114 



EXPERIMENT STATION. 



[Jan. 



(2) Summary of Results of Amdyscs of the Complete Fer- 

 tilizers as compared lulth the Manufacturer's Guarantee. 



Manufactuueh. 



- O C5 



:3 = 



;h o 



— o 

 3 a 



0)2^ 



j3 a) 



;ao 



C a; 3 



O U C3 



-ass 



-■2 3 



W. II. Abbott 



Alpliauo Humus Company, .... 



American Agricultural Chemical Company, . 

 Armour Fertilizer Works, .... 



Beach S(jap Company, ..... 



Berkshire Fertilizer Company, 



Bowker Fertilizer Company, .... 



Jos. Breck & S<jns, ...... 



Buffalo Fertilizer Company, 



The E. D. Chittenden Company, . 



Clay & Son, ....... 



Coe-Mortimer Cornpany, .... 



Eastern Chemical Company, 



Essex Fertilizer Company, .... 



C. VV. Hastings 



Hubbard Fertilizer Company, 



Listers' .Agricultural Chemical Works, . 



J. K. McGovern, ...... 



Mapes' F'ormula and Peruvian Guano Company 



National Fertilizer Company, 



Natural Guano Company, .... 



New England Fertilizer Company, 



Olds & Whipple 



Parmenter & Polsey Fertilizer Company, . 



R. T. Prentiss, 



Pulverized Manure Company, 



Rogers Manufacturing Company, . 



Rogers & Hubbard Company, 



Ross Bros. Company, ..... 



Sanderson Fertilizer and Chemical Companj-, 



M. L. Shoemaker & Co., Ltd 



Swift's Lowell Fertilizer Company, 

 20th Century Specialty Company, 

 Wm. Thomson & Sons, . . 

 Whitman & Pratt Rendering Company, 

 Wilcox Fertilizer Company, .... 

 A. H. Wood & Co 



1 



33 



6 



4 



12 



19 



1 







4 



1 



10 



2 

 1 

 1 

 6 

 1 



14 

 6 

 1 

 6 

 6 

 C 

 2 

 1 

 7 

 8 

 2 

 5 

 2 



12 

 2 

 1 

 5 

 9 

 2 



3 

 1 



66 

 10 

 6 

 15 

 23 

 3 

 7 

 5 

 1 



16 

 1 

 6 

 1 

 5 

 9 

 1 

 IS 

 11 

 1 

 7 

 7 

 8 

 2 

 1 

 10 

 9 

 3 



This table shows : — 



1. That out of a total of 330 brands of complete fertilizers 

 collected and analyzed, 124 (38 per cent, of the total iniinber) 

 fell below the nianufactnrer's guarantee in one or more ele- 

 ments. 



2. That 104 brands were deficient in one element. 



3. That IS brands were deficient in two elements. 



4. That 2 brands were deficient in all three elements. 



f). That 26 brands (abont S ]ier cent, of the whole number 

 analyzed) showed a commercial shortage; that is, the value of 

 the ])lant food fonnd did not e(]nal the value of the plant food 



