374 Journal of the Department of Agriculture. 



The calculation in the case of this first fertilizer is as follows : — 



Value of nitrogen: 3 per cent., at 20s £o U 



Value of citric-soluble phosphoric oxide: 10 per cent., 



at 8s. 6d ... 4 o 



Value of insolul)le phosphoric oxide : 5 per cent., at 4s. ^)d. 1 1 'i 



Value of potash : o pei- cent., at 7s 1 1 



Coiit of handling', mixing, rebag-ging", etc i2 



Estimated commercial value jxt tdii i'!J ]!) !) 



The estimated value of iliis fertilizer is 100 pe]' cent, x 

 p|^ — ', or 100 per cent, of the price asked for it; that is, the 



seller's price is the same as the estimated market value. 



The second firm quotes at £12. 15s. per ton, with a guarantee of 

 10 per cent, citric-soluble phosphoric oxide, 10 per cent, total phos- 

 phoric oxide, 2.5 per cent, nitrogen, and 2.3 ])er (ent. potash. 



In this case we have : — 



Value o^f nitrogen : 2.5 per cent., at 20s ... £2 10 



Value of citric-soluble phosphoric oxide: 10 i)er cent., 



at 8s. 6d 4 5 



Value of insoluble phosphoric oxide : 6 per cent., at 4s. 3d. 15 6 



Value of potash: 2.3 per cent., at 7s 16 



Cost of handling, mixing, rebagging, etc 12 6 



Estimated commercial value i'O 9 



The estimated value of this leitilizer is 100 per cent, x 



£9. 9s. 



n-in ic 1 or only 74 iier cent, of the i)rice iisked for it: that is, the 

 ±12. 15s. • ^ 



real market value is only about three-quarters the seller's price. 



Both fertilizers are supposed to lie (|Uoted for cash, f.o.r. at ihe 

 same station, so the item of carriage would be tlie .-ame in both cases 

 and need not be taken into consideration. 



There is no possible doubt in this particiilar case which is the 

 better value to the farmer, for although the second fertilizer is quoted 

 at £2. 15s. more per ton than the former its real commercial value is 

 considerably less.' Under normal conditions of the fertilizer market 

 it is not usual to find such a big- difference as that in the comparativ(> 

 \alues of two brands of fertilizers offered by different firms, bui it 

 serves as an extreme illustration to farmers to be careful alwaj'S to 

 ascertain whether they are g-etting the best value or not in the case 

 of the particular fertilizer they propose buying. 



It should be mentioned here that special or mixed fertilizers sold 

 as suitable for certain crops are often considerably higher in price 

 than their real commercial value warrants. They are also sometimes 

 badly compounded, very inferior ingredients being used, and the pro- 

 portions of the various fertilizing constituents may not be the best for 

 that particular crop on normal soils in this country; in fact there 

 may be some constituent present that is not needed at all for the 

 j)articular soil on whi(4i it is proposed to empty the fertilizer, and the 

 pro]iortion that is best foi' one type of soil is far from being the best 



