288 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



For convenience of reference a somewhat abridged summary of 

 the averages in the previous tables has been arranged, which fol- 

 lows. In tiie last column can be seen the relation of the excess of 

 selling price to the money valuation. In order to see clearly the sig- 

 nificance of the figures of tiiis column it should be remembered that 

 the Station valuation is the sum of money for which the ingredients 

 of a ton of fertilizer can be bought at retail in our large markets for 

 cash, in a condition ready for use, when sold singly and not mixed. 

 The selling price is the sum of monej' which a farmer pays for the 

 ingredients of a ton of fertilizer, mixed and delivered at his door, 

 or in his immediate vicinity. 



The difference between the Station valuation and the selling price 

 is really the sum of money which it costs the farmer to have the in- 

 gredients of a ton of fertilizer mixed, transported and sold. The 

 last column of figures shows what percentage this difference is of the 

 money valuation, or the relative cost of mixing, transporting and 

 selling the same amount of plant food in each fertilizer. As a rule, 

 the quantity of fertilizing ingredients which costs $1.00 in our large 

 markets is sold to Maine farmers at from 20 to 35 cents advance. 

 In four cases the increase in cost is over 60 cents on the dollar, 

 and in one instance is 111 cents. 



It may be true that every brand of commercial fertilizers repre- 

 sented in these analvses is offered to Maine farmers at the lowest 

 price consistent with fair profits. Whether this be so or not, the 

 fact is very evident that the prices of a few brands are out of pro- 

 portion to the cost of a larger part of the fertilizers in our markets, 

 and it is not to be expected that such goods can successfully com- 

 pete with those offered at prices much lower in proportion to their 

 real value. It is claimed by some interested parties that chemical 

 anal3'sis is incompetent to determine even the relative values of fer- 

 tilizers, and that, this being true, the analyses and money valuations 

 of experiment stations are not a reliable guide for the farmer. The 

 insincerit3' of this argument is shown by the fact that dealers in the 

 materials used in the manufacture of commercial fertilizers bu}' and 

 sell wholly on what the}" learn of the goods from chemical analj'sis. 

 That which has value to the dealer and the manufacturer is that 

 which has value to the farmer, and it is absurd to suppose that chem- 

 ical methods are reliable in the one case and not in the other. 



