AN AMLYSES OF TfiAINENG NEEDS AND EMFLQYMENY CHARACTERESWfi OF THE GEEENHOUSE GRQWER lN THREE METROPOLITAN AREAS Thesis §or fin Degree of E3. D. MICHEGM STRTE Ui’éi‘i’ERSETY Warren Parsons 1966 IHESIS LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF TRAINING NEEDS AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GREENHOUSE GROWER IN THREE METROPOLITAN AREAS presented by Warren Parsons has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _fl3_-_D_-_. degree in MD Major fliessor 0-169 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF TRAINING NEEDS AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GREENHOUSE GROWER IN THREE METROPOLITAN AREAS by Warren Parsons Purposes. The purposes of this study were to determine the nature of the training desired for the commercial green- house grower, in terms of the relative importance of the Spe- cies of ornamental flowering plants produced and of the degree of attainment of competencies needed; and to secure employment information relating to greenhouse workers that could be of value in guidance and training such workers. Method. A personal interview form was developed after reviewing occupational literature and interviewing managers of greenhouses and Specialists from the floriculture depart— ment of Michigan State University. A personal interview was conducted with each of the managers of 58 greenhouses out of 64 which covered one acre or more in the Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit areas. The data were analyzed by tabulating species of flower- ing plants grown in pots, as cut flowers, and in flats; the training of the greenhouse grower desired by managers; and employment information supplied by them. These data were taken from the data form and total numbers and/or percentages computed. Warren Parsons Findings and Interpretations. The species of orna- mental flowering plants produced in commercial greenhouses were ranked in importance according to the percentage of greenhouses growing each species. The reason for this was to provide a basis which could be used for the development of instruction to prepare the greenhouse grower. This was done when 59 major and minor crops were ranked in importance, based upon reports by 58 greenhouse managers. This included 56 produced in pots, 22 as cut flowers, and 28 raised in flats. Under the basic areas of plant knowledge the categories of (1) plant parts, (2) growth processes, and (5) plant names were considered essential by two-thirds of the managers. The second area of training, entitled competencies, included operational abilities such as greenhouse skills needed by the greenhouse grower to perform the operations involved in his job. Fifty-four percent of the greenhouse managers indicated that the following competencies were essential for the greenhouse grower to possess listed in order of importance: (1) watering, (2) controlling pests, (5) fertilizing, (4) mix— ing soils, (5) potting, (6) transplanting, (7) handling chemi— cals, (8) cleaning, (9) propagating, (10) sterilizing soil, (11) identifying growth containers, (12) applying growth sub- stances, (15) operating boiler, (14) operating equipment, and (15) testing soil. Warren Parsons Three—fourths of the greenhouse managers reported that the following areas of training under crop understanding were essential in order of importance: (1) temperature, (2) water requirements, (5) pinching, (4) disbudding, (5) cut- ting, (6) Special cultural practices, (7) humidity, (8) life cycle of plant, (9) grading and packaging, and (10) photo period. Under the greenhouse management category of training 64 percent of the managers indicated that (1) knowledge of labor, (2) analysis of production, and (3) greenhouse layout were essential for the greenhouse grower to understand. Twenty-seven percent of the greenhouse managers stated that (1) understanding insurance, (2) managing money, (5) buying, (4) selling, and (5) marketing were essential for the green- house grower, while 41 percent said that such training was useful. Of the mechanical activities that growers perform, 25 percent of the managers said that skill in (1) welding, (2) wiring, (5) constructing, (4) woodworking, and (5) plumb— ing were essential, while 45 percent indicated that these were useful. Employment information for greenhouse workers was col- lected to determine job opportunities and working conditions for the grower. The occupation in commercial greenhouses, reported to offer the greatest number of opportunities for Warren Parsons entry was the grower helper, and the one which was reported to offer the greatest opportunity for advancement from this occupation was the grower. The findings of this study lend support to the recom- mendation that employment information and training be provided for the prOSpective greenhouse growers by: (1) educators and employers cooperating to provide adequate training programs and placement of employees, (2) including the categories of training desired by managers in a course of study, (3) provid- ing.up-to-date employment information for prospective employees through guidance personnel, and (4) using follow-up studies to determine how improvements may be made. AN ANALYSIS OF TRAINING NEEDS AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GREENHOUSE GROWER IN THREE METROPOLITAN AREAS BY Warren Parsons A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENT S The author wishes to express his appreciation to the members of the guidance committee, Dr. Harold Byram, Dr. Raymond Garner, Dr. Richard Lindstrom, Dr. E. C. Martin, and Dr. Buford Stefflre whose interest and guidance made the completion of this study possible. The writer is also grateful to Dr. H. P. Sweany for assistance with the analysis of data. Sincere appreciation is expressed to the many green- house managers who cooperated in the study. ii CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purposes of the Study° . . . . . . . . . Scope and Limitations of the Study . . . Some Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Desired for Ornamental Horti- culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment Information for Floriculture. Training for Floriculture. . . . . . . . Employment Information for Greenhouse Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training of Greenhouse Employees . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHOD AND PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY. . . . . . Development of Interview Form. . . . . . Validity of the Interview Form . . . . . Population and Sample Used . . . . . . . Administration of the Interview Form . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. COMPETENCIES DESIRED AND EMPLOYMENT INFOR- MATION FOR THE GREENHOUSE GROWER . . . . . . I. Plants Produced . . . . . . . . . . . Potted Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . Cut Flowers. . . . . . . . . . . . . Flats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Plants Produced . . . . . iii Page esp ocaaamcn IA 11 24 51 35 36 57 57 4O 4O 45 45 47 48 49 51 51 52 55 55 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER II. Competencies Desired. . . . . . . . Knowledge of Fundamental Information Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . Crop Understanding . . . . . . . . Greenhouse Management. . . . . . . Greenhouse Mechanics . . . . . . . Summary of Competencies Desired. . III. Employment Information. . . . . . . Number of Non—Family Employees En- gaged Under Each Job Title . . Number of Family Employees Engaged Under Each Job Title . . . . . Expected Number of Family Employees Engaged Under”Ea¢h Job Title . Expected Number of Non-Family Em- ployees Engaged Under Each Job Title. . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual Turnover of Employees . . . Percentage of Managers Who Desired that their New Employees Have Work Experiences . . . . . . . Employment Level and Education Desired. . . . . . . . . . . . Residence Background . . . o . . . Salary Ranges. . . . . . . o . . . Union Membership . . . . . . . . . Fringe Benefits. . . . . . . . . . Summary of Employment Information. V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . Related Studies Should Be Made . . . . LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES. O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 iv Page 59 59 59 62 63 65 67 67 68 69 69 7O 71 72 72 74 75 76 77 78 79 79 82 84 87 89 94 TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. LIST OF TABLES Total Number and Percentage of Greenhouses Growing Major and Minor Potted Plants. . . . Rank of Potted Plants and Cut Flowers by Value at Wholesale Prices for the Contermin- ous United States 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . Total Number and Percentage of Greenhouses Growing Major and Minor Cut Flowers. . . . . Total Number and Percentage of Greenhouses Growing Major and Minor Plants in Flats. . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Knowl- edge of Basic Fundamental Information was Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Managers Who Classified Cer- tain Competencies as Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower. . . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Train- ing of Crop Understandings was Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Green— house Management Training was Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower . .’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Green- house Mechanics Training was Essential, Use— ful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Family and Non-Family Employees Engaged Under Each Job Title . . . . . . . . Expected Number of Additional Family and Non-Family Employees Expected to be Engaged Under Each Job Title . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 55 56 57 58 6O 6O 65 64 65 68 7O LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE XII. XIII. XIV. XVII. XVIII. Annual Turnover of Employees Under Each Job Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Managers Who Desired that Their Employees Have Work Experiences . . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Em- ployment Level and Education Desired for Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Kind of Background Desired for Employees . . . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Each of Specified Salary Ranges for Their Green- house Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Union Membership was Required for Greenhouse Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Greenhouse Managers Who Indi- cated Fringe Benefits for Greenhouse Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 71 72 75 74 75 76 77 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. Names and Addresses of Greenhouse Managers Who Assisted in Developing the Interview Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 B. Revised Interview Form. . . . . . . o . . . 96 C. Greenhouse Managers Who were Interviewed for the Reliability Study of the Interview Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 D. Results of Donald Norton's Interview for the Reliability Test. . . . . . . . . . . . 98 E. Results of Ben Sovey's Interview for the Reliability Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 F. List of Greenhouse Managers Interviewed . . 100 G. Letter Written to Each Greenhouse Manager. Letter to Greenhouse Manager Following Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 H. Total Number of Employees Who Worked in Greenhouses that Produced Major and Minor Plants in Pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 I. Number of Greenhouses that Produced Major and Minor Potted Plants in Relationship to the Number of Employees . . . . . . . . . . 111 J. Total Number of Employees Who Worked in Greenhouses that Produced Cut Flowers as a Major and Minor Crop. . . . . . . . . . . . 112 K. Total Number of Employees Who Worked in Greenhouses that Produced Plants in Flats as a Major and Minor Crop . . . . . . . . . 115 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the last two decades significant changes have taken place in agriculture. One of the major changes has been the decreasing number of persons employed in farming. The number of people employed on farms in 1944 was about 10.1 million, and in 1964 it was about 6.1 million.1 It is expected to decrease to less than six million by 1980. One of the reasons for this decline in farm population has been the evolution of the most efficient agricultural industry in the world. Today about two million farms produce more than 90 percent of the commercial farm products for the United States.2 This efficiency of production has resulted in large part from publicly supported programs of agricultural re- search and education since the early 1900's. The Morrill Act of 1862 provided land for agricultural colleges; the Hatch Act of 1887 set up experimental stations at the land—grant colleges; the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 established the Cooper- ative Extension Service which Specialized in agricultural 1United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1965 (Washington, D. C., United States Government Printing Office), p. 445. 2H. M. Hamlin, Public School Education in Agriculture (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1962), p. 40. 1 education for all farm families; and the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 provided vocational education in agriculture for youths and adults. Research has been responsible for the mechanization of agriculture and increased food production. Educational programs have disseminated research results to the farmer so that today one farm worker in the United States produces enough food for about 52 persons. While the percentage of persons employed in production agriculture continues to decrease, the percentage of persons employed in off—farm agricultural occupations is increasing.3 Some of the reasons for this trend include technological developments in the processing and distributing of agricul- tural products, and urbanization increasing the demand for agricultural goods and services. Some examples of off-farm agricultural occupations which are classified under business and industry include manufacturer, dealer, or salesman of fungicides, insecticides, or fertilizers. A recent survey in Pennsylvania showed that almost twice as many new persons would be hired by 1970 in the off—farm agricultural busi- nesses, 5,694, as would enter farming, 2,859.4 These changes in agriculture have brought about a recent trend in vocational agriculture in this country to 3Alfred H. Krebs, Agriculture In Our Lives (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1964), p. 16. 4Norman K. Hoover, D. R. McClay, and G. Z. Stevens, Technical Education Needs of Persons Engaged in Agricultural Occupations (report of a study; University Park, Pennsylvania: Department of Agricultural Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 1965), p. 5. broaden objectives of programs. Originally the major pur- pose of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which provided funds for vocational education in agriculture, was to prepare students for farming.5 Now to meet the new needs of increas- ing numbers of employees entering off—farm agricultural occupations, the Vocational Educational Act of 1965 has broadened the objectives to include preparation for all agricultural occupations.6 This change in objectives has stimulated educators to conduct studies of off-farm agri- cultural occupations. A recent indication of this research for occupational information is the summary of 26 state studies by the Center for Research and Leadership DevelOp- 7 These studies ment in Vocational and Technical Education. indicate that one group of off—farm agricultural occupations which will need increasing numbers of agriculturally trained employees is that of ornamental horticulture. Judge esti- mated that there were 4,650 full-time and 2,420 part-time ornamental horticulture workers in the state of Massachu- setts. This represented about 22 percent of the 5Administration of Vocational Education, Vocational Education, Bulletin No. 1, General Series No. 1, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Wash- ington: Government Printing Office, 1958), p. 27. 6Committee of Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Selected Education Acts of 1965 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 75-76. 7The Center for Research and Leadership Development in Vocational and Technical Education, Summary of Research Findings in Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1965). total number of off-farm agricultural employees, the largest occupational group in the study.8 Ornamental horticulture is increasing in importance because more plants are being used in and outside of homes, around public and private buildings, along city streets and highways, in parks, and in recreational areas. In the last ten years, according to Tukey, the value of horticultural specialities, including cut flowers, bedding and foliage plants, and nursery crOps has more than doubled. Presently, Tukey says, horticulture is especially active throughout the world, and no aspect of horticulture has greater promise than floriculture and ornamental horticulture.9 Most of the recent off—farm agricultural occupational studies including the ornamental horticulture occupational family have inquired into the general areas of competencies such as agriculture, business, and mechanics for the various job titles. Clark, Kennedy, and others have indicated that further study is needed of off—farm agricultural occupations to determine more specifically the requirements of employees in 8Homer V. Judge, Employment Opportunities and Needed Competencies in Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations in Massa- chusetts (research report; Boston, Massachusetts: Division of Vocational Education, Massachusetts Department of Edu— cation, 1965), p. 10. 