686 Report on Inspection Work of the 



of excess of some constituents against deficiency in another within 

 certain limits appears on the whole, to be working well in practice, 

 when all conditions are considered, (c) A third serious defect of the 

 former fertilizer law consisted in the uneven allowance made for de- 

 ficiency exemption in the different constituents when the relative 

 monetary value is considered. Thus, in allowing a deficiency of 0.33 

 per ct. of nitrogen, a much greater monetary value was exempted 

 than in case of 0.5 per ct. of phosphoric acid or potash. At present 

 prices, one pound of nitrogen is worth about four times as much as a 

 pound of phosphoric acid or potash. Therefore, in order to have the 

 exempted deficiencies of the different constituents made uniform on 

 the basis of monetary value, it would be necessary either to increase 

 the amount of phosphoric acid and potash if the amount of exempt 

 nitrogen were kept at 0.33, or else to decrease the amount of nitrogen 

 if the amount of exempt phosphoric acid and potash were kept at 0.5. 

 Thus, on the basis of monetary value, 0.33 per ct. of nitrogen equals 

 about 1.30 per ct. of phosphoric acid or potash; or the amount of 

 nitrogen equal to 0.5 per ct. of phosphoric acid or potash would be 

 0.125 per ct. It is thus seen that under the former law, the amount 

 of exempt nitrogen deficiency was too high in relation to phosphoric 

 acid or potash, or, expressed in another way, that the amount of 

 exempt deficiency of phosphoric acid or potash was too low in relation 

 to nitrogen. 



(5) When the present fertilizer Ivv was amended, the wisdom of 

 some of the new provisions, from the farmers' standpoint, was ques- 

 tioned at the time by those longest familiar with conditions. The 

 present law has now had an impartial trial, and the analysis of the 

 results furnished under its working, as presented in the preceding 

 pages, shows that actual cases of injustice to farmers purchasing 

 fertilizers not only do occur but there is offered opportunity for much 

 more extensive injustice with complete immunity to those who may 

 gain advantage by such injustice. To be more specific, the present 

 law is open to one serious practical objection: It permits, in the way 

 of a deficiency, an absolute exemption of 10 per ct. of the amount of 

 guaranty in any one constituent without further limitation, especially 

 without reference to the actual amount and value of the deficiency 

 thus exempted. As has already been pointed out, this may work 

 serious loss and injustice to purchasers in the case of fertilizers and 

 materials containing large amounts of any of the plant-food con- 



