10 J'eb., 1917. J Impection under the Artificial Ftrtilhers Act. 71 



In the case of a potato maimre, the price eliavged was £6 7s. 6d., the 

 value on analj-sis £7 7s. Id., whilst tlie iiiiarantee value was £7 per 



ton. 



The importefl special manure, whilst analyzing up to guarantee, 

 shows un.satisfactory values. The price charged per ton being 

 £14 I5s., the value calculated on analysis was £9 lis. lid., and the 

 guaranteed value £7 12s. 7d. 



Tn the case of the single sample of basic phosphate which was col- 

 lected, the price charged was £4 5s., the value on analysis £3 5s. 4d., and 

 the guaranteed value £3 10s. 2d. 



This manure is being sold to take the plac& of " Tiiomas' " or 

 " Star " phosphate, which prior to the war was imported from Europe. 



The basic pliosphate on the market is really a Tixture of lime and 

 superphosphate. 



It should be noted that in all the foregoing calculations tlie average 

 guaranteed value is to be taken as the value computed from the average 

 guarantee, using the season's unit values. 



Prosecutions. 



During the season a manufacturer hit upon the happy expedient of 

 mixing large quantities of superphosphate with bone fertilizer, and sell- 

 ing the mixture under the name and price of the latter fertilizer. The 

 registered price of the bone fertilizer manufactured by this manufac- 

 turer was £5 15s. per ton. The price of superphosphate in the open 

 market was £4 7s. 6d., so that in adopting the above illegal procedure 

 the manufacturer was, to use a common phrase, " on a good wicket." 

 Fortunately, the fraud was at once detected, proceedings instituted, and 

 a conviction obtained. 



In one instance a parcel of manure was sold under two label 

 guarantees. 



A country manufacturer has for manv years treated the Fertilizers 

 Act with contempt. As far back as 1907 he was fined for non-compli- 

 ance, yet he still kept on resolutely refusing to obey the law. The fer- 

 tilizer has been sold annually without an invoice certificate or warranty, 

 and in bags which were not branded or labelled. 



Farmers purchasing fertilizer sold in this unsatisfactory and illegal 

 manner were running a grave risk to themselves, whilst at the same time 

 encouraging the manufacturer in wrong-doing. 



Finding tliat repeated warnings had no effect, and after the inspecting 

 ofiBcer had been informed by the manufacturer that his only reason for 

 not complying with the Act was due to " pure cussedness " proceedings 

 were again instituted, and a fine imposed. 



Early in the season a case came under notice where a farmer pur- 

 chased a parcel of fertilizer under a well-known old-time name. The 

 fertilizer, when applied to the land, did not give the results anticipated. 