9H. B. Tukey, Sr., The Role of Horticulture in Science and Society, Proceedings XVIth, Volume II (Brussels, Belgium: International Horticultural Congress, 1962), pp. 5-14. these areas.10 Many horticultural workers, suggests Phipps, need post-high school education.11 Dillon indicates that detailed.information is needed regarding competencies for floriculture employees and other horticultural workers abefore educational programs may be planned for present and prospective workers in these businesses.12 Managers of off- farm agricultural occupations are interested in employing competent workers. According to Judge over 60 percent of all employers of off-farm agricultural businesses in Massa- chusetts interviewed indicated that they would be willing to hire high school students as trainees.13 Therefore, previous studies indicate that more qualitative types of studies of competencies required of workers in off—farm agricultural occupations are needed. Two occupational titles listed under ornamental horti— culture identified by one state survey in which new employees 10Raymond M. Clark, "Need for Training for Non-Farm Agricultural Business” (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 1959); William Henry Kennedy, "A Clarification of Relationships Between Farm- ing and Certain Other Agricultural Occupations with Implica- tions for Guidance and Curriculum Development" (unpublished Ed. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1958). 11Lloyd J. Phipps, "Technical Education in and for Rural Areas" (Urbana, Illinois: Agricultural Education Division, Vocational and Technical Education Department, College of Education, University of Illinois, 1964). 12Roy D. Dillon, Comparison of Certain Abilities Needed by Workers in Licensed Nurseries and Licensed Ornamental Horti- culture Businesses (report of a study; Morehead, Kentucky: Morehead State College, 1965). 13Judge, op. cit., p. 9. would be needed in the next five years are those of the 14: greenhouse grower and the greenhouse worker. The Diction- ary of Occupational Titles does not list the greenhouse grower as a job title.15 However, managers of the green- house industry indicated that the greenhouse grower is a common job title used throughout the industry. Annual summaries of studies in agricultural education have not listed any specific studies of the greenhouse 16 Therefore, a grower, his training, or his employment. study of competencies desired and employment information for the greenhouse grower is needed at this time. Determining the products produced by greenhouses were also included as one of the purposes of the author's study. According to Cook, one of the basic principles of educational method includes studying the enterprises of a community before planning and develOping suitable instruction for that 7 community.1 Phipps stated that some of these enterprises will be considered major and should be placed at the top of l4Hoover, McClay, and Stevens, op. cit., p. 7. 15Dictionary of Occupational Titles, United States Employment Service, Volume I - Definitions, Superintendent of Documents (Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965). 16United States Office of Education, Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education, Vocational Education Bulletin 180, Washington, D. C., 1965). 17Glen C. Cook, Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agri- culture (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1947), p. 116. the list of enterprises to be included in instructional 18 programs. Thompson's study of landscape employees indi- cated that managers desired that their Skilled workers and 9 Because sales people know the identification of plants.1 of the limited time in teaching a course in horticulture, it is necessary that teaChers know the major plants produced in greenhouses. Another purpose of this study was to learn the relative importance of plant Species grown in the greenhouse and com- petencies desired in greenhouse growers in order to prepare 'trainees efficiently. Instructors of horticulture can pre- pare adequate instructional materials for trainees if they know the relative importance of their materials. Other methods of determining the relative importance of crops produced in greenhouses might include: (1) the use of a jury consisting of professional workers, (2) survey of the seed, bulb, and plant supply businesses, and (5) United States census reports of agriculture. It was felt that greenhouse managers would provide the latest information concerning rela- tive importance of plants produced because managers keep records of the crops they market and are well aware of the 18Lloyd J. Phipps, Handbook on Agricultural Education in Public Schools (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1965). p. 158. 19O. E. Thompson, Training Requirements of Workers in the Production and Distribution of Nursery Plants (report of a study; Sacramento, California: California State Depart- ment of Education, 1959). 7a major and minor plants produced. A number of recent studies have been made in which managers of off-farm agricultural businesses were interviewed to obtain training requirements and employment information. According to The National Center for Advanced Study and Research in Agricultural Education: Reports of failure to effect successful interviews with the manager or personnel director in each business were nearly nonexistent.19a The last purpose of this study was to determine the types and nature of employment information about greenhouse workers. This information was collected in order to aid in selection, guidance, and placement of prOSpective or present— ly employed greenhouse growers in order that their employment be satisfactory and reach maximum potential. 19aThe National Center for Advanced Study and Research in Agricultural Education, op. cit., p. 99. Purposes of the Study The purposes of this study are to determine the follow- ing: (1) The Species of ornamental flowering plants produced in commercial greenhouses and their relative im- portance according to numbers produced. (2) The relative importance and degree of attainment of competencies in the greenhouse grower desired by employers. (5) The types and nature of employment information about greenhouse workers. Scope and Limitation of the Study The study includes information offered by managers of greenhouses covering one acre or more in the Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit areas. It was limited to the produc- tion of flowers grown in pots, as cut flowers, and in flats in these greenhouses. Managers from these population areas were selected as the most informed about the occupations of the industry at the recommendations of the floriculture staff, Michigan State University. Some Basic Assumptions The following assumptions are basic to the study: (1) By studying agricultural industries, efficient training programs can be initiated for better training of more productive employees. (2) Managers of large greenhouse operations (covering one acre of glass or more) are capable and willing to provide accurate training information about their growers and other employees. Definition of Terms The terms needed to be defined for this study are as follows: 1. Agricultural Occupations - Occupations in which em- ployees use competencies in one or more of the primary areas of plant science, animal science, agricultural management, and agricultural mechanization. 2. Levels of Employment - Classification of employees on the basis of training and job requirements into the fol— lowing four categories. a. Professions - Occupations which require at least four years of college, experience, and a high degree of mental activity. b. Technical Occupations — Occupations which require at least two years of post high school training, experience, ability to perform all Operations of the skilled worker, and the carrying out of assignments made by professional direction. c. Skilled Occupations - Occupations that require at least a high school education of the worker as he performs all Operations necessary to produce a finished product, in- cluding knowledge of processes, considerable independent 10 judgment, responsibility for valuable products and equip- ment, and practical experience qualified by on-the-job training. d. Semi-Skilled Occupations - Occupations with no educational requirements and important decisions being made by others as the worker performs part of the operations necessary to produce a finished product. 5. Greenhouse Grower - The occupational title given to a key person in a greenhouse operation, responsible for the efficient production of a quality product and able to perform all operations necessary to produce this product. At various points in the dissertation "job title" is used interchange- ably with this term. Overview This study is being made to determine competencies desired and employment information of the greenhouse growers. In Chapter II the studies closely related to greenhouse em- ployment and training information are reviewed. Chapter III includes the description of method and procedure used to secure data relevant to one of the job titles of an off—farm occupation. Results of the study are provided in Chapter IV. The data are analyzed by showing percentages of the responses to each question in the survey instrument. Chapter II, which follows, presents a review of litera- ture that points out the need, direction, and continuity for the present study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE A review of studies has been made of off-farm agri- cultural occupations as they relate to the family of ornamental horticulture occupations. The first part reviews studies of employment information and training desired for workers in ornamental horticulture; the second part reviews studies of employment information and training desired for the floriculture industry; and the last section reviews studies of employment information and training desired for workers in the greenhouse industry. AS of January 1964 studies of off-farm agricultural occupations were planned, in process, or completed in 40 states according to The National Center for Advanced Study and Research in Agricultural Education. At least eight of these have included ornamental horticulture as one agri- cultural occupational family.1 They also reported that an agricultural occupational family is a group of similar agri— cultural occupations other than farming classified for ease of study and discussion.2 1The National Center for Advanced Study and Research in Agricultural Education, op. cit., p. 99. 21bid., p. 61. 11 12 In a study of 17 Pennsylvania counties Hoover, McClay, Stevens, and others found more businesses and services (604) under the ornamental horticulture occupational family than any of seven other occupational families, including (1) farm machinery sales and services, (2) farm supplies and equip- ment, (5) livestock and poultry industries, (4) crops, forestry, and soil conservation, (5) wildlife and recreation, (6) farm service and (7) agricultural service. More businesses were started in ornamental horticulture during the preceding five years than in any other occupational family, and the second largest number of workers (5,795) were employed. Operators of ornamental horticulture businesses anticipated hiring during the next five years more employees (2,180) need- ing agricultural competencies than any of the other seven occupational families. Table 5—5 indicates occupational Opportunities in all levels of employment with semi—skilled requiring the largest number, followed by skilled, managerial, supervisory, sales, clerical, technical, and professional. The Pennsylvania report, only preliminary, was limited to 17 counties of the state, but it did indicate a need for provid- ing training for ornamental horticulture occupations. It is incomplete because Specific competencies required of workers and Significant employment information such as salaries and entry age for horticulture workers were omitted.3 3Norman K. Hoover, D. R. McClay, and G. Z. Stevens, op. cit. .Ammma .muamum>acb wumum macm>a>mccmm one .coaumospm amnsuasoaums mo ucmEuumme “macm>a>mccmm .xumm >uamum>acb “monum M MD uuommuv mcoHDMMOUUO amusuasoaumm ca Ummmmsm mcomumm Mo mowmz coaumosom amoaszome .msm>mum .N .0 can .mmHUoz .m .Q.nm>oom .M :mEHoz mwousoms 15 mama mom mmsa mama mama mmsa mamuoe msma mew -DOMa «mm ooma mum meoaummsooo emaaaxmuasmm mew mam mmm mmm mmm omm mcoaummsooo emaaaxm o 0 ma mm ma mm meoaummsooo amuauwao ma ma mm am mm am mcoaummsooo mmamm o a a am a ma mcoaummsuoo amoaeroee ma om om oaa om mma meoaummsooo suoma>nmmsm ma mm mm aam mm amm mcoaummsooo amaummmcmz o w o Na 0 m mcoaummsooo amcoammmmonm mEau mEau mEau mEau mEau 05a» mmauae amsoaummsooo uuumm . uaasm [puma uaasm nuumm uaasm mane? m uxmz mcausa Umuam on Op mmw>0am8m .Boz Eonw mummw m Omuowmxm uswuuso ucmENOamEm mo am>mA wmma .mmaucsou 5a mo mumEEdm mauaa amcoaummsooo paw ucmESOHQEm mo aw>ma >9 .maaEmm amcoaummsuoo manuasuauuom amucmE Incuo map Ca .mumuw m>am uxmz mcauzn Umuflm mm 09 Use .mocmm name» m>am .ucouusu .mmaosmuwmaou-amusuasoanms Ummz 0&3 mcomumm mo HmQEdz Umumfiflumm *.mlm magma 14 Judge found more businesses (815) under the horticul- tural service occupational family than under any of the other 12 occupational families studied in Massachusetts. The other 12 occupational families were as follows: (1)miscellaneous agriculture, (2) agricultural services, (5) meat products, (4) dairy products, (5) logging and saw- mills, (6) public warehousing, (7) hardware and farm equip- ment, (8) meat and fish markets, (9) fruit and vegetable markets, (10) miscellaneous food stores, (11) farm and garden supply, and (12) Sports. The horticultural services also had the largest estimated number of employees; 4,650 full-time and 2,520 part—time. This estimate of the number of workers was made on the basis of a ten percent random sample.4 Judge indicated the number of employees by occu- pational level for horticultural services as follows: Occupational Level Number of Employees5 Professional 10 Technical 91 Proprietors and Managers 547 Sales 550 Clerical 150 Skilled 1605 Semi-Skilled 4526 Unskilled 926 Agricultural competencies were required by many of the employees, and because present training programs were 4Homer V. Judge, Employment Opportunities and Needed Competencies in Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations in Massa— chusetts (research report; Boston, Massachusetts: Division of Vocational Education, Massachusetts Department of Edu- cation, 1965). 51bid.. p. 28. 15 inadequate, Judge recommended programs be developed to train workers for ornamental horticulture. Even though Judge re- corded some job titles in which there were 100 or more workers who required agricultural competencies, he omitted total numbers of workers with Specific job titles needed in the next five years. Employment information such as edu— cational requirements and salaries were listed for all off- farm agricultural businesses or omitted from the study. Therefore, it is difficult to determine Specific require- ments and needs for an occupational family. A study by Bailey in West Virginia of non—farm agri- cultural employment placed ornamental horticulture fourth among other categories. In Bailey‘s study ornamental horti- culture represented 11.2 percent of the employing agencies and 9.7 percent of the agricultural employees. The other categories selected were: (1) agricultural service, (2) for- estry, (5) farm machinery sales and service, (4) farm service, (5) farm supplies and equipment, (6) livestock and poultry industries, and (7) wildlife and recreation. Bailey found that the second greatest opportunity for employment in the next five years existed in the ornamental horticulture occu— pational family. At present the significant number of employ- ing agencies included 61 greenhouses with 404 employees and 60 nurseries with 581 employees. Other businesses included greenhouse-nursery—garden centers, tree services, landscape services, county governments, garden centers, flower produc- tion greenhouses, state institutions, and city governments. 16 According to Bailey, vocational education programs might be needed in the following occupations and occu— pational groups: turf manager, greenhouse technician, landscape aide.and technician, arborist, and nursery tech- nician. Bailey's study is incomplete in that it does not include employment information for Specific agricultural occupational families.6 Barwick's study of off-farm agricultural occupations in Delaware showed that ornamental horticulture, with a total of 176 businesses and services, ranked sixth among the eight occupational families. The other occupational families were: (1) farm machinery sales, (2) farm supplies and equipment, (5) livestock and poultry industries, (4) crops, forestry, and soil conservation, (5) wildlife and recreation, (6) agriculture and farm service, and (7) food marketing and distribution. The occupational families with the greatest percentage of employees needing agricul— tural competencies were farm machinery sales and service and ornamental horticulture, 64.5 percent and 54.4 percent respectively. Three occupational families in which 50 per— cent or more of the businesses have been established in the last ten years, were farm machinery sales and service, 6Joseph K. Bailey, Non-Farm Agricultural Employment in West Virginia with Implications for Vocational Education (report of a study; Charleston, West Virginia: Division of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, 1965). 17 ornamental horticulture, and food marketing and distribution. Occupational families needing the largest number of employees in the next five years were food marketing and distribution and ornamental horticulture. Barwick's study, only prelimi- nary in nature, was primarily an enumeration of occupations by title and/or occupational family.7 Non-farm agriculture occupations were studied in seven metropolitan areas of Louisiana by Mondart and Curtis. They ,found 111 businesses and agencies in ornamental horticulture, ranking it Sixth among the eight occupational families. The other occupational families included: (1) farm machinery sales and service, (2) farm supplies and equipment, (5) live- stock and poultry, (4) crops, forestry, and soil conserva- tion, (5) wildlife and recreation, (6) farm service, and (7) agricultural service. According to the authors: The number of firms engaged in ornamental horti- culture was surprisingly large for a state so recently rural. This is indicative of both urban development and increasing occupational opportuni- ties provided by this area of service. The investigators presented the following employment statis- tics when they compared ornamental horticulture with seven other occupational families: 1. Ornamental horticulture as eighth in the number of employees (872). 7Ralph P. Barwick, Identification of Off-Farm Agri- cultural Occupations (report of a study; Newark, Delaware: Department of Agricultural Education, School of Agriculture, University of Delaware, 1965). 