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
In a Greenhouse Grower report, horticulture consultant John Terhesh argues that growers should calculate automation returns across the business, not just at the workstation where a machine is installed. He warns that redirected workers, unsold extra production and limited equipment use can undermine projected savings, while noting automation may also improve quality, safety and consistency.
Greenhouse Grower contributor John Terhesh is urging nursery and greenhouse operators to assess whether automation will change their overall costs or sales before spending on equipment. In his report, he says a machine can speed up a task without producing the labor savings or additional profit used to justify its purchase.
Terhesh describes a hypothetical $80,000 machine expected to replace two production-line workers. If the workers are reassigned to other jobs rather than removed from payroll or used to generate profitable sales, the business retains the same payroll and takes on the equipment cost. The apparent staffing savings on a return-on-investment calculation would not, in that case, become a realized reduction in labor costs.
He makes a similar distinction between production capacity and revenue. A machine that can produce 100,000 additional plants a year could represent $2 million in potential revenue at $20 per plant, but only if buyers exist. If a grower is already producing as much as it can sell, extra output could instead add inventory, carrying costs and waste. Terhesh’s point is that producing more is not the same as selling more.
Equipment use also matters, he writes. A machine used for only 30 to 60 days a year may not justify its purchase solely because it makes planting faster. Terhesh suggests that changes to scheduling, workflow or unnecessary handling can sometimes offer a better return. He also notes that automation can bring benefits beyond direct labor savings, including quality, safety and consistency.
How Automation Can Miss Its Target
The report highlights a gap between a machine’s technical capability and the financial result a business actually achieves. A faster process can free up time or increase output, but those changes matter financially only if they reduce costs, support profitable sales or deliver other valued benefits. Projected savings depend on what changes after installation, not just on what a machine can do.
For growers deciding how to use limited capital, that distinction can affect both the investment decision and its measurement. Counting workers reassigned as workers eliminated, or treating potential production as guaranteed revenue, can make an investment appear more attractive than its realized results. Terhesh’s argument is not that automation should be avoided: he says he has saved millions through automation investments. Rather, he urges operators to consider the full business impact, including costs and benefits beyond one workstation.
Products Worth Considering
Arlo Pro Wireless Security Camera, 2K HDR, 6th Generation, 4-Camera Kit
Bose Lifestyle Ultra Wireless Home Speaker
Dyson Cyclone V10 Origin Cordless Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Business Case Behind Equipment
Terhesh is identified by Greenhouse Grower as the founder of DPC Horticulture, which advises nurseries, garden centers and greenhouses on operations and management systems. The report draws on his experience as a former grower at several nursery operations. It is presented as his operational perspective, not as a sector-wide study or an account of a named equipment purchase.
He frames the advice against rising labor costs and signs of economic slowing in some markets, which he says are prompting growers to seek efficiency improvements. His examples are hypothetical illustrations of how projected returns can fail to materialize. The supplied report does not provide a specific company case, financial dataset or independent evaluation of automation investments.
“Just because a machine makes a process faster doesn’t mean it’s making you more money.”
— John Terhesh, Greenhouse Grower contributor and founder of DPC Horticulture
Returns Depend on Local Conditions
The report does not establish how common the described investment problems are, or quantify typical returns from automation across the horticulture industry. Its examples—including the $80,000 purchase and the potential value of extra plants—are scenarios, not reported outcomes from an identified business. Actual results would depend on a grower’s payroll decisions, customer demand, equipment costs, usage and operating needs.
Terhesh does not provide a formula, payback period or detailed checklist for calculating returns. The source also does not identify a particular technology or announce a new policy, study or industry-wide change. Its recommendations are his analysis and experience-based advice; the expected benefits of any specific investment remain unverified in the supplied material.
Measure Results Before Scaling
The report does not announce a follow-up study or a scheduled industry action. For growers considering equipment, Terhesh’s advice points to examining the assumptions behind a proposal before purchase: whether labor costs will actually fall, whether added output can be sold, how often the equipment will be used, and whether process changes could achieve the same goal at lower cost. Operators can then compare those expectations with costs and outcomes across the business after installation.
Whether a machine is worthwhile will depend on the operation and the goals being measured. A business may also weigh improvements in safety, quality and consistency alongside direct financial returns, as Terhesh says those benefits have value. The report leaves the decision with growers and offers no universal threshold for a sound investment; the next step is a case-by-case assessment, rather than assuming faster production automatically means higher profit.
Key Questions
What is the main warning in John Terhesh’s report?
Terhesh says growers should not assume that faster work or greater production automatically improves profit. They should assess what changes across the business, including actual labor costs and sales.
Why might an automation investment fail to reduce labor costs?
If workers freed from a task are moved to other jobs and remain on payroll, the business may not realize the labor savings used to justify the machine. Whether reassignment creates value depends on the work performed and its contribution to the operation.
Does extra production capacity guarantee more revenue?
No. Terhesh’s example says extra plants generate revenue only if they can be sold. If demand does not support added output, a grower may instead face more inventory, carrying costs or scrap.
What alternatives to buying a machine does the report mention?
Terhesh says growers could examine scheduling, workflow and unnecessary handling. He presents process improvements as options that may sometimes produce a better return than buying equipment.
Does Terhesh argue against automation?
No. He says he believes in automation and has saved millions through investments. His recommendation is to evaluate the business-wide return and account for benefits such as quality, safety and consistency.
Source: greenhousegrower.com
