- 

 ciples that must be obFerved in determining the 

 different degrees of roof pitch for different widths 

 of hougfs. 



houses between fourteen feet nine 

 inches and twentyrone feet, as the 

 raw materials do not work to advan- 

 tage; there is really no excellent bench 

 arrangement to be had and the frame- 

 work must be supported in the same 

 way and at practically the same cost 

 as for a 21-foot width. It seems to 



Tbe Kdltor Is pleased 

 \7lien a Reader 

 presents Ills ideas 

 on any subject treated In 



eV»^ 



As experience Is tbe beet 

 teacber, so do w^e 

 learn fastest by an 

 excbanKe of experiences. 

 Many valiiable points 

 arebrousbt out 

 by discussion. 



Good penmanEhip, s pel liner and 

 rrammar, though desirable, are not 

 necessary. Write as you would talk 

 when doing your best. 



WK 8HAIX, BK GLAD 

 TO HXAR FROM TOU 



me the next width would be twenty- 

 five feet. 



Now, in suggesting the three widths 

 just mentioned the idea has been to 

 suggest houses for building in range 

 form. Either of the three widths, how- 

 ever, is adapted lor use in a single 

 house. Tke house fourteen feet nine 

 inches wide offers in range form an 

 excellent arrangement . of 5-foot 

 benches. The 21-foot width would 

 work out ideally with 5-foot benches, 

 and the 25-foot house in range form 

 with benches four feet eight inches 

 wide is a good type. 



Widths of Benches and Walks. 



There are many widths of benches 

 used and there are advocates of each 

 of the widths. Some of our grower 

 friends like a 4-foot bench and claim 

 they can grow almost as much stock on 

 it as on a bench six inches wider, and 

 that the stock does better on account 

 of there being more outside rows. 

 Others, again, as loudly maintain the 

 advantages of a 5-foot width, saying 

 the increased distance between the 

 plants causes them to do better, and 

 that their production is not only 

 greater in quantity, but finer in qual- 

 ity. 



This bench matter ought to be 

 thrashed out on a scientific basis. 

 Someone ought to get all of the argu- 

 ments together, pro and con, for va- 

 rious kinds of stock, and then by a 

 process of elimination decide on the 

 proper width of bench. It can all be 

 done, but it means an outlay of time 

 and money. Some of us, however, are 

 in a position to do work of this kind 

 and, for the benefit of all concerned, 

 it ought to be done. 



Another matter is the width of the 

 walks. Some of the best growers 

 maintain a width of eighteen inches 

 is all that is needed in a commercial 

 growing house, while others will stand 

 for nothing less than twenty inches. 

 There are others, again, who want walks 

 as wide as twenty-four inches. In my 

 opinion, the 24-inch walk is entirely 

 too wide, except for a few of our 

 heavy-set men, who need a great deal 

 of room. It seems to me a width of 

 twenty inches is about right. The 

 standard widths suggested are figured 

 on a basis of walks approximately 

 twenty inches wide. 



Houses in Range Form. 



The next width would be a housr 

 twenty-seven feet wide, but this width 

 is desirable only for range form. The 

 first house in a range of houses twenty- 

 seven feet wide should be twenty- 

 eight feet nine inches wide. A house 

 twenty-eight feet nine inches in width 

 allows for four benches five feet wide, 

 and five walks approximately twenty- 

 one inches wide. Using walks twenty 

 inches wide, this house would be twen- 

 ty-eight feet four inches. The cost 

 for building material for the house 

 twenty-eight feet four inches wide is 

 practically the same as for the house 

 twenty-eight feet nine inches wide. De- 

 tached houses should be built either 

 twenty-eight feet four inches or twen- 



