Turning Square Footage Into Cubic Footage with Claybourne Company
Now Is The Time to Go Vertical
Vertical Farming has paved its way into the cannabis industry rapidly and is continuing to excel every day. Combined U.S. medical and recreational cannabis sales could reach $33 billion by the end of 2022 and reach 38.8 billion by the end of 2023, according to MJBiz FactBook. The time for multi-story grow operations is in more demand than ever to keep up with the increasing cannabis sales. California, in particular, has been in the legal cannabis market for medical patients since 1996, and in 2016 recreational use became legal. As of November 16, 2022, total cannabis tax revenue from third-quarter returns is $242 million.
Claybourne Company is one of the top California cannabis brands in Perris, California. They produce top-tier cannabis with special attention given to each step of the production process while using their proprietary techniques to maximize each harvest’s potential maintaining quality and consistency.
The move to vertical farming took time and effort. Claybourne Co.’s decision to convert to vertical farming came from many different angles, including the overall cost, future environmental impact, quality of service, and turning square footage into cubic square footage to have a greater return on investment.
When the grow operation decided to convert into a multi-story build, the Pipp team helped plan everything exactly how the Claybourne Company requested. We helped work on a custom design to accommodate Claybourne Company’s required fire protection designs.
The grow facility can now hold up to 1,944 plants and increased the grow facility to 40,800 sq. ft. of the total canopy with an average of 63% of room utilization by implementing Pipp Horticulture Mobile Vertical Grow Racks.
When asked about a greater return on investment, Brent points out, “The less floor space you take up and the square footage of canopy you have, the greater the return on investment.” When your grow has multiple tiers growing simultaneously, the cost of production is much lower, “and in agriculture, a lot of what we do is based on the cost of production.”