TL;DR
Get pool and patio gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Greenhouse Grower published an opinion piece by John Terhesh urging growers to evaluate automation investments against actual business-wide changes, not just faster work at one station. He says labor savings and added production may not improve profits if workers are reassigned or extra plants cannot be sold.
Greenhouse Grower published a report by horticulture consultant John Terhesh advising growers to assess how automation would affect the whole business before committing capital. He argues that faster production does not by itself create profit if labor costs remain unchanged or the business cannot sell the additional output.
Terhesh describes a hypothetical purchase of an $80,000 machine justified as a way to remove two employees from a production line. If those workers are simply reassigned to other nursery tasks, the business retains the same payroll while adding the equipment cost, he writes. In that case, the labor savings used to support the investment have not been realized unless the employees replace other costs or help generate profitable sales.
He also cautions against treating extra production as revenue. A machine that could add 100,000 plants a year might appear to create $2 million in potential revenue at $20 per plant, but that figure depends on whether buyers exist. If the operation already produces as much as it can sell, extra output could instead add inventory, carrying costs and waste.
Equipment utilization is another factor in his analysis. Terhesh asks growers to weigh the purchase of a faster planting machine if it would be used for only 30 to 60 days annually. He suggests reviewing scheduling, process design and unnecessary handling as alternatives that may improve returns without buying equipment.
Profit Depends on More Than Speed
The advice addresses a practical risk for growers facing rising labor costs and economic uncertainty in some markets: an investment can improve a task’s speed without improving the operation’s financial results. A payback calculation based only on one workstation may miss costs elsewhere, including unchanged payroll, equipment expenses, extra inventory and potential scrap.
Terhesh’s argument is not that automation has no value. He says it can improve quality, safety and consistency, benefits that may matter even when they are not captured by labor savings alone. The business case, in his view, should identify those intended gains and test whether they justify the cost.
Products Worth Considering
Arlo Essential Outdoor Pan-Tilt-Zoom Security Camera, 2K, Wired, 2-Camera System
eufy Security Essential Alarm System, 7-Piece
Roborock Qrevo S Pro Robot Vacuum and Mop
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Company-Wide Return Calculation
The source is an advisory report rather than a new equipment study or announcement. Terhesh is identified as the founder of DPC Horticulture, which works with nurseries, garden centers and greenhouses on operations and management systems. He also describes himself as a former grower with experience at several nursery operations.
Terhesh says he supports automation and reports that he has saved millions through automation investments. Those statements reflect his own experience and are not accompanied in the supplied material by independent financial data or case studies. His central recommendation is to calculate what changes across the business after installation, rather than assume that faster work automatically translates into savings or sales.
“Just because a machine makes a process faster doesn’t mean it’s making you more money.”
— John Terhesh, founder of DPC Horticulture, in Greenhouse Grower
The Figures Are Illustrative
The examples of the $80,000 machine, two employees and 100,000 additional plants are presented as scenarios, not as documented purchases or measured outcomes at a named greenhouse. The report does not provide a particular company’s financial records, payback period or independent comparison of equipment options.
It is also not clear from the supplied material how growers should quantify benefits such as improved safety, product quality or consistency, or how the cited examples would apply to operations with different labor arrangements, demand and seasonal schedules. Those assessments would depend on each business’s costs and sales outlook.
Test the Business Case Before Buying
Terhesh’s proposed next step is a company-wide review before capital is spent: identify which costs will actually fall, whether reassigned labor will generate value elsewhere, and whether additional capacity can be sold. Growers can also compare an equipment purchase with changes to scheduling, process steps or material handling.
The source does not announce a new policy, product or follow-up study. The decision for any operation remains specific to its own expected use, costs and market demand; the report offers a framework for evaluating that decision rather than a universal return estimate.
Key Questions
What is the main warning in the report?
Faster work does not automatically mean higher profit. Terhesh says growers should measure the effect on costs and sales across the business, not just the task handled by the machine.
Why might automating a task fail to reduce labor costs?
If workers moved off the automated task are reassigned elsewhere, the business may keep the same payroll while also taking on equipment costs. Savings depend on whether labor expense is actually reduced or the workers create additional profitable value.
Does added production capacity guarantee more revenue?
No. The report says extra capacity creates potential revenue only if the grower can sell the additional plants. Unsold output may increase inventory, carrying costs and scrap instead.
What alternatives does Terhesh mention?
He points to reviewing processes, schedules and unnecessary handling as possible ways to improve operations before buying more equipment.
Does the report argue against automation?
No. Terhesh says he supports automation and has made investments in it. He also recognizes possible gains in quality, safety and consistency; his advice is to define and assess the expected return before spending.
Source: greenhousegrower.com