18 2. Ornamental horticulture was Sixth according to the number of employees (845) using knowledge and Skill in agri— cultural subjects. 5. Ornamental horticulture was sixth in the number of job titles (102). 4. Ornamental horticulture job titles were expected to increase to 125 in the next five years. 5. The occupational level for ornamental horticulture had the following number of employees: unskilled (562), managerial (151), skilled (79), sales (72), and semi—skilled (55). 6. The average entry age for all levels of employment in ornamental horticulture was a minimum of 25 and maximum of 51. 7. Median monthly salary of workers in ornamental horticulture, by level of employment, ranged from $215 to $677. The study also revealed that most managers (512) pre- ferred that persons entering ornamental horticulture have at least a high school education; 9 would like post high school education; 97 wanted some college; and 60 desired college completion. Twenty-one percent of the managers preferred a farm background for ornamental horticulture employees while 77 percent had no preference in regards to residential background.8 8C. L. Mondart, Sr. and C. M. Curtis, Occupational Opportunities and Training Needs for Non—Farm Agricultural 19 Yetman's study of employers in ornamental horticulture in Massachusetts indicated that 90 percent would hire one or two students of vocational agriculture. A large majority desired part-time student help. Employers were hiring stu- dents 17 years of age and older. Physical strength was con- sidered a need by a large number of firms. Students with a farm background were preferred.9 Griffin studied agricultural occupations other than farming in Saline County, Missouri. Of the eight types of firms needing agriculturally oriented personnel, plant products and services, with a total of 21.45 percent, had the largest percentage of employees. These same firms indicated a need for additional employees, according to Griffin. Further investigations and study need to be made of the horticulture ,industry, among others, to determine the nature of these occupations.lo A Cornell study of training needs for occupations "related to farming” located in five areas surrounding the city of Syracuse, brought out that increasing emphasis should Jobs in the Metrgpolitan Areas of Louisiana (report of a study: Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Department of Vocational Agricultural Education, Louisiana State University, 1965). 9George Yetman, "What Employers in Ornamental Horti- culture Want," Agricultural Education Magazine, Volume 57, Number 8 (March, 1965), pp. 224-225. 10Warren L. Griffin, "The Nature of Agricultural Occu- pations, Other than Farming, in Saline County, Missouri" (summary report of an Ed. D. dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 1964). 20 first be placed on providing training in the areas of farm machinery and equipment, and secondly in the areas of truck- ing,.landscape gardening, and merchandising of farm supplies.ll Two recent studies in Michigan also indicated employment opportunities in the areas of ornamental horticulture. In a study of student involvement in off-farm agriculture experi— ence and on—farm placement programs in Michigan departments of vocational agriculture, Haslick found that landscape horti- culture offered the greatest opportunity for student employ- ment. The other occupational families in order of importance were: (1) farm services, (2) crops marketing and processing, (5) agricultural machinery sales and service, (4) forestry and soil conservation, (5) livestock marketing and processing, (6) agriculture supplies and equipment, (7) agricultural services, (8) wildlife and conservation, (9) other livestock industries, (10) poultry industry.12 Charles Langdon studied the agricultural occupations of firms, organizations, and agencies in Michigan. The findings llFrederick K. T. Tom, Charles W. Hill, and Kingsley L. Greene, Employment Opportunities in Certain Occupations Re- lated to Farming in the Syracuse Economic Area, New York (report of a study; Ithaca, New York: Agricultural Education Division, Rural Education Department, Cornell University, 1961). 12Clifford G. Haslick, "A Study of Student Involvement in Off-Farm Agricultural Experience and On-Farm Placement Programs in Michigan Department of Vocational Agriculture" (unpublished report for summer conference of Michigan Associ— ation of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture, Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, 1965). 21 of the survey of nurseries and landscape services of Michigan revealed a 58.9 percent increase in the number of employees expected in the next five years. Of the 19 job titles listed by the nurserymen, semi-Skilled labor had the largest number of employees, with garden center sales the next largest.13 In a study of 286 nurserymen in California Thompson found the nursery business in California growing rapidly because of increased home building and outdoor living, building of super highways, and industrial landscaping. About 40 percent of the nurseries had been operating for ten years or less and about one-third of the companies planned to add new employees. Over 60 percent of the nursery businesses employed one to Six workers; 59 hired more than 15 employees, and the largest had 255 employees. Growers in- cluded about one-third of the workers, an average of five per company, with sales persons next with an average of two per nursery. A high percentage of the managers (27.6 per- cent) had a college education, with 15.5 percent having two years of college or less. Salaries for Skilled workers ranged between $225 and $524 per month, with sales people and supervisors highest. 13Charles L. Langdon, "A Survey of Agricultural Occu- pations in Michigan" (report by The Michigan Agricultural Conference and the Vocational Agriculture Service of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michi- gan, 1965). 22 About one—third of the managers earned over $600 per month.14 .Salaries and conditions of work varied, but compare favorably with those in other fields. Self-employed growers started at about $4,500 and in time earn $20,000 or more. Busy seasons in Spring, summer, and fall include long days and work on week-ends. Better working conditions and salary are directly proportional to the employee's education and experience.15 Dillon recorded the following trends for ornamental horticulture: 1. The number of nurseries licensed to grow and wholesales nursery plants in Illinois,has increased 51.7 percent during the past five years. 2. The number of dealers licensed to retail nursery stock in Illinois has increased 25 percent during the past five years. 5. There has been an increase in the number of workers in horticulture firms, and increasing employment opportunities for horticultural workers in park districts, golf courses, in cemeteries, on state highway department staffs, and on institutional staffs. 4. Present and projected manpower utilization data Show that people in the 16-24 age group who have appropriate marketable skills in the ornamental horticultural area will be in demand.16 140. E. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 16-17. 15"Landscape Horticulture" (a pamphlet by the Depart- ment of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965). 16Roy D. Dillon, Comparison of Certain Abilities Needed _py_Workers in Licensed Nurseries and Licensed Ornamental Horticulture Businesses (report of a study; Morehead, Kentucky: Morehead State College, 1965). 25 In a study of "Technicians in Agriculture" by Halter- man the following position and job titles were listed for the landscape and nursery technician. a. Landscape design technician b. Landscape foreman c. Park leadman d. Landscape foreman e. Nurseryman f. Plants Specialists Members of this group made the following observations, as gathered from the results of the interview or survey. This study included personal interviews of wholesale and re- tail nurserymen; landscape contractors; landscape architects; landscape designers; state, county, and city recreation departments, plant propagators and breeders; officers of state associations of nurserymen and landscape contractors, 'and educators in landscape horticulture. The result of this study indicated that there was a need for trained technicians for landscaping in the areas of drafting, sales, and materials.1 Cushman, Christensen, and Bice listed the following job titles for the landscape horticulture family of agricul— tural occupations: salesman, sales clerk, nurseryman, flower raiser, and landscape gardener.18 fir l7Jerry J. Halterman, TechniCians in Agriculture (research project; Sacremento, California: California State Department, n.d.). 18Harold R. Cushman, Virgil E. Christensen, and Garry R. Bice, A Study of Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations in New York State (study; Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1965). 7 24 In a study of non-farm agricultural occupations in Kansas, Agan found that one cluster of occupations included the nursery aides.19 Training Desired for Ornamental Horticulture In Langdon's study of competency areas for the land- scape industry, managers rated "essential" to "highly desir- able" at one or more levels of employment the following: salesmanship, customer relations, office procedures, advertis- ing, and business principles. Agricultural competencies under the headings of crops, horticulture, and floriculture re- ceived the highest rating for farm supplies and equipment workers at the semi-skilled level.20 Judge investigated competencies needed by agricultural workers in Massachusetts and recommended training programs be develOped to train workers specifically for ornamental horticulture, agricultural mechanics, food processing and distribution. The number of workers who needed to possess agricultural competencies, by job level and job title for horticultural services, is recorded in Table X.21 Job titles in which 100 or more horticultural workers needed agricultural 19R. J. Agan, "Kansas Studies Agriculture Non-Farm Occupations," _gricultural Education Magazine, Volume 57, Number 1 (July, 1964), pp. 15-16° 2°Langdon, op. cit., p. 6. 21Judge, op. cit., p. 21. 25 .am .an.immma .COHDMUSOM wo usmEuumme muuwmssommmmz «soaumoopm amcoaumoo> mo GOHma>aQ "muummsnommmmz .soumom “uuommu Loummmmuy muummsnommmmz ca mcoaummdooo amusuasoaamd Eumm Immo Ga mwaosmumafioo Umoomz Use mOHDHOSDHOQQO ucmE>0amEm .mmpsb .> HOEOm "mousom* AmmaaaEmm amcoaummsooo Hmsuo suaB Ca Umxazv mmm UmaaaxmcD n m m O Na mma mma MOQEHHU meme ma 0a m n ma mmm own so: mosmsmucamz ma ma 0 w mm mm em cmEmUssouo ma mm m m ma Baa aaa umnmmxmcmmuo AmmaaaEMm amcoaummsouo Moguo LuaB UOXHEV mmmw mumxHOS OmaaameHEmm smfihummusz as mm mm 0 am now mos S mnmomeama ma ma ma 0 ma oa oma commune wens me om om om om ON ,ON umau0£u< mm o o 0 mm mm mm umHHOHm AmmaaaSmm amcoaumnsouo “echo aha: emxazv moma mnmxuos emaaaxm Ammaaasmu amcoaumnsuoo segue spas emxazv oma amoaumao Ammaaaamm amcoaummsooo Hocuo Lua3 Umxazv 0mm amssomumm mmamm AmmaaaEmw amsoaummsooo umsuo sua3 pmxazv new mummmsmz é mnouwaumoum mm o o o ooa m m neummmnoum AmmaaaEmw amsoaummsooo servo Lua3 Umxazv am amoasnoma Ammaaafimm amsoaummdooo nonuo nua3 Omxazv 0a amcoammmmoum .oaum4 moasmsomz usmEmmmsmz mocmaom mosmaom .oanmd mumxuoz mauae non mmmum>4 .oaum< mmmsamsm amEHsm unwam anapmmz mo .oaum< uwnfidz nmflfidz amnsuasoaumd Ca mumxuoz >9 Umuasvmm moaosmummfioo Hmnsuasoaum< mo xmpsH xmosH SUSODOQEOO muuwmdfiUmmmmz C4... mmmmmgfimflm .X magma * 26 competencies included landscape and nurseryman, greenskeeper, maintenance man, and tree climber. In addition to agricul- tural competencies, Judge indicated that training programs Should include the study of salesmanship, business principles, and scientific principles.22 Barwick's study of Delaware indicated that the follow- ing horticultural occupational sub-families needed workers having agricultural competencies. Table 5.* Number of Agricultural Businesses and Services, Total Estimated Persons Employed, Estimated Number of Employees Needing Agricultural Competencies, and Percent of Employees Needing Agricultural Competencies, by Occupation Sub-Family (Delaware, 1964) Number Percent Number of Employees Employees Businesses All Needing Needing Occupational and Persons Agricultural Agricultural Sub-Family Services Employed Competencies Competencies 1. Horticultural Services 45 590 557 94.4 2. Nurseries 50 882 426 48.5 5. Farm and Gar- den Supplies 55 554 204 61.1 4. Florists 54 124 75 58.9 5. Golf and Country Clubs 14 279 50 10.8 *Source: Ralph P. Barwick, Identification of Off-Farm Agri- cultural Occupations (report of a study; Newark, Delaware: Department of Agricultural Education, School of Agriculture, University of Delaware, 1965L PP. 11-12. In the Louisiana study of non-farm agricultural jobs, Mondart and Curtis surveyed major areas of competencies for 221bid., p. 56. 27 each occupational family. Agricultural areas in ornamental horticulture with which employees needed to be familiar V indicated in Table XII—5. Table XII—5.* Agricultural Areas in Ornamental Horticulture with Which Employees Must Be Familiar Agricultural Subject Areas (Employee Frequency) Agri. Bus. Agri. Mech. Level of Animal Plant Mangt. & & Employment No. Science Science Marketing Automation Professional 19 2 15 10 5 Technical 1 1 1 1 1 Managerial 151 5 157 111 66 Supervisory 18 0 18 9 5 Sales 72 5 72 42 11 Office 11 0 8 7 0 Skilled 79 0 69 21 11 Semi-Skilled 55 2 50 0 8 Unskilled 562 5 509 11 164 Total 748 *Source: C. L. Mondart, Sr. and C. M. Curtis, Occupational Opportunities and Training Needs for Non-Farm Agricultural Jobs in the Metropolitan Areas of Louisiana (report of a study: Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Department of Vocational Agricultural Education, Louisiana State University, 1965), pp. 42—45. Certain trends were recognized in ornamental horticul— ture, as well as in other occupational families. They were as follows: (1) generally, a rather broad coverage of all subject matter areas was required of all workers, 2) the work performed within a particular family tended to pre- scribe the subject matter area or areas involved, 5) workers at the management and supervisory levels were widely knowledgeable, and 4) employees at the pro- fessional, technical, and Skilled levels were 28 intensively trained in a particular area or one of the divisions of subject matter making up an area. Training in Agricultural Business and Management was emphasized for workers at all levels, except those in the skilled and unskilled levels.23 According to Thompson's study in California, the amount of education needed by employees in the nursery business was increasing. He found that the basic understandings necessary for production and distribution of ornamental plants require that the employee have training beyond high school.24 In Thompson's study about 55 percent of the employers were not satisfied with the education of their employees. The majority of these nurserymen reported that a high school education was important for all levels of employment, except for the laborer. The nursery operators interviewed in Thompson's study stated the need for business training. New employees learned the names of plant materials and common nursery chores, but some concepts regarding the operation of the business were harder to gain on the job. Laborers had little to do with the commercial aSpect of the industry, but salesmanship and merchandising were important for the skilled worker and the salesman. Knowledge of plant identification and use was not im- portant to the laborer, but was important to the Skilled worker and sales person, and was somewhat important to the 23Mondart and Curtis, op. cit., pp. 42—45. 24Thompson, op. cit., p. 18. 29 supervisor. Knowledge of propagation was not as necessary, for only 51 percent of the nurseries grew the materials they merchandised. For all levels of employment except the labor- er, preparing plants for display and sale was important. Skill in forcing plants to bloom for holidays was not reported as useful to many employees except supervisors, although it was very important in the industry. The preparation of the soil and the watering of plants was reported as important to the Skilled worker, sales person, and supervisor.25 About one-third to one-half of the skilled workers, the sales people, and the supervisors were reported to need the ability to manage a greenhouse according to Thompson. Although nursery workers were called upon for recommendations of what plants to use in certain locations under various conditions, they were seldom involved in preparing a complete landscape plan. Thompson also indicated that Skilled employees and sales people had the greatest need for mechanical skills involving machines such as Sprayers and roto-tillers.26 The agricultural competencies reported to be needed most for landscape horticulture according to Cushman, Christensen, and Bice are as follows: 1. Prepare seed beds. 2. Plant seeds, bulbs, trees or Shrubs. 5. Perform proper tillage practices. 4. Operate, maintain and adjust gasoline engines. 25Thompson, op. cit., pp. 20-22. 261bid., pp. 18-24. 50 5. Control insects, diseases and weeds. 6. Operate, maintain and adjust garden machines and equipment. 7. Maintain trees and shrubs. 8. Maintain lawns. 9. Manage nursery, planting, transplanting, pruning, shaping and trimming. 10. Correct physical defects of Sites being landscaped. 11. Knowledge of paint and painting. 12. Make lime or fertilizer recommendations. 15. Choose proper planting sites. 14. Operate, maintain and adjust tractors, trucks, agri— cultural equipment and agricultural machinery. 15. Locate and design drives, walks and fences. 16. Provide seasonal protection to ornamental plants. 17. Decide what to grow. 18. Select varieties. 19. Select seed, cuttings, bulbs or stock plants. 20. Mix soil composites. 21. Knowledge of characteristics and appropriate use of landscaping materials. 22. Select, buy, adjust or maintain lawn and garden Sprinkler and irrigation equipment.27 Dillon's study of abilities needed by workers in licensed nurseries and licensed ornamental horticulture businesses indicated that the training for general directors, salesmen, supervisors, and field workers Should include (1) a basic course for all employees who plan to enter both licensed nur- series and licensed ornamental horticultural businesses and (2) specialized courses for one or more job titles but not needed by all workers in either licensed nurseries or licensed ornamental horticulture businesses.28 According to Phipps, many horticultural workers need post-high school education in horticultural technology. The factor analysis of the data in the Phipp's study revealed that 27Cushman, Christensen, and Bice, op. cit., pp° 55-54. 