110 



COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION. 



R. J. Davidson Bays: "I believe it would be well to state the amount of dilution 

 necessary in Method II and not say, as the method does, 'a weighed quantity of the 

 dilute formaldehyde solution.' The directions should be more specific." 



The results on formaldehyde are very good. Method I is an excellent method for 

 strong solutions, and Method II for dilute solutions, containing preferably not over 5 

 per cent. Even solutions of the latter strength rmist be diluted before making the 

 determinations. 



The referee is in favor of the recommendation made last year and referred to again 

 in Mr. Davidson's report, that more specific directions should be given this method. 

 If, instead of the words "a weighed quantity of the dilute formaldehyde solution," 

 line 8, the following were inserted, "a weighed quantity of the formaldehyde solution 

 containing not over 2 cc of a 1 per cent solution or the equivalent," it would make the 

 method clearer and sufficiently explicit. 



SULPHUR DIPS. 



The method is that of Avery and is given in Circular 10, revised, also Bulletin 107, 

 revised, page 34 The sample submitted for analysis was prepared in the laboratory 

 by boiling together lime and sulphur according to the regular formula for the lime- 

 sulphur spray mixture. 



Sulphur dips. 



f 0. 03452 



R. J. Davidson, Blacksburg, Va August 18 { . 03455 



. 03452 



The results are all very close, the greatest difference being only 0.25 per cent. This 

 method has also given satisfactory results in past years. 



In view of the fact that this report was not presented at the meeting of the associa- 

 tion, no recommendations will be made at this time. 



PRESIDENT SNYDER'S ADDRESS: THE TRAINING OF THE 

 AGRICULTURAL CHEMIST. 



I have selected as the subject of the president's address for this , the twenty-fifth 

 annual convention of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, "The Training 

 of the Agricultural Chemist." 



Any society or organization in order to be effectual and progressive must look well 

 to its membership. Our society has been most fortunate in this respect, and it is to 

 be hoped its ranks will continue to be filled with the same class of earnest, energetic 

 workers as are here to-day. During the past quarter of a century this organization 

 has accomplished most excellent results. I believe, however, that it has only entered 

 upon its career of usefulness. Much credit is due to the founders for the high ideals 

 of the association and for the cultivation of the true scientific spirit. Many of them 



