No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 3S1 



Is the tendency toward low-grade or high-grade fertilizers? This 

 question was answered in forty-two counties for high and in twelve 

 counties in favor of low grade, while two counties reported a sta 

 tionary condition. 



Do you think that the average farmer knows what he is buying 

 when he puts his money in fertilizers? To this question forty-two 

 counties answered ''no/' while five counties answered "yes," and 

 the balance left the question answered. 



Are you in favor of more stringent laws to protect the farmer in 

 the purchase of fertilizers? The answer to this was almost unani- 

 mously "yes." The two answers of "no" were qualified by the state- 

 ment, in one case, that there were too many laws already and only 

 their enforcement was needed; in the other, that the only law needed 

 was one making it compulsory on the farmer to study the fertilizer 

 question. 



From the answers received your Committee draws the following 

 conclusions: 



That by reason of the great amount of money expended for fertil- 

 izers in the State, it is the duty, and should be the constant en- 

 deavor of the Department of Agriculture to advocate and work for 

 the passage of laws which will make the intelligent purchase of 

 fertilizers possible to any farmer in our State. We fully recognize 

 the fact that no law or laws will be of use or help to that unfor- 

 tunately too large class of farmers who simply take the word of the 

 agent from whom they buy and pay their money, or promise 

 to pay it, without looking at the analysis of the bag they buy. 

 While this analysis reveals only the commercial value, and not the 

 plant food value of the contents of the bag, it is at present the only 

 guide the law provides for. 



Your Committee would suggest to the Department that the laws 

 and requirements of the State of West Virginia, where affidavits 

 are required to be filed by the manufacturers as to the source and 

 degree of solubility of ingredients, and where all agents or dealers 

 are required under penalty to send copies of their orders for fertil- 

 izers to the Director of the Experimental Station, are worthy of 

 study. The Experiment Station there issues to the manufacturers 

 tags on which is printed the analysis, etc., as contained in the affi- 

 davit filed, and when goods do not come up to the sworn statement, 

 the manufacturer may be prosecuted for perjury. The Experiment 

 Station charges forty cents per ton of fertilizer for the tags. 



The law of Kentucky might also prove an interesting study, and 

 your Committee particularly points to that part of the fertilizer 

 'aw of Indiana which provides for printing of tags by the State 

 -Chemist, which tags are required to show only the minimum con- 

 cents of fertility, thus doing away with the foolish, misleading fig- 

 ures allowed by our Pennsylvania law. 



The practice at the Virginia station of publishing the solubility 

 and probable plantfood value of all known ingredients of fertilizers 

 is one the Committee would recommend for adoption by the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture of Pennsylvania. Such statement could easily 

 be included in our present fertilizer bulletin. 



We would also recommend that the analyses in Pennsylvania be 

 made to conform to those of New Jersey, by requiring the State 

 Chemist to reduce the temperature of the Citrate of Ammonia used 