28Dillon, op. cit., p. 25. 51 general directors, salesmen, supervisors, and field workers needed ability in the same four general areas of agricul- tural knowledge: (1) horticulture, (2) agricultural chemi- cals, (5) floriculture, and (4) soils. Phipps indicated that detailed information is needed in these four areas in order to train workers in ornamental horticulture.29 Donker investigated the nature of the work actually done by landscape and nursery technicians on the job as viewed by the technicians themselves and observed and evalu- ated by the investigator. He summarized their job require- ments as: Individuals qualifying for this occupation require first of all an understanding of plant materials and adaptation characteristics for the area in which these plants are grown. Secondly, they require a sound understanding of moisture and fertility requirement as well as disease and pest control problems associated with these plant materials. Finally they need some training in the landscape arts. All of this is re- quired because frequent, sound advice is quite evident as one of the prime requisites for success in the field. Further recommendations include basic sales and business training. Some shop Skills can be added as very desirable.30 Employment Information for Floriculture Floriculture involves the growing, distributing, and selling of potted plants, cut flowers, and plants in flats, 29Lloyd J. Phipps, "Technical Education in and for Rural Areas" (Urbana, Illinois: Agricultural Education Division, Vocational and Technical Education Department, College of Edu- cation, University of Illinois, 1964). 30Luverne Donker, Agricultural Technicians (report of a study; Modesto, California: Agricultural Department, Modesto Junior College, 1965). 52 as well as the selling of flower seeds and bulbs. It includes the manufacture and sale of florist supplies and the writing of articles and books for florists and gardeners.31 Floriculture sales and services in the United States are valued at one billion dollars annually. There are about 11,500 firms which produce floriculture plants in the United States and 60,000 retail firms that sell floral products. Size of firms and sales of products is expected to increase.32 The annual value of florist sales and services in Michigan was about $60,000,000 as of January 1965. There were 150 wholesale growers and 450 retail growers who produced $17,500,000 worth of sales in 7,000,000 sq. ft. of glass houses; 400 growers who produced $650,000 worth of flowers outdoors on 700 acres; and there were 1,550 retail florists.33 Floriculture offers opportunities for careers for those who are interested in growing plants, floral design, green- house or store management, marketing, writing, teaching, research, extension, and many related fields. Employment can be found in the following: Retail flower shops Garden centers Greenhouse production 31Department of Horticulture, "Floriculture" (a pamphlet; East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1965). 321bid., p. 1. 33Department of Horticulture (a pamphlet describing the Horticulture Department, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1965). 55 Outdoor production Propagation Specialists Seed producers Florists brokerage firms Florist wholesale distributors Trade organizations Agricultural chemical companies Universities Agricultural manufacturing firms Publishers (newspapers, magazines, books) Public arboretums, gardens, and parks U. S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Technical schools High schools34 Salary and conditions of work are comparable to other areas of agriculture. Starting salaries range from $5,500 to $10,000.depending.on area, type of employment, productivity of the individual, and education. There is no "ceiling” for most positions infloriculture.35 The estimated number of persons who needed agricultural competencies for the floriculture industry in 17 counties in Pennsylvania are recorded on the following page. According to Pennsylvania investigators 474 full-time and 228 part-time workers were employed in floriculture. The expected number of employees five years from the time the survey was made include 558 full-time and 266 part-time em- ployees. In the ensuing five years 144 full-time and 296 part— time employees were expected to be hired.36 34Department of Horticulture, "Floriculture," op. cit. 351bid. 36Hoover, op. cit., pp. 20-22. 54 Estimated Number of Persons Who Need Agricultural Competencies, Currently, and to be Hired During the Next Five Years, in Floriculture by Level of Employment and Occupational Title* Employees to be Hired During Current Next Five Years Level of Employment Full- Part~ Full- Part- Occupational Titles time time time time Managerial Occupations Greenhouse Manager 76 24 16 0 Floral Shop Manager 44 0 0 0 Greenhouse Production Supervisor 20 0 0 0 Wholesale Florist Sales Manager 4 0 0 0 Technical Occupetions Greenhouse Pathologist 4 0 0 0 Sales Occupations Greenhouse Salesman 52 0 0 0 Wholesale Florist Salesman 16 24 16 0 Clerical Occupations Greenhouse Bookkeeper 20 4 0 0 Floral Shop 4 4 0 0 Skilled Occupations Florist 16 0 8 0 Grower (Greenhouse) 40 28 60 40 Floral Designer 52 20 8 8 Semi-Skilled Occupations Greenhouse Worker 124 108 52 256 Greenhouse Grower's Assistant . 4 8 0 0 Greenhouse Truck Driver 4 4 0 0 *Source:‘ Norman K. Hoover, D. R. McClay, and G. Z. Stevens, Technical Education Needs of Persons Engaged in Agricultural OccupationsTreport of a study; University Park, Pennsylvania: Department of Agricultural Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 1965). 55 In his study of agricultural competencies needed by agricultural workers in Massachusetts, Judge found 60 Skilled florists employed full-time that were grouped together under laborers and not specifically classified.37 Barwick's investigation of off-farm agricultural occu- pations revealed 55 full-time floral Shop managers, and ten full-time and 40 part-time floral designers. According to Barwick; floral designers needed in the next five years in Delaware would be 10 full-time and 50 part-time.38 In the Louisiana study of non-farm agricultural occu- pations the authors listed the number of employees under each job title by occupational level for the ornamental horticul- ture occupational families. The job titles for floriculture are recorded in Table D on the following page. Training for Floriculture Agricultural competencies needed by the Skilled florist according to Judge were in the area of plant science. No other competency areas were checked.39 In Barwick's study of off—farm agricultural occupations 54 businesses employed 124 florists. Over 58 percent of these florists needed agricultural competencies.4O 37Judge, op. cit., p. 25. 38Barwick, op. cit., p. 12. 39Judge, op. cit., p. 25. 40Barwick, op. cit., p. 12. 56 Table D.* Job Title Number of Workers Technical Florist 1 Manager Small house plants manager 1 Supervisor Greenhouse foreman 1 Skilled Floral designer 57 Assistant floral designer 4 Semi-Skilled Grower 9 Potter 5 Planter 1 Grower 2 Unskilled Greenhouse attendant 1 Potter 1 Source: C. L. Mondart, Sr. and C. M. Curtis, Occgpational Opportunities and Training Needs for Non-Farm Agricultural Jobs in the Metropolitan Areas of Louisiana (report of a study: Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Department of Vocational Agricultural Education, Louisiana State University, 1965), p.'102. Employment Information for Greenhouse Workers According to Hoover, McClay, and Stevens in their Pennsylvania study of 17 counties, a total of 524 greenhouse employees were employed full-time and 196 part-time. The number was expected to increase to 578 full-time and 224 part- time employees in the next five years.41 41Hoover, McClay, and Stevens, op. cit., pp. 20—22° 57 The number of employees and job titles for greenhouses according to the study of non—farm agricultural jobs in the metropolitan areas of Louisiana is listed as follows:42 Managerial Number of Employees Small house plant manager 1 Supervisory Greenhouse foreman 1 Skilled Propagator 8 Semi-Skilled Grower Potter Planter Grower Ni—‘UJLO Unskilled Greenhouse attendant Potter Hrs Traininggfor Greenhouse Employees No studies were found that inquired into general or Specific kinds of training desired for employees of the green— house industry, in such a way as to obtain information sought for the present study. Summary This review of studies of off-farm agricultural occu- pations reveals that ornamental horticulture offered oppor- tunities for employment as is indicated by the many businesses and employees found in this industry. Most of the studies were preliminary in Specific employment information and 42Mondart and Curtis, op. cit., pp. 102-105. 58 competencies for specific occupations, and were limited to certain areas within a state. Investigators pointed out that there were occupational opportunities at all levels of employment. The largest number of workers were in the semi- skilled category, followed by Skilled, managerial, super- visory, sales, clerical, technical, and professional employees. Other employment information specifically for ornamental horti- culture included: (1) the average minimum and maximum age of entry for all levels of employment was 25 and 51 respective- ly; (2) the median monthly salaries by level of employment, as between $215 and $677; (5) the typical requirement of a high school education for entry jobs; (4) the preference for a farm background by 21 percent of the managers. Because most of the studies dealing with ornamental horticulture asked for generaloccupational information, employment information such as salaries, age of entry, and education were omitted completely, partially, or included under all occupational families. The researchers did not ask for Specific understandings, Skills, and abilities desired for employees. Very little employment information such as the kind sought for the present study was discovered through the studies reviewed about the floriculture industry. There were 59 a total of 859 full—time employees and 268 part-time employees in the studies reviewed. Employers expected to hire 154 full-time and 546 part—time employees in the ensuing five years. The total number of employees for floriculture could not be estimated because they were listed under other horti- cultural job titles. There were no Specific kinds of employ- ment information for floriculture, such as minimum age of entry, salary, and union requirements. There were only two general areas of training for floriculture employees found in the review of literature; plant science and agricultural competencies. The total number of greenhouse employees expected in five years was 578 full-time and 224 part-time. No occupational studies of the greenhouse industry as such were found in the literature. The only information found was provided as small parts of larger studies of one or more occu- pational families. It is concluded that employment infore mation and competencies of the greenhouse grower are needed. If such data were available they could help to answer prob— lems of workers training in the greenhouse industry. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY In this chapter the procedures used in carrying out the study are described: (1) development and testing of interview form, (2) population and sample used, (5) adminis— tration of the interview form, and (4) analysis of data. Development of the Interview Form Preliminary to the development of the interview form a number of survey instruments used for studies of off—farm agricultural occupations were studied. The literature was studied to determine the kinds of occupational and training information which might be included in a survey form for greenhouse employees. Then a detailed interview form was developed including all the possible kinds of questions that might be asked of managers of greenhouses. During the fall of 1965 this detailed interview form was tested and developed further with the assistance of two large commercial green- 1 The interview form was then house managers in Michigan. tested November 28-29, 1965 on four managers of greenhouses in the Chicago area.2 The sample of greenhouse managers was 1Appendix A. 2Appendix A. 40 41 used to test the reaction to the value of the study and the adequacy of the interview form. Greenhouse managers were very cooperative and were interested in the proposed study of their industry. They indicated that the interview form was too long and detailed to be practical. Therefore, under the counsel of Dr. Richard Lindstrom, floriculturist, of Michigan State University it was revised by grouping detailed questions under major headings, and only asking questions which served the purposes of the study.3 The revised survey form was tested for its reliability through personal interviews with two greenhouse managers. Dr. C. E. Wildon, floriculturist, of Michigan State University recommended two greenhouse managers who he felt would allow the investigator to secure information on the interview form at two different times to test the reliability of the method of securing information.4 Both managers were visited the same day, and the interview form was used with them. After an interval of 11 days the managers were again interviewed in the same manner as the first time. It may be noted here that there were no right and wrong answers to the questions listed on the interview form, rather most of the answers were the opinion of the managers and naturally might be subject to change. Therefore, some differences in responses between the first and second interview would be expected. 3Appendix B. 4Appendix C. 42 The interview form contained three sections. The first section on the front page entitled “list of crops produced" lists 57 flowering crops produced in greenhouses in pots, as cut flowers, and in flats. Each manager was asked to indicate if the plants were major or minor crops. A major crop was defined as any crop which produced ten percent or more of the gross income. The interviewer placed a check opposite each crop listed on the interview form which the manager indicated he produced. The first manager interviewed indi— cated under the "crops produced" section of the survey form a total of 46 reSponses during the first interview. He indi- cated a total of 58 responses during the second interview. Thirty—three responses were identical, five were different by one degree (recorded as minor instead of major or vice versa) while eight were omitted either during the first or second interview.5 Thirteen different responses out of a total of 46 produced a 26 percent difference in responses between the first and second interviews for the crops produced section of the survey form. The second section in the center of the survey form entitled "employment information" contained 28 statements re- garding the employment for 15 different job titles which are found in the greenhouse industry. Each manager was asked to indicate the number of employees, their requirements for em- ployment, salaries, benefits, and annual turnover for each 5Appendix D. 45 job title. The first manager interviewed indicated under the "employment information" section of the interview form a total of 26 responses during the first and second interview; 21 responses were identical, five were different. Five different responses out of a total of 27 produced an 18 percent dif— ference in responses between the first and second interview for the employment part of the survey form. The third section of the interview form entitled "train- ing desired? on the back page contained statements to determine the kinds and degree of training desired to successfully ful— fill the job of the greenhouse grower. Each manager was asked to indicate the degree of training desired by selecting essential, useful, or unnecessary for each item of training listed. The first manager indicated a total of 42 responses during the first and second interviews. Thirty-Six of the responses were identical and six were different; the difference was in one degree from essential to useful or useful to un- necessary. This gave a difference of 14 percent for this section. The number of responses for the entire survey instrument was 115, with 90 identical, 11 with a slight dif- ference in degree, and 14 different. The difference in response between the total first and second interviews with the first manager was 21 percent, 9 percent of which was a Slight difference in degree. The second manager also responded to the items listed under the "crops produced" section of the survey form for two interviews. Thirty responses were identical, three were 44 different by one degree, that is, recorded as minor instead of major or vice versa while nine were omitted either during the first or second interview. Twelve different responses out of.a total of 42 produced a 28 percent difference in re— sponse between the first and second interviews for the crops produced section of the interview form.6 The "employment information" section received a total of 51 responses with 27 identical, four different by one de- gree of difference, and eight omitted either during the first or second interview. This accounted for a 12 percent dif- ference in responses between the first and second interviews. The "training desired" part of the interview form had a total of 42 responses. Thirty-seven were identical and five were different (the difference was in one degree from essential to useful or useful to unnecessary), giving a difference of 12 percent for this section. The total number of responses for the entire survey instrument was 115, with 94 identical, 12 with a slight dif- ference in degree, and 17 different responses. The difference in response between the total parts of the first and second interviews with the second greenhouse manager was 25 percent, 10 percent of which was a Slight difference. The average difference in response between the dupli- cated interviews of both greenhouse managers was 25 percent. 6Appendix E. 45 Nine and one-half percent of the difference in reSponse was only a slight difference in degree, an average of 15.5 per- cent complete difference for the interview form. According to the above data, the interviewer and interviewee were 77 percent consistent in the administration and answering of the interview form, and another 9.5 percent was partially con- sistent. Therefore, more than three—fourths of the information obtained by the use of the survey form was reliable. For prac— tical purposes for which the form was designed this percentage was high enough to use the form. Validity of the Interview Form The pre-testing of the interview form determined its validity in obtaining all of the kinds of information con- sidered desirable for the training of the greenhouse grower. The managers indicated at the close of the interviews that the interview form was adequate. There were no similar inter- view forms which could be used to measure the validity of the interview form used in this study. However, there are survey forms in use which measure the degree of competencies needed by employees as well as recording other employment information. Population and Sample Used The population studied included all managers of green- houses of one acre of glass or larger found in the Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit areas. Greenhouses covering one acre 46 or larger were selected because they represented the best size for the study in the industry. AS a group they provided the latest information on job titles, kinds of crOps produced, production operations, and recent trends of the industry. It was felt that smaller greenhouses would be limited in the kind and amount of production, number of em- ployees and job titles and thus production operations. The sample included all cooperating greenhouse managers from the above population. A cooperating greenhouse manager included any who in the opinion of the horticultural extension special- ist of each area would agree to cooperate with the study. Dr. Richard Lindstrom, floriculturist, of Michigan State Uni- versity wrote each horticultural extension Specialist in the Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit areas and explained the nature and purpose of the study. He then requested a list of all cooperating greenhouses of the desired size.7 Additional greenhouses were added to the sample from inquiries made of each greenhouse manager visited. The total number of managers interviewed was 58. One greenhouse manager in Detroit and five in the Chicago area were not interviewed because they could not be contacted. The total population was 64 and the sample was 58, which represented 90.62 percent of the popu- lation. 7Appendix F. 47 Administration of Interview Form A personal interview was conducted with 58 greenhouse managers to determine plants produced, employment information and training desired for the greenhouse grower in the Chicagop Cleveland, and Detroit areas. During the summer of 1964 a letter was sent to all managers explaining the purpose of the, study and the approximate time when they would be called by telephone to arrange an appointment for an interview.8 Interviewyprocedure. After the development of some. rapport, a copy of the interview form was handed to the manager to read as each question was asked and checked by the inter- 9 viewer-- Plants produced. The first page of the interview form indicated the kinds of plants produced in greenhouses. The greenhouse manager was asked to indicate the major and minor plants produced in pots, as cut flowers, and in flats. A major crop was defined as any crop producing ten percent or more of the gross income of the greenhouse. Training desired. After the first page of the inter- view form was completed, the interview form was then turned over to the back Side, and the section entitled "training desired" was administered. This part of the interview form listed statements to determine the kinds and degree of train- ing desired to successfully fulfill the job of the greenhouse 8Appendix G. 9Appendix D. 48 grower. Each manager was asked to indicate the degree of training desired by selecting essential, useful, or unneces— .sary for each item of training listed. Employment information. After the back page of the survey instrument was completed, the interview.was concluded. with the examination of the center section, entitled "employ- ment information." Some managers were reluctant to provide certain types of information, such as salaries and fringe benefits. However, when assured that all information would be kept confidential and used only for educational purposes, the managers were very COOperative. Each interview was com— pleted in 50 to 50 minutes and then additional questions, comments, and reactions were encouraged. Managers said the interview form was adequate for the purposes of the study. Analysis of Data The Species of plants produced in greenhouses were established by tabulating them from the survey instrument. This was accomplished by placing a check opposite each Species listed on the survey instrument during each interview. The most important plants were determined by: (1) whether the plants were considered major or minor by the greenhouse manager (a major plant was any plant which produced 10 percent or more of the gross income) and (2) the percentage of green- houses growing each Species of plant. It was decided that the plant Species would be listed in order according to the percentage of greenhouses producing them. 49 Two methods of analysis were used to determine the kinds of training greenhouse growers should have: (1) train- ing items listed on the interview form were checked if they were desired by managers for the greenhouse grower, and (2) those items of training, checked desired, were further measured by determining the percentage of greenhouse managers who indicated whether the training was essential or useful. It was decided that a competency would be considered essential if a majority of managers classified it as such. The data used to analyze employment information were obtained by: (1) recording the actual numbers of workers employed under each job title and their annual turnover; (2) determining the percentage of managers who desire a residence background, employment level and education, and work experience in their workers; (5) determining the percentage of managers who provide fringe benefits for their workers, have workers who pay union dues, and who list a salary range per week for their workers. Summary The interview form to obtain employment information and to determine training desired for the greenhouse grower was develOped by interviewing greenhouse managers and a flori— culture Specialist. In testing the reliability of the survey instrument about 77 percent of the information collected by use of the survey form was reliable. All cooperating green- house managers with one acre of glass or more were contacted 50 in the Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit areas. Then the survey form was administered to each manager by means of a personal interview. The data for the study were analyzed by tabulating items from the survey instrument and measuring the total num— bers and/Or determining percentages of these items-. It was. decided that if a majority of the greenhouse managers indi- cated a response to an.item in.the same way, it would be accepted.as a Significant item. CHAPTER IV COMPETENCIES DESIRED AND EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION FOR THE GREENHOUSE GROWER Managers from 58 greenhouses provided information con- cerning employment practices and competencies desired for the greenhouse grower. In the first part of Chapter IV plants produced in the greenhouse are discussed. Crops pro— duced.were listed separately from competencies because of the large number of Species of plants grown in the greenhouses surveyed. The second part includes competencies desired for the greenhouse grower, while the last section deals with employment information.about greenhouse workers. I. PLANTS PRODUCED The first purpose of the study was to determine the Species of ornamental flowering plants produced in commercial greenhouses, and to note their importance according to the percentage of greenhouses growing major and minor plants in order to provide a better basis for the development of suitable instruction for greenhouse growers. Plants were classified as those grown in pots, as cut flowers, and in flats. A major crop was defined as any crop producing ten percent or more of the gross income of the business. 51 52 Potted Plants The percentage of managers growing potted plants, either as a major or a minor enterprise is shown in Table I. Only five of these crops (geraniums, Chrysanthemums, poin- settias, lilies, and azaleas) were grown in half or more of the greenhouses surveyed. These crops also are the ones having the greatest wholesale value in the United States com— pared to all the Species of potted plants included in the survey, as Shown in Table II. Another group of eight plants (hyacinths, hydrangeas, tulips, begonias (root), begonias (tuberous), roses, gloxinias, and vincas) was produced in 24 to 56 percent of the greenhouses, and a third group includ- ed 12 plants (caladiums, cyclamens, lantanas, foliage plants, daffodils, coleus, impatiens, orchids, ageratums, kalanchoes, petunias, and dahlias) that were grown in nine to 22 percent of the greenhouses. The three groups of plants may be used to determine the most frequently grown plants in pots and the degree of their importance so that an improved basis might be provided for preparing instructional materials for green- house growers. Another measure that helps to indicate a crop's im- portance is the number of employees working in the green- house where the plants are produced.1 Perhaps a more nearly accurate method of determining crop importance would be to 1Appendix H 55 Table I. Total Number and Percentage of Greenhouses Growing Major and Minor Potted Plants Percentage of Number Greenhouses Name of Plant Major Minor Total Growing Geraniums 50 11 41 74 Chrysanthemums 25 4 29 52 Poinsettias 24 4 28 50 Lilies 21 7 28 50 Azaleas 18 10 28 50 Hyacinths 9 11 20 56 Hydrangeas 5 15 18 52 Tulips 9 8 17 50 Begonias (root) 2 15 15 27 Begonias (tuberous) 1 14 15 27 Roses 9 5 14 25 Gloxinas 2 11 15 24 Vincas 1 12 15 24 Caladiums 1 11 12 22 Cyclamens 5 8 11 20 Lantanas 1 10 11 20 Foliage plants 6 4 10 18 Daffodils 5 6 9 17 Coleus 5 6 9 17 Impatiens 2 5 7 15 Orchids 4 2 6 11 Ageratums 2 4 6 11 Kalanchoes 1 5 6 11 Petunias 2 5 5 9 Dahlias 1 4 5 9 Rhododendrons 2 2 4 7 Delphiniums 1 5 4 7 Gardenias 0 4 4 7 Carnations 2 1 5 6 Palms 1 2 5 6 Daisies 1 2 5 6 Cacti 1 2 5 6 Pachysandras 0 5 5 5 Stephanotises 0 5 5 5 Continued 54 Table I - Continued Percentage of Number Greenhouses Name of Plant Major Minor Total Growing Marigolds 2 0 2 4 Vegetables 1 1 2 4 Amaryllis 1 1 2 4 Alyssum 0 2 2 4 Asters 0 2 2 4 Balsams 0 2 2 4 Salvias 0 2 2 4 Stocks 0 2 2 4 Sweet peas 0 2 2 4 Pansies 1 0 1 2 Crocuses 1 0 1 2 Callas 1 0 1 2 Cosmos 0 1 1 2 LarkSpurs 0 1 1 2 Phlox 0 1 1 2 Snapdragons 0 1 1 2 Verbenas 0 1 1 2 Zinnias 0 1 1 2 Amazon lilies 0 1 1 2 Primroses 0 1 1 2 Ivy 0 1 1 2 African violets 0 1 1 2 count the number of employees who work on each crop. This was realized when the number of employees working in the greenhouses surveyed xmas analyzed. It may be noted in Appendix I that one greenhouse employed 600 workers and only produced three different Species of flowering plants, while other greenhouses employed less than ten workers.2 Knowing the number of employees working on an individual Species of 2Appendix I. 55 flowering plant is important from the standpoint of provid- ing instruction for employees about the plants they will be working on. However, it was not feasible to ask each manager the number of employees growing each crop, especially if a large number of crops was produced. Cut Flowers Chrysanthemums were grown in 64 percent of the green— houses, carnations in 45 percent, and snapdragons in 50 per- cent. Roses and irises were raised in 12 percent (Table III). These five crOps were also grown in greenhouses which employed the largest number of workers.3 Chrysanthemums, carnations, snapdragons, and roses ranked among the tOp 11 crops on the basis of wholesale value (Table II). Flats The most popular plants grown in flats were alyssum, petunias, and salvias. Another group of 14 plants (marigolds, ageratums, zinnias, portulacas, verbenas, impatiens, vege- tables, snapdragons, pansies, asters, phlox, coleus, balsams, and delphiniums) was produced in 25 to 29 percent of the greenhouses, and a third group included 12 plants (dahlias, daisies, cosmos, larkspurs, carnations, begonias (root), gloxinias, lantanas, daffodils, hyacinths, tulips, and pachy- Sandras) that were grown in two to 20 percent of the green- houses (Table IV). There is a similar relationship between 3Appendix J. 56 Table II. Rank of Potted Plants and Cut Flowers by Value at Wholesale Prices for the Conterminous United States 1959 Value at Whole- Name of Plant Rank sale Prices (dollars) Potted Plants Foliage or green plants 1 25,606,996 Geraniums 2 16,587,954 Chrysanthemums 5 11,755,855 Poinsettias 4 8,965,194 Azaleas 5 8,255,144 Lilies 6 5,779,511 Hydrangeas 7 4,159,590 African violets 8 2,276,146 Begonias 9 1,588,064 Cacti and succulents 10 1,227,876 Roses 11 982,404 Orchids, cattleya 12 801,705 Orchids, all others 15 750,544 Gardenias 14 521,552 Orchids, cymbidium 15 292,957 All others 5,971,418 Cut Flowers Roses 1 50,942,064 Carnations 2 50,508,596 Chrysanthemums, pompon 5 19,027,540 Chrysanthemums, standard 4 16,445,420 Gladioli 5 15,475,799 Orchids, cattleya 6 6,276,016 Snapdragons 7 4,562,007 Asparagus, plumosus 8 2,455,054 Stocks 9 2,258,745 Orchids, cymbidiums 10 1,841,070 Gardenias 11 1,474,594 Asters 12 955,514 Lilies 15 719,791 Peonies 14 719,791 Orchids, all others 15 579,956 All others 8,525,085 1United States Bureau of Census, U. S. Census of Agriculture 1959. Volume 5, Part 1, Special Reports, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962. 57 Table III. Total Number and Percentage of Greenhouses Growing Major and Minor Cut Flowers Percentage of Number Greenhouses Name of Plant Major Minor Total Growing Chrysanthemums 50 7 57 64 Carnations 24 1 25 45 Snapdragons 5 12 17 50 Roses 6 1 7 12 Iris 6 1 7 12 Callas 4 0 4 7 Orchids 5 0 5 Gladioli 1 2 5 5 Daffodils 1 2 5 5 Delphiniums 0 2 2 5 Stephanotises 0 2 2 5 Sweet peas 0 2 2 5 Stocks 1 1 2 5 Alstroemarias 1 0 1 2 Tulips 0 1 1 2 Lilies 0 1 1 2 Marigolds 0 1 1 2 Petunias 0 1 1 2 Dahlias 0 1 1 2 Pansies 0 1 1 2 Asters 0 1 1 2 Amazon lilies 0 1 1 2 the number of employees and the number of plants grown in flats, as was shown in greenhouses growing potted plants and cut flowers. This is to say that those greenhouses which produced the more frequently raised plants also employed the largest number of workers.4 Summary of Plants Produced The 58 greenhouse managers surveyed grew a total of 4Appendix K. 58 Table IV. Total Number and Percentage of Greenhouses Growing Major and Minor Plants in Flats Percentage of Number Greenhouses Name of Plant Major Minor Total Growing Alyssums 10 15 25 45 Petunias 15 4 19 55 Salvias 11 7 18 52 Marigolds 9 7 16 29 Ageratums 9 7 16 29 Zinnias 9 7 16 29 Portulacas 9 7 16 29 Verbenas 9 7 16 29 Impatiens 11 5 16 28 Vegetables 11 5 16 28 Snapdragons 11 5 16 28 Pansies 9 6 15 27 Asters 9 6 15 27 Phlox 9 6 15 27 Coleus 9 5 14 25 Balsams 9 5 14 25 Delphiniums 9 5 14 25 Dahlias 9 2 11 20 Daisies 9 2 11 20 Cosmos 9 1 10 18 LarkSpurs 9 1 10 18 Carnations 9 0 9 17 Begonias (root) 0 2 2 4 Gloxinias 0 1 1 2 Lantanas 0 1 1 2 Daffodils 0 1 1 2 Hyacinths 0 1 1 2 Tulips 0 1 1 2 Pachysandras 0 1 1 2 59 different Species of ornamental flowering plants including 56 produced in pots, 22 as cut flowers, and 29 raised in flats. The relative importance of each of the Species grown in the greenhouses surveyed was determined by the percentage of green— house managers who raised them in order that a basis be provided for preparing instructional materials for the greenhouse grower. 59 II. COMPETENCIES DESIRED The second purpose of the study was to determine the relative importance and degree of attainment of competencies in the greenhouse grower desired by employers. Every greenhouse manager was asked to indicate the training desired for the greenhouse grower. He was also re— quested to state the degree of importance of this training for the grower.5 Knowledge of Fundamental Information Knowledge of fundamental information was included under four content areas of plant science: (1) plant parts, (2) growth processes, (5) plant names, and (4) anatomical parts (Table V). Two-thirds of the managers indicated that knowl- edge of basic plant parts, basic growth processes, and plant names was essential for the greenhouse grower. Learning anatomical parts was not considered essential. However, this knowledge was considered useful by 59 percent of the managers. Competencies (operational abilities) The second category of training, called competencies, included those operational abilities such as greenhouse skills needed by the grower to perform the operations involved in his job. The percentage of managers who indicated that competen— cies were essential, useful, or unnecessary for the greenhouse grower is recorded in Table VI. Eighty-nine percent of the 5Appendix B. 60 Table V. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Knowledge of Basic Fundamental Information Was Essential, Use— ful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower Knowledge of Fundamental Percent Information Essential Useful Unnecessary Basic plant parts (e.g. root and stem) 86 15 2 Understanding basic growth processes (e.g. photosyn- thesis, and transpiration) 75 21 4 Plant names (e.g. scientific and common) 66 27 7 Anatomical parts (e.g. root and stem) 27 59 14 Table VI. Percentage of Managers Who Classified Certain Compe- tencies as Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower Percentage of Managers Competencies Essential Useful Unnecessary Watering 100 0 0 Identify and control insects, disease, virus, etc. 98 2 0 Fertilizing 96 2 2 Soil preparation 95 2 5 Potting 95 4 5 How to plant or transplant seedlings 95 0 7 Handling of chemicals 95 7 0 Maintain sanitary conditions 95 7 0 How to propagate (seeds, cuttings, etc) 89 7 4 Soil sterilization (steam, chemical, etc.) 89 7 4 Identify and use growing containers 75 21 4 Use of growth substances 66 21 15 Boiler operation 62 56 2 Equipment operating and maintenance 62 52 6 Soil testing 54 45 5 61 managers stated that the following competencies were essen- tial for the greenhouse grower--soil sterilization (steam and chemical); plant propagation (seeds and cuttings); sanitation maintenance; chemical handling; seedling planting and transplanting; potting; soil preparation; fertilization; insect identification and control of insects, disease, and virus; and watering. Seventy-five percent of the managers said that the competency, “identification and use of growing containers" was essential while 21 percent indicated it was useful. Those greenhouse managers in the study who produced only cut flowers did not use growing containers. Sixty-two percent of the managers indicated that the competencies, "boiler Operation," "equipment operation and maintenance," and "use of growth substances," were essential for a greenhouse grower, while 21 percent of the managers said that these competencies were uSeful. In addition to the check list additional com- ments were encouraged. Two greenhouse managers said that grow- ing plants is a highly Specialized skill, and that they did not want a grower working in areas outside his Specialty. Boiler operators and equipment maintenance workers were employed in 25 percent of the greenhouses surveyed. In some instances the union Specifies that a grower may not operate the boilers. The fact that the practical use of growth substances is relatively new may explain the fact that only 66 percent of the managers indicated that their use was essential. 62 Fifty-four percent of the greenhouse managers indicated that the competency, soil testing, was essential.while 42 percent said.it was useful. In some instances the soil to be tested was sent to a local soil testing laboratory which explains the relatively low percentage of managers who indi- cated essential for this competency. Fifty-four percent of the managers indicated that all of the competencies listed in Table VI were essential and 87 percent of the managers stated that they were essential or useful. CrOp Understanding The third category of training considered with the greenhouse manager was crop understanding. The percentage of managers who indicated that the training of crop understand- ing was essential, useful, or unnecessary is recorded in Table VII. One hundred percent of the greenhouse managers said that understanding temperature and water requirement of plants was essential. Ninety-one percent indicated that understanding disbudding and pinching was essential. Two managers said that they did not grow plants which required disbudding or pinching; therefore, this understanding was unnecessary for their growers. Eighty-eight percent of the managers indicated that understanding cutting and Special cultural practices such as staking and hardening was essential. Three managers reported that their crops did not require these Operations. Eighty-two percent of the managers indicated that knowledge of the humidity requirements of plants and 65 Table VII. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Training in Crop Understandings was Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for'the Greenhouse Grower Percentage of Managers Crop Understanding Essential Useful Unnecessary Temperature 100 0 0 Water requirements 100 0 0 Pinching 95 0 0 Disbudding 91 4 5 Cutting 88 4 8 Special cultural practices (staking, hardening, etc.) 88 9 5 Humidity 82 16 2 Life cycle of plant 82 15 5 Grading and packaging 75 18 7 Photo period 75 9 16 knowledge of the life cycle of a plant were essential, while 15 percent said such information was useful. Seventy-five percent of the greenhouse managers said competency in grading and packaging plants and understanding of plant photo period were essential. In five greenhouses grading and packaging was reported to be a specialty handled by the wholesale em- ployees and not the growers. Knowledge of the photo period was reported as critical for some crops, especially in green— houses which produced chrysanthemums. Three-fourths of the managers stated that all the areas of training under crop understanding (Table VII) were essential. Greenhouse Management The fourth category of training studied with the green- house manager listed the types of management activities. 64 The percentage of managers who indicated each aSpect of greenhouse management training was either essential, use- ful, or unnecessary for the greenhouse grower is recorded in Table VIII. Table VIII. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Greenhouse Management Training was Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower Percentage of Managers Greenhouse Management Essential Useful Unnecessary Labor 71 21 8 Greenhouse layout 71 25 6 Analysis of production 64 50 6 Marketing 41 41 18 Selling 56 46 18 Buying 56 50 14 Management of money (budgeting, financing, etc.) 50 54 16 Insurance 27 55 18 Sixty-four percent of the greenhouse managers said that knowledge of labor, analysis of production, and green— house layout were essential to the greenhouse grower, and 21 percent considered them useful. Most greenhouse growers had helpers working under their direction, and, as might be expected many managers felt that an understanding of labor management was important. Fifty percent of the managers also stated that growers do become involved directly or in- directly with greenhouse layout and production and should have a good training in these areas. 65 Twenty-seven percent of the greenhouse managers stated that marketing, selling, buying, managing money (budgeting and financing), and understanding insurance were essential to the greenhouse grower while 41 percent said that such train- ing was useful. A number of managers stated that greenhouse management training was unnecessary for the grower because management was the job of the manager. Sixty percent of the managers indicated that management of labor, analysis of production, and greenhouse layout were essential. Greenhouse Mechanics The last category of training which managers were asked to react to was the mechanical activities that growers per- form. The percentage of managers who indicated that green— house mechanics training was either essential, useful, or un- necessary is recorded in Table IX. Table IX. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Greenhouse Mechanics Training was Essential, Useful, or Unnecessary for the Greenhouse Grower Percentage of Managers Greenhouse Mechanics Essential Useful Unnecessary Plumbing 56 45 19 Woodwork 50 46 24 Construction (parts, types, etc.) 27 51 22 Electrical 27 50 25 Welding 25 46 41 66 Twenty-three percent of the greenhouse managers said that skill in plumbing, woodworking, constructing (parts and types), wiring, and welding were essential, while 45 percent indicated that they were useful to know. Twenty percent of greenhouse managers indicated that it was essential that their growers know greenhouse mechanics because the growers performed mechanical operations often; another 20 percent of the managers stated that they could not afford having their skilled growers perform any operations except those directly related to growing plants. Twenty-five percent of the- managers indicated that those businesses large enough to em- ploy one or more maintenance men generally left greenhouse mechanics to the maintenance department. Where greenhouses were unionized more specialization of jobs was reported. Three managers indicated that, because of the increased use of automatic watering, physics, Specifically hydraulics, plumbing, and electricity, was important for the grower to know. Forty-Six percent of the managers listed greenhouse mechanics as useful rather than essential. Sixty—nine percent of the greenhouse managers indicated all of the aspects of training recorded on the survey instru- ment were desirable for a greenhouse grower to know. Twenty- three percent of the greenhouse managers also indicated that all of the items listed under each category of training were essential while 41 percent of the managers stated that some of the items were useful. 67 Summary of Competencies Desired The second purpose of the study was to determine the competencies and the degree of attainment of these competen- cies desired of the greenhouse grower. Under the basic areas of plant knowledge, the categories of plant parts, growth processes, and plant names were considered essential by two—thirds of the managers. The competencies (Operational abilities) recorded as essential by almost 90 percent of the managers were: watering, identifying and controlling pests, fertilizing, preparing soil, potting, transplanting, handling chemicals, propagating, sterilizing soil, and cleaning green- house benches, floorS, and equipment. The third category of training investigated was crop understandings. Three—fourths of the managers stated that the areas of training under crop understanding were essential. Sixty percent of the managers indicated that management of labor, analysis of production, and greenhouse layout were essential. Other areas of management were considered useful but not essential. Most of the managers listed greenhouse mechanics as useful rather than essential. III. EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION The third purpose of the study was to determine the types and nature of employment for greenhouse workers. This information was collected to determine job opportunities and working conditions for the greenhouse grower, as well as for other greenhouse workers. 68 Number of Non-Family Employees Engaged Under Each Job Title The number of non—family employees engaged in each job is recorded in Table X. The grower helper with 195 part— time and 414 full-time jobs appeared to offer the greatest opportunity for job entry into this industry. Table X. Number of Family and Non—Family Employees Engaged Under Each Job Title* Number ‘ Job Title Family Non-Family Full- Part- Full- Part— time time time time Manager 78 0 15 0 Assistant manager 50 0 14 0 Grower foreman 1 0 42 0 Grower 6 8 260 6 Grower helper 5 5 414 195 Maintenance foreman 0 0 14 0 Maintenance worker 0 0 52 1 Maintenance helper 0 2 27 0 Wholesale foreman 1 0 5 0 Wholesale worker 0 0 22 1 Wholesale helper 2 0 5 0 Clerical help 12 5 72 10 Truck driver 1 0 58 4 Total 156 16 980 215 * . . For those managers interv1ewed who operatedgreenhouses con- taining one acre of glass or more in the Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit areas. The second largest number of full-time positions, total— ing 260 jobs, was that of the grower. This position offered the most opportunity for advancement for the grower helper. Promotion is available to other job categories. 69 Forty-five percent of the managers interviewed said that a grower helper could advance to management status. Fifty-five percent said that a grower helper could not ad- vance to management status. Number of Family Employees Engaged Under Each Job Title The number of full—time and part-time family employees engaged under each job title is recorded in Table X. The job title with the largest number of full—time employees was the manager, with a total of 78. The job title with the second largest number of employees was the assistant manager, with a total of 50 positions. The third largest number of jobs was 12 for the secretary—bookkeeper position. Because most of the greenhouses surveyed were family owned and Operated, a large number of family members were recorded as managers or assistant managers. Family ownership also ex- plains the third largest number, secretary-bookkeepers, because many of the wives and daughters hold such positions. The fact that many greenhouse businesses are family owned and operated is an important consideration when explor- ing advancement opportunities. Expected Number of Family Employees Engaged Under Each Job Title The number of additional full-time and part-time family members that managers anticipated would be employed during the next five years is recorded in Table XI. The managers 70 indicated an average increase of two full—time assistant managers, seven part-time grower helpers, and one part-time maintenance helper over this period. A total increase of ten family employees is estimated. Expected Number of Non-Family Employees Engaged Under Each Job Title The expected number of non—family employees engaged under each job title during the next five years is recorded in Table XI. Table XI. Expected Number of Additional Family and Non- Family Employees Expected to be Engaged Under Each Job Title Number Job Title Family Non—Family Full- Part- Full- Part- time time time time Manager 0 0 0 0 Assistant manager 2 0 0 0 Grower foreman 0 0 2 0 Grower 0 0 112 0 Grower helper 0 7 18 27 Maintenance foreman 0 0 11 0 Maintenance worker 0 0 0 0 Maintenance helper 0 1 5 0 Wholesale foreman 0 0 0 1 Wholesale worker 0 0 0 2 Wholesale helper 0 0 0 1 Secretary-bookkeeper 0 0 0 1 Truck driver 0 0 0 0 71 The greenhouse managers stated that they expected a total increase of 156 full-time and 52 part-time employees. Some managers indicated anticipation of a total decrease of ten full-time and one part-time employees. There could be opportunities for 112 growers, 18 grower helpers full-time, and 27 grower helpers part-time during the next five years, according to greenhouse managers surveyed. Annual Turnover of Employees The annual turnover of employees under each job title is recorded in Table XII. Greenhouse managers stated that their total average replacements each year were 29 growers and 189 grower helpers. Table XII. Annual Turnover of Employees Under Each Job Title Employees Turnover Job Title Full-time Part—time Manager Assistant manager Grower foreman Grower Grower helper Maintenance foreman Maintenance worker Maintenance helper Wholesale foreman Wholesale worker Wholesale helper Secretary-bookkeeper Truck driver NW OOOOOOOOQONOOO OOOOOOOOONOOO 72 Percentage of Managers Who Desired that Their New Employees Have Work Experiences The percentage of managers who desired that their new employees have work experiences is recorded in Table XIII. Forty percent or more of the managers stated that greenhouse work experience was desirable for the grower, grower helper, assistant manager, and manager. Forty—five percent of the managers indicated that busi- ness work experience was desirable for the secretary-bookkeeper. Table XIII. Percentage of Managers Who Desired that Their Employees Have Work Experiences Position Job Title Work Experience did not Green- Miscel- Busi- exist or no house laneous ness None response Manager 95 11 10 4 0 Assistant manager 50 7 5 2 46 Grower foreman 40 0 0 0 60 Grower 66 5 4 4 21 Grower helper 79 15 9 15 0 Maintenance foreman 5 9 4 0 78 Maintenance worker 7 4 0 2 87 Maintenance helper 7 9 5 0 79 Wholesale foreman 9 2 7 0 82 Wholesale worker 2 2 4 2 90 Wholesale helper 0 0 2 2 96 Secretary-bookkeeper 11 7 45 0 57 Truck driver 2 4 0 11 85 Employment Level and Education Desired The percentage of managers who indicated employment level and education desired of greenhouse workers is recorded in Table XIV. Seventy percent of the managers stated that it 75 would be desirable that the manager have professional quali— fications, with four years of college; while 21 percent said he should be classified as a technician, with two years of post-high-school training. Thirty-nine percent of the managers said that it would be desirable that the assistant manager be classified as a professional with four years of college; while 14 percent said that he Should be classified as a technician with two years of post—high—school training. Forty-one percent of the managers said that it would be desirable that the grower be classified as a skilled worker with a high school education; while 25 percent said that he Should be classified as a technician with two years of post- high-school training. Table XIV. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Employment Level and Education Desired for Employees a. Tech- nical Position Profes- 2 yrs. Skill— Semi- did not Job Title Sional-- post ed Skill— exist or 4 yrs. high high ed no re- college school school none sponse Manager 70 21 7 2 0 Assistant manager 59 14 4 2 41 Grower foreman 9 15 5 2 71 Grower 7 25 41 2 25 Grower helper 5 7 66 25 0 Maintenance foreman 0 5 0 0 95 Maintenance worker 0 7 20 0 75 Maintenance helper 0 2 2 0 96 Wholesale foreman 5 2 2 0 91 Wholesale worker 0 5 7 0 88 Wholesale helper 0 0 5 0 97 Secretary-bookkeeper 14 11 27 0 48 Truck driver 0 0 14 7 79 74 Sixty-Six percent of the managers said that it would be desirable that the grower helper be classified as a Skilled worker with a high school education, but 25 percent said that he should be a semi-Skilled worker with no education require— ments. Twenty-seven percent of the managers said that it would be desirable that the grower helper be classified as a skilled worker with a high school education, while 14 percent said that he Should be classified as a professional with four years of college, and 11 percent said that he should be classified as a technician with two years of post—high-school training. Residence Background The percentage of managers who desired a farm background for greenhouse employees is recorded in Table XV. Table XV. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Kind of Back- ground Desired for Employees Position did not exist No Pref— or no Job Title Farm Urban erence response Manager 52 7 41 0 Assistant manager 21 2 20 57 Grower foreman 16 0 16 68 Grower 45 2 25 52 Grower helper 59 0 59 2 Maintenance foreman 5 0 4 91 Maintenance worker 16 0 15 71 Maintenance helper 7 24 0 69 Wholesale foreman 0 1 9 90 Wholesale worker 24 0 11 65 Wholesale helper 0 0 4 96 Secretary-bookkeeper 24 4 56 56 Truck driver 2 24 11 65 75 Forty—three percent of the managers indicated that it would be desirable for growers, grower helpers, and managers to have a farm background; while 41 percent or less stated no preference for workers with these titles. Half of the managers stated that farm boys have worked better than urban boys be- cause they are used to hard work. Salary Ranges The percentage of managers who indicated various salary ranges for their greenhouse employees is recorded in Table XVI. Table XVI. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Each of Specified Salary Ranges for Their Greenhouse Employees Position did not Salarngange in Dollars per Week exist 40 to 70 to 100 to 150 to 160 or no re- Job Title 69 99 129 159 + sponse Manager 0 0 7 11 16 66 Assistant manager 0 0 7 5 5 85 Grower foreman 0 4 5 7 7 77 Grower 0 52 50 9 0 0 Grower helper 59 52 9 0 0 0 Maintenance foreman 0 2 5 0 2 91 Maintenance worker 2 7 4 2 0 85 Maintenance helper 5 2 2 0 0 91 Wholesale foreman 0 0 4 2 2 92 Wholesale worker 2 2 2 2 0 92 Wholesale helper 4 0 0 0 0 96 Secretary—bookkeeper 7 4 5 4 0 80 Truck driver 0 5 4 2 0 89 Fifty-two percent of the grower helpers received 70 to 99 dollars per week and 50 percent of the growers received 100 to 76 129 dollars per week. Managers indicated that employees may earn more as a grower or by advancing to a managerial position. Union Membership The percentage of managers who said that their green- house workers were union members is recorded in Table XVII. Forty—three percent of the managers indicated that grower helpers belonged to a union: that 25 percent of the growers belonged; and that two to 14 percent of the workers in the other job titles as listed in the table belonged. Membership dues in the union was about five dollars per month. Table XVII. Percentage of Managers Who Indicated Union Membership was Required for Greenhouse Workers Position did Percentage not exist of Union or no Job Title Membership response Manager 4 96 Assistant Manager 7 95 Grower foreman 11 89 Grower 25 75 Grower helper 45 57 Maintenance foreman 2 98 Maintenance worker 14 86 Maintenance helper 4 96 Wholesale foreman 2 98 Wholesale worker 4 96 Wholesale helper 2 98 Secretary-bookkeeper 11 89 Truck driver 15 87 77 Fringe Benefits The percentage of managers who indicated that they pro— vided fringe benefits for their employees is recorded in Table XVIII. Seventy-five percent of the managers provided two weeks vacation for their workers, 25 percent provided three weeks, while 29 percent provided one week. Sixty-six percent of the managers gave employees the six major holidays off with pay. Fifty percent of the managers gave group health and accident insurance plans to their employees. Fourteen percent or less of the managers gave other benefits as listed in Table XVIII. Table XVIII. Percentage of Greenhouse Managers Who Indicated Fringe Benefits for Greenhouse Workers Percentage of Fringe Benefits Managers Paid major holidays 66 Half day Saturday paid 2 One week vacation 29 Two weeks vacation 75 Three weeks vacation 25 Pension plan after three years of service 5 Clothes laundered 4 Group health and accident insurance 50 Bonus (various plans) 14 Life insurance 15 All of the categories listed under the employment section of the interview form received responses by a majority of the greenhouse managers. 78 Summary of Employment Information Employment information for greenhouse workers was col- lected to determine job opportunities and working conditions for the greenhouse grower as well as for other greenhouse workers. There were 152 family and 1,180 part-time or full- time, non—family employees engaged under the various job titles. The number of new family and anticipated to be non- family employees during the next five years is 162 and 1,558 respectively. The annual employment opportunities for green— house workers within the industry sample was 218. The job title which offered the greatest opportunity for entry was the grower helper, and the job title which offered the most opportunity for advancement was the grower. Advancement from grower helper to manager was reported to be possible within the industry. The majority of managers expressed a desire for green- house work experience and at least a high school education for their growers. One-fourth of the managers indicated that the grower should have two years of post-high-school training. Forty-three and 59 percent of the managers indicated that it would be desirable for growers and grower helpers to have farm backgrounds respectively. The salary range for green- house employees varied from 40 to 160 dollars or more per week, with various kinds of fringe benefits for many. Forty percent or less of the employees in different job titles were reported to be members of a union. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Personal interviews were conducted with the managers of 58 out of 64 greenhouses which covered one acre or more in the Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit areas to determine employ- ment information and training desired for the greenhouse grower. Summary The data were analyzed by tabulating species of flower; ing plants grown in pots, as cut flowers, and in flats, train- ing of the greenhouse grower desired by greenhouse menegers, and employment information. These data were taken from the survey form and total numbers and/Or percentages computed. The first purpose of the study was to determine the Species of ornamental flowering plants produced in commercial greenhouses and to rank their importance according to the percentage of greenhouses growing each Species in order to provide a basis for development of instructional materials for the greenhouse grower. This was done when 59 major and minor crops were ranked in importance, based upon reports by 58 greenhouse managers. This included 56 produced in pots, 22 as cut flowers, and 28 raised in flats. Managers differentiated the plants mentioned, listing them as major or minor. Five of the plants classified as 79 80 major were grown in over half of the greenhouses and included geraniums, Chrysanthemums, poinsettias, lilies, and azaleas while one species grown as a minor crop was only grown in two percent of the greenhouses. The second purpose of the study was to determine the relative importance and degree of attainment of certain com- petencies in the greenhouse grower desired by the employer. Under the basic areas of plant knowledge the categories of (1) plant parts, (2) growth processes, and (5) plant names were considered essential by two-thirds of the managers. The second area of training, entitled competencies, in- cluded operational abilities such as greenhouse Skills needed by the greenhouse grower to perform the operations involved in his job. Fifty-four percent of the greenhouse managers indicated that the following competencies were essential for the greenhouse grower to possess: (1) watering, (2) con- trolling pests, (5) fertilizing, (4) mixing soils, (5) potting, (6) handling chemicals, (7) cleaning, (8) propagating, (9) sterilizing soil, (10) identifying growing containers, (11) applying growth substances, (12) operating boiler, (15) Operating equipment, and (14) testing soil. Three-fourths of the greenhouse managers stated that the following areas of training under crop understanding were essential: (1) temperature, (2) water requirements, (5) pinch“ ing, (4) disbudding, (5) cutting, (6) Special cultural practices, (7) humidity, (8) life cycle of plant, (9) grading and packaging, 81 and (10) photo period. Under the greenhouse management category of training 64 percent of the managers said that (1) knowledge of labor, (2) analysis of production, and (5) greenhouse layout were essential for the greenhouse grower to understand. Twenty- Seven percent of the greenhouse managers state that (1) under- standing insurance, (2) managing money, (5) buying, (4) sell- ing, and (5) marketing were essential for the greenhouse grower while 41 percent said that such training was useful. The last category of training investigated was the mechanical activities that growers perform. Twenty-three per- cent of the greenhouse managers said that Skills in (1) weld- ing, (2) wiring, (5) constructing, (4) woodworking, and (5) plumbing were essential, while 45 percent indicated that they were useful to known The third purpose was to determine the types and nature of employment information for greenhouse workers. Employment information for greenhouse workers was collected to determine job opportunities and working conditions for the grower, as well as for other greenhouse workers. There were 152 family and 1,180 non-family employees in the 58 greenhouses. The expected number of family and non-family employees during the next five years was 162 and 1,558 respectively. The average annual employment opportunities for greenhouse employees was 218. The job title which offered the greatest opportunity for entry was the grower helper, and the job title which 82 offered the greatest opportunity for advancement was the grower because these job titles had the largest number of employees. Advancement from grower helper to manager was reported to be possible within the industry. However, it would be easier if one were a family member because of the large number of family-owned businesses. The majority of managers desired greenhouse work experience and at least high school education for their growers. One-fourth of the managers indicated that the grower should have two years of post—high-school training. Forty—three percent of the managers indicated that it would be desirable for growers and grower helpers to have a farm background. Forty percent of the employees under dif- ferent job titles were members of a union. The salary for the greenhouse grower was in the bracket of 100 to 129 dollars, with various kinds of fringe benefits for many. Conclusions 1. Fifty-nine Species of ornamental flowering plants were grown in commercial greenhouses and should be considered in developing a program of instruction for the greenhouse grower. 2. Geraniums, Chrysanthemums, poinsettias, lilies, and azaleas were grown as a major crop in over half of the green— houses surveyed, and should be considered when planning in- struction for greenhouse growers. Amazon lilies, ivy, and primroses were grown only as a minor crop in two percent of 85 the greenhouses, and therefore, might logically receive less emphasis in a course of instruction for the greenhouse grower. 5. Greenhouse managers wanted the greenhouse grower to have the following competencies: (a) basic plant knowledge including plant parts, growth processes, and plant names; (b) operational abilities including watering, controlling pests, fertilizing, mixing soils, potting, transplanting, handling chemicals, cleaning, propagating, sterilizing soil, identify- ing growing containers, applying growth substances, operating boiler, operating equipment, and testing soil; (c) crop understanding including temperature, water requirements, pinching, disbudding, cutting, special cultural practices, humidity, life cycle of plant, grading and packaging, and photo period; (d) greenhouse management including knowledge of labor, analysis of production, and greenhouse layout. Therefore, the above competencies should be considered in planning a program of instruction for greenhouse growers. 4. Greenhouse managers desired but did not consider the following competencies essential for the greenhouse grower: (a) the areas of greenhouse management including understand- ing insurance, managing money, buying, selling, and marketing; (b) mechanical activities including welding, electrical, con- struction, woodwork, and plumbing. 5. There were five times as many opportunities to enter the greenhouse industry studied as a part-time grower helper than as a full—time grower helper. 84 6. The opportunities for advancement in the greenhouse industry from a part-time grower helper to a full-time grower was one opportunity for every five grower helpers. 7. Greenhouse managers desired at least a high school education and practical work experiences for their growers. 8. Most prOSpective greenhouse employees did not have to belong to a union. However, in some greenhouses employees are members of a union. 9. Prospective greenhouse growers Should plan to obtain at least a high school education. 10. Greenhouse growers should have adequate on-the-job training for practical experiences. Recommendations Since employment opportunities may be found in commer- cial greenhouses for trained workers, recommendations are offered for leaders in agriculture responsible for developing educational programs to prepare greenhouse employees: 1. Guidance personnel and educators having the responsi- bility for providing employment information to students and prospective employees should be informed of the opportunities for greenhouse employment and related information. 2. Schools in which prOSpective greenhouse growers are prepared should consider training in the following areas: fundamental information about plants, competencies (Opera- tional abilities) crop understanding, greenhouse management, 85 and greenhouse mechanics at the high school or post—high school level. 5. Greenhouse employees who want to advance to mana- gerial positions in the industry should obtain four years of college. 4. The following categories of training were reported to be essential for the greenhouse grower by managers. They are listed in order of their importance based on what green; house managers desire in their grower. Educators responsible for curriculum development may consider the following kinds Of training inta course of study for the greenhouse grower. I. Knowledge of Fundamental Information About Plants A. Basic plant parts B. Basic growth processes C. Identification of plants grown in greenhouses II. Competencies (operational abilities) A. Watering B. Identifying and controlling pests C. Fertilizing D. Preparing soil E. Potting F. Transplanting G. Handling chemicals H. Propagating I. Sterilizing soil J. Cleaning 86 III. Crop Understandings A. Temperature B. Water requirements C. Pinching D. Disbudding E. Cutting F. Special cultural practices G. Humidity H. Life cycle of plant I. Grading and packaging J. Photo period IV. Greenhouse Management A. Labor B. Greenhouse layout C. Analysis of production 5. The following categories of training were reported to be desirable for the greenhouse grower by managers. They are listed in order of their importance based on what green— house managers desire in their grower. These competencies might be considered in planning instruction for the green- house grower if time permits, but Should receive less emphasis than those areas reported to be essential by greenhouse. managers. I. Knowledge of Fundamental Information A. Anatomical parts II. Competencies (Operational abilities) A. Identification and use of growing containers 87 B. Use of growth substances C. Boiler operation D. Equipment operation and maintenance E. Soil testing III. Greenhouse Management A. Marketing B. Selling C. Buying D. Management of money (budgeting, financing) E. Insurance IV. Greenhouse Mechanics A. Plumbing B. Woodwork C. Construction (parts, types) D. Electrical E. Welding 6. Practical experience in actually growing order to learn all operations should be provided. be done in a school greenhouse or in a commercial 7. Greenhouse managers and educators Should plants in This may greenhouse. cooperate to provide placement of the students during and after train- ing. Related Studies Should be Made 1. Follow-up studies Should be made to keep up with changes in the kinds of training desired for the greenhouse grower. 88 2. Studies of other job titles within the production phase of floriculture as well as other divisions of the floriculture industry should be made. 5. Studies of employment information for divisions of floriculture other than production Should be carried out. 4. Number of employees who ‘work on each species of flowering ornamental plants should be determined. 5. The common competencies performed on each species of flowering ornamental plants grown in greenhouses should be determined. 6. The different competencies Specific to each species of flowering ornamental plants grown in greenhouses should be determined. 7. The amount of time each employee Spends on each Species of ornamental plants grown in greenhouses Should be determined. 8. Analysis of each operation performed on several major Species of flowering plants grown in the greenhouse should be determined. LITERATURE CITED Books Ball, Vic, George L. Ball, G. Carl Ball, Philip Jones and others, The Red Ball Book. Chicago: George Ball Company, 1960. Cook, Glen C. Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agriculture. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1947. Denison, Ervin L. Principles of Horticulture. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952. Gardner, Victor R. Basic Horticulture. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962. Hamlin, H. M. Public School Education in Agriculture. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1962. Krebs, Alfred H. Agriculture In Our Lives. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1964. Laurie, Alex, D. C. Kiplinger, and Kennard S. Nelson. Commercial Flower Forcing. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1958. Phipps, Lloyd J. Handbook on Agricultural Education in Public Schools. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate, 1965. Post, Kenneth. Florist Crpp Production and Marketing. New York: Orange Judd Publishing Company, 1959. Shoemaker, James Sheldon. General Horticulture. New York: A. B. Lippincott Company, 1956. Periodicals Agan, R. J. "Kansas Studies Agriculture Non-Farm Occupations,l Agricultural Education Magazine, Volume 57, Number 1 (July 1964), pp. 15-16. 89 90 Bailey, Joseph K. "Identifying Non-Farm Agriculture,“ Agricultural Education Magazine, Volume 58, Number 2 (August 1965), p. 57. Yetman, George. "What Employers in Ornamental Horticulture Want," Agricultural Education Magazine, Volume 57, Number 8 (March 1965), pp. 224—225. Publications of the Government, Learned Societies, and Other Organizations The Center for Research and Leadership Development in Voca- tional and Technical Education. Summary of Research Findings in Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1965. United States Bureau of Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture 1959. Volume 5, Part 1, Special Reports, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statis- tics 1965. Washington: United States Government Print- ing Office, 1965. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Administration of Vocational Education. Bulletin No. 1, General Series No. 1, Washington: Government Print- ing Office, 1958. United States Employment Service. Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Volume I - Definitions, Superintendent of Documents, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965. United States Senate. Selected Education Acts of 1965. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1965. Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. Vocational Education Bulletin 180, Including supplements Nos. 1, 2, 5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 14, 15, 16 which list studies through the 1961-62 academic year. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1965. 91 Repeats Bailey, Joseph K. -Non-Farm Agricultural Employment in West Virginia with Implications for Vocational Education. Report of a study; Charleston, West Virginia: Division of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, 1965. Barwick, Ralph P. Identification of Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations. Report of a study; Newark, Delaware: Department of Agricultural Education, School of Agri— culture, University of Delaware, 1965. Cushman, Harold R., Virgil E. Christensen, and Garry R. Bice. A Study of Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations in New York State. Report of a study; Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1965. Dillon, Roy D. Comparison of Certain Abilities Needed by Workers in Licensed Nurseries and Licensed Ornamental Horticulture Businesses. Report of a study; Morehead, Kentucky: Morehead State College, 1965. Donker, Luverne. Agricultural Technicians. Report of a study; Modesto, California: Agricultural Department, Modesto Junior College, 1965. Halterman, Jerry J. Technicians in Agriculture. Research project; Sacramento, California: California State Department. Norman K. Hoover, D. R. McClay, and G. Z. Stevens. Technical Education Needs of Persons Engaged in Agricultural Occupations. Report of a study; University Park, Pennsylvania: Department of Agricultural Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 1965. Judge, Homer V. Employment Opportunities and Needed Compe- tencies in Off-Farm Agricultural Occupations in Massa- chusetts. Research report; Boston, Massachusetts: Division of Vocational Education, Massachusetts Depart— ment of Education, 1965. Mondart, C. L., and C. M. Curtis. Occupational Opportunities and Training Needs for Non—Farm Agricultural Jobs in the Metropolitan Areas of Louisiana; Report of a study; Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Department of Vocational Edu— cation, Louisiana State University, 1965. 92 Thompson, 0. E. Training Regpirements of Workers in the Production and Distribution of Nursery Plants. Report of a study; Sacramento, California: California State Department of Education, 1959. Tom, Frederick K. T., Charles W. Hill, and Kingsley L. Greene. Employment Opportunities in Certain Occupations Related to Farming in the Syracuse Economic Area. Report of a study; Ithaca, New York: Agricultural Education Division, Rural Education Department, Cornell Univer- sity, 1961. Tukey, H. B. Sr. The Role of Horticulture in Science and Society. Proceedings XVIth, Volume II; Brussels, Belgium: The International Horticultural Congress, 1962. Unpublished Material Clark, Raymond M. "Need for Training for Non-Farm Agricul- tural Business.” Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1959. Clark, Raymond M. "The Nature of Non-Farm Agricultural Occu- pations." College of Education, Michigan State Univer~ sity, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962. Clark, Raymond M. "Vocational Competencies Needed by Workers in Non-Farm Agricultural Occupations." College of Edu- cation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1964. Department of Horticulture. "Department of Horticulture Information Leaflet." Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Department of Horticulture. ”Floriculture." Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Department of Horticulture. ”Horticulture Careers." Michi— gan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Department of Horticulture. "Landscape Horticulture." Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Griffin, Warren. "The Nature of Agricultural Occupations, Other than Farming, in Saline County, Missouri." Summary report of an Ed. D. dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 1964. 95 Haslick, Clifford G. "A Study of Student Involvement in Off- Farm Agricultural Experience and On-Farm Placement Programs in Michigan Department of Vocational Agricul- ture." Report for summer conference of Michigan Association of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture, Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Kennedy, William Henry. "A Clarification of Relationships Between Farming and Certain Other Agricultural Occupations with Implications for Guidance and Curriculum Develop- ment." Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1958. Langdon, Charles L. "Agricultural Job Titles." A pamphlet; Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Langdon, Charles L. "A Survey of Agricultural Occupations in Michigan." Report by The Michigan Agricultural Confer- ence and the Vocational Agriculture Service of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Phipps, Lloyd J. "Technical Education in and for Rural Areas." Agricultural Education Division, Vocational, and Tech- nical Education Department, College of Education, University of Illinois, 1964. AP PEND ICES 94 APPENDIX A Names and Addresses of Greenhouse Managers who Assisted in DeveIOping the Interview Form: Furnival's Flowers Weiland Brothers Greenhouse Gilbert Furnival, Manager George Weiland, Manager 1105 W. Ganson Street Aptakisic Road Jackson, Michigan Prairie View, Illinois Harrington's Greenhouse Woodland Flower Shop Al Harrington, Manager Fred Voorthuizen, Manager 7755 Bunkerhill Road 2521 Francis Street Jackson, Michigan Jackson, Michigan Holmberg Greenhouses Richard Holmberg, Manager 5521 Highland Avenue Berwyn, Illinois McFarland's Greenhouses Frank McFarland, Manager East Rockland Road Libertyville, Illinois Oechslin Greenhouses Gus Lamos, Manager 2000 Harlem Avenue Chicago, Illinois Smith Floral Company Bob 8005, Manager 1124 E. Mt. Hope Lansing, Michigan Van Bochove & Brothers Greenhouses Mr. Tourman, Manager 2501 Flower Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 95 96 APPENDIX C Greenhouse Managers who were Study of the Interview Form: Greenhouse Manager Number 1 Norton's Greenhouse Donald Norton, Manager 2900 Washtenaw Avenue Ypsilanti, Michigan Greenhouse Manager Number 2 Ben Sovey's Greenhouse Ben Sovey, Manager 950 North River Street Ypsilanti, Michigan Interviewed for the Reliability 97 98 99 APPENDIX F MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing College of Agriculture - Department of Horticulture November 26, 1965 Mr. Warren Parsons Vocational Agricultural Department Jackson High School Jackson, Michigan Dear Warren: Enclosed is a COpy of a letter I have sent to Mr. Juchartz in Detroit and Mr. Buscher in Cleve- land in regard to your Ph.D. project. By the way, I also received a carbon COpy of the letter that Mr. Fizzell sent you from the Chicago area. Between the three of these men this ought to give you a good list of growers to contact. Sincerely, Richard S. Lindstrom Associate Professor in Horticulture RSdelS Enc. 100 101 APPENDIX F - Continued MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing College of Agriculture — Department of Horticulture November 21, 1965 Mr. Don: I have a friend who is working on a Ph.D. in the College of Education. He is doing this under the off—campus research plan. His job is a Vocational Agricultural instructor at one of the high schools in the State of Michigan. He has be— come interested in the floricultural field and has injected floricultural courses into his curriculum at this high school. The proposed title of his thesis is "A Job Analysis of Greene house Workers in the Floricultural Industry". In order to be able to study the problem he would like to visit greenhouse growers in three areas. I have suggested that he contact greenhouse men in the Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit area. In order to accomplish the task without an undue burden on him, we are restricting his interviews to managers and owners of greenhouses of more than one acre. Secondly, you will agree with me, that not all growers or managers would be interested in cooperating with him. What I would like from you is a list of greenhouse growers or owners in your area of over one acre who this gentleman might interview. AS I have just mentioned, we would be interested in those individuals who would cooperate with a man who is in this position. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Richard S. Lindstrom Assoc. Prof. of Horticulture Here is a copy of the letter I sent out - 102 APPENDIX F - Continued 6155 Edgewood Drive Jackson, Michigan January 21, 1964 Dear Mr. Fizzell, I would like to thank you for the list of names of greenhouses in your area. I visited four during the Thanksgiving holiday and learned much to help complete the development of my survey instrument. Presently I am revis— ing and refining my survey instrument. When I complete it and find time, I would like to return to your area and com- plete my survey. When I visited Chicago the Friday after Thanksgiving, I called your office and home from outside Arlington Heights, but you must have been away. During my next trip I hope that I may be able to see you. Thanks again for your help. Sincerely yours, Warren Parsons APPENDIX F - Continued Names and Addresses of Greenhouse Managers in the Chicago Area: Amling Flowerland Roy Amling, Manager 8900 W. North Avenue Maywood, Illinois Balmes Greenhouses Wilfred Balmes, Manager 1720 Greenbay Road Waukegan, Illinois Berlin Greenhouses George Stuenkel, Manager Elmhurst, Illinois Bezdek & Sbns Greenhouses Joseph Bezdek, Manager 2246 Wilmette Avenue Wilmette, Illinois Biernacki Greenhouses Raymond Biernacki, Manager R.R. #1, Box 155 Blue Island, Illinois Breiter Greenhouses Bernard Breiter, Manager 780 Church Road Bensenville, Illinois Breiter Greenhouses Herman Breiter, Manager 141 Church Road Bensenville, Illinois Christensen Greenhouses Victor Christensen, Manager 540 North Northwest Chicago, Illinois Dahms Greenhouses Mr. Dahms, Manager 800 Oakton Des Plaines, Illinois Dramm Greenhouses E. Gramm, Manager S. York Street Elmhurst, Illinois Flowerwood, Inc. Fred McCannon, Manager Rts. 14 & 176 Crystal Lake, Illinois Garfield Park Greenhouses John Lundgren, Chief Horticulturist Chicago, Illinois Green Mill Gardens Don Dobby, Manager W. Lake Street Addison, Illinois Haigard Brothers Greenhouses M. Saggan, Manager 2754 W. 111th Street Chicago, Illinois Haussermann Orchids Edwin Haussermann, Manager Box 656 Elmhurst, Illinois Heinz Greenhouses Steve Heinz, Manager 464 N. Northwest Highway Park Ridge, Illinois Kellen Greenhouses Jacob Kellen, Manager 618 E. Golf Mt. Prospect, Illinois Kellen Greenhouses Fred Kellen, Manager 618 Greenleaf Mt. PrOSpect, Illinois 104 APPENDIX F - Continued Kinsch Greenhouses Val Kinsch, Manager 501 W. Johnson Palatine, Illinois Klippert & Sons Greenhouses Al Klippert, Manager Oakton St. Des Plaines, Illinois Leider Greenhouses Richard Leider Dempster Street Arlington Heights, Illinois Leider & Sons Greenhouses M. Leider, Manager 1516 Oakton Evanston, Illinois Leider Brothers Greenhouses J. Leider, Manager 509 E. Green Street Bensenville, Illinois McFarland Greenhouses Frank McFarland East Rockland Road Libertyville, Illinois Nelson & Holmberg Greenhouses R. E. Holmberg, Manager 5521 Highland Avenue Berwyn, Illinois Oechslin Greenhouses Ernest Oechslin, Manager 2000 Harlem Street Chicago, Illinois Oechslin Greenhouses H. W. Oechslin, Manager 7976 Madison River Forest, Illinois Pesches Flowers Frank Pesches, Manager 170 N. River Road Des Plaines, Illinois Schau & Sons Greenhouses Herman Schau, Manager 10817 South Hale Chicago 45, Illinois Scheiden & Sons Greenhouses Alvin Scheiden, Manager 1855 Mt. Prospect Road Des Plaines, Illinois Scheffler Greenhouses Bert Scheffler, Manager 24W750 Geneva Road Wheaton, Illinois Schneider Greenhouses Henry Schneider, Manager 751 South Harrison Chicago, Illinois Schroeder Greenhouses Nick Schroeder, Manager 6962 N. Hameton Street Chicago, Illinois Weiland Brothers Greenhouses George Weiland, Manager Aptakisic Road Prairie View, Illinois APPENDIX F - Continued Names and Addresses of Greenhouse Managers in Detroit Area: Belle Isle Greenhouses Frank Blanchard, Manager Belle Isle, Detroit, Michigan Bordine Greenhouses Darrell Bordine, Manager 1855 So. Rochester Road Rochester, Michigan Boucard & Sons Greenhouse Al Boucard, Manager 17500 Southfield Road Detroit, Michigan Coydendall Greenhouses Bill Coykendall, Manager 17155 Martinsville Road Belleville, Michigan Dinser's Flowers Jim Dinser, Mana er Greenfield at 1 Mile Road Oak Park, Michigan Fischer Greenhouses Harold Fischer, Manager 40875 Plymouth Road Plymouth, Michigan Floral Ave. Greenhouses Co. Joe Vermeulen, Manager 154 Floral Ave. Mt. Clemens, Michigan Mt. Clemens Rose Gardens Fred Weiss, Manager Mt. Clemens, Michigan Nielsen's Greenhouses Inc. Bent Nielsen 1021 Maiden Lane Ann Arbor, Michigan Pearce Floral Co. Charles Coppersmith, Manager 559 Orchard Lake Avenue Pontiac, Michigan Post Gardens Greenhouses Inc. Spencer Smith, Manager 21189 Huron River Drive Rockwood, Michigan Weber Brothers Greenhouses Ted Weber, Manager 10105 W. 10 Mile Road Oak Park, Michigan 106 APPENDIX F - Continued Names and Addresses of Greenhouse Managers in the Cleveland Area: Barco Greenhouses Schneider & Son Greenhouses Art Barco, Manager Ray Andree, Manager 20745 Detroit Road 1945 Northview Road Rocky River, Ohio Rocky River 16, Ohio Diederich & Sons Greenhouses Volkert & Son Greenhouses Mr. Diederich, Manager Jim Volkert, Manager Avoni, Ohio South Riverview Road Brecksville, Ohio Hall Gardens Burton Hall, Manager Yoder Brothers Greenhouses 7288 McKenzie Road Jake Miller, Manager Olmsted Falls 58, Ohio Barberton, Ohio Hyde Greenhouses Bill Hyde, Manager ‘Avoni, Ohio Kaiser Greenhouses Eugene Kaiser, Manager 2157 Northview Road Rocky River 16, Ohio Laisy Greenhouses Fred Laisy, Manager 25746 Butternut Ridge Road Rocky River 16, Ohio Laubinger Greenhouses Kurt Laubinger, Manager Cleveland, Ohio Perkins Greenhouses Robert Perkins, Manager 28599 Center Ridge Road Westlake, Ohio Neill Greenhouses Mr. Neill, Manager 2045 Center Ridge Road Cleveland 24, Ohio APPENDIX G 6155 Edgewood Drive Jackson, Michigan July 9, 1954 Dear Sir, I am conducting a survey to determine employment infor- mation and training desired for the greenhouse grower. Dr. Richard Lindstrom, of the Michigan State University Floriculture Department and who is on the faculty advisory committee for this project, suggested that I contact you in order to answer some questions for the study. I will be in Cleveland July 15th-16th. When I arrive, I will call you to set a time when it might be convenient to see you. Yours truly, Warren Parsons 107 108 APPENDIX G - Continued 6155 Edgewood Drive Jackson, Michigan January 16, 1964 Dear Mr. Lamos, Thank you very much for your COOperation and partici- pation in my survey entitled "Competencies Needed for the Greenhouse Grower." I learned many things from my interview with you which will be helpful for the study and also for my teach— ing of floriculture. I will send you a copy of my findings at the conclusion of the study. Thanks again. Yours sincerely, Warren Parsons APPENDIX H TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED IN GREENHOUSES THAT PRODUCED MAJOR AND MINOR PLANTS IN POTS Number of Employees Name of Plant Pots Major Minor Total Geraniums 1190 195 1585 Chrysanthemums 1255 ‘ 40 1270 Lilies 999 106 1105 Poinsettias 628 64 692 Azaleas 450 176 626 Gloxinias 180 565 545 Roses 599 74 475 Begonias (tuberous) 52 589 421 Rhododendrons 197 204 401 Kalanchoes 165 255 400 Begonias (root) 197 184 581 Hyacinths 178 195 571 Caladiums 165 202 567 Lantanas 165 195 560 Cyclamens 218 156 554 Hydrangeas 159 205 544 Daffodils 224 95 517 Coleus 194 108 502 Tulips 178 115 295 Impatiens 59 251 270 Orchids 257 24 261 Ageratums 185 75 256 Gardenias 0 251 251 Dahlias 51 214 245 Delphiniums 28 202 250 Vincas 21 205 224 Petunias 185 54 217 Foliage plants 115 99 214 Daisies 28 185 211 Palms 165 57 202 Cacti 165 56 201 Amaryllis 165 52 197 Balsams 0 197 197 Asters 0 197 197 Stock 0 197 197 Marigolds 185 0 185 Carnations 0 165 165 Pansies 165 0 165 Callas 165 0 165 Larkspurs 0 165 165 Continued 109 110 APPENDIX H - Continued Number of Employees Name of Plant Pots Major Minor Total Phlox 0 165 165 Snapdragons 0 165 165 Verbenas 0 165 165 Zinnias 0 165 165 Cosmos 0 165 165 Stephanotis 0 75 75 Pachysandras 0 56 56 African violets 0 45 45 Primroses 0 59 59 Crocuses 0 59 59 Amazon lilies 0 55 55 Salvias 0 29 29 Alyssums 0 29 29 Vegetables 0 28 28 Ivy 0 17 17 Sweet peas 0 16 16 APPENDIX I NUMBER OF GREENHOUSES THAT PRODUCED MAJOR AND MINOR POTTED PLANTS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Name of Plant Number of Employees 1-10 11-20 21-50 51-40 41-50 165 600 Geraniums Chrysanthemums Poinsettias Lilies Azaleas Roses Tulips Hyacinths Foliage plants Hydrangeas Orchids Cyclamens Daffodils Coleus Ageratum Begonias (root) Carnations Gloxinas Impatiens Marigolds Petunias Rhododendron Vinca Palms Vegetables Pansies Kalanchoe Lantana Delphiniums Daisies Dahlias Crocus Caladiums Callas Cacti Begonias (tuberous) Amaryllis 15 OEOUOfixl OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO Oi-‘OOON NNN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOF—‘i—‘i—‘OO i—‘i—‘ONNP teem 01010va i—‘U'IOUCDUI NNN 90490104 HCDF>O PAF>H OOOOOi—‘i—‘OOOOOOOO i—‘OOOOOi—‘O Oi—‘W—‘HNi—e Oi—“OOCDOOi—J‘POOCDl-ACDi-> Oi—‘l—‘i—‘OOOH OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOHP OOH Hi—‘l—‘i—‘O HOHHHOOOOHHHOHO HHHOHOHH HOHHOH OOH HHHHH OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOF—‘OO 000000 000 OOOHH 111 APPENDIX J TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED IN GREENHOUSES THAT PRODUCED CUT FLOWERS AS A MAJOR AND MINOR CROP Number of Employees Name of Plant Major Minor Total Chrysanthemums 974 79 1055 Carnations 882 10 892 Snapdragons 61 140 201 Roses 105 4 109 Iris 6 74 80 Callas 0 50 50 Stocks 28 12 40 Amazon lilies 0 55 55 Sweet peas 0 52 52 Gladioli 11 16 27 Orchids 0 22 22 Daffodils 6 15 21 Stephanotis 0 18 18 Delphiniums 0 16 16 Alstroemarias 12 0 12 Lilies 0 4 4 Tulips 0 4 4 Marigolds 0 4 4 Petunias 0 4 4 Pansies 0 4 4 Asters 0 4 4 Dahlias 0 4 4 112 APPENDIX K TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED IN GREENHOUSES THAT PRODUCED PLANTS IN FLATS AS A MAJOR AND MINOR CROP Number of Employees Name of Plant Major Minor Total Alyssums 155 245 598 Petunias 251 155 586 Salvias 172 186 558 Portulacas 155 195 528 Verbenas 155 195 528 Zinnias 155 195 528 Impatiens 174 152 526 Ageratums 155 187 520 Marigolds 155 186 519 Coleus 155 181 514 Pansies 155 178 511 Asters 155 178 511 Phlox 155 178 511 Balsams 155 168 501 Snapdragons 155 154 287 Dahlias 155 149 282 Daisies 155 150 265 Cosmos 155 126 259 Larkspurs 155 107 240 Delphiniums 155 160 195 Vegetables 0 167 167 Begonias (root) 0 21 21 Daffodils 0 8 8 Tulips 0 8 8 Hyacinths 0 8 8 Gloxinias 0 4 4 Lantanas 0 4 4 Pachysandras 0 4 4 115