276 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. I908. 



TWO VIOLATIONS OF- THE LAW. 



There are two matters concerning the labeling or marking of 

 fertilizer packages to which especial attention is called. The 

 first is apparently a matter of carelessnesss which might cause 

 confusion and possibly injustice; the second seems to be a 

 matter of attempting to avoid payment of analysis fees by means 

 of a cleverly devised system of tags. While the company con- 

 cerned may be within the letter of the law it seems to be entirely 

 fair to both dealers and consumers to call attention to the case. 



The first matter was brought forcibly to our attention the past 

 season by the unusually large number of cases where the guar- 

 antied percentages of fertilizer constituents named in the certifi- 

 cates sent to this office by the manufacturers did not agree with 

 the guarantees marked on the bags of fertilizer which the inspec- 

 tor found in the open market. Such discrepencies are some- 

 times caused by changing the guaranty on a certain brand of 

 fertilizer and then using up bags which are marked with the old 

 guaranties. It would probably be much better to license a new 

 brand than to change the guaranties on an old one long estab- 

 lished. It would seem that a name once used in connection with 

 a certain fertilizer made up according to a certain formula 

 should stand for that same kind of goods with that same 

 formula as long as the name is used in connection with any 

 brand of fertilizer. Such changes in formula, however, do not 

 cover the differences found in guaranties for the present season 

 and probably office mistakes are accountable for a greater part. 



The table on page 277 gives the more important differences 

 observed concerning the samples collected the present season. 

 Many of these differences it will be noted are on the total phos- 

 phoric acid which is, of course, not as important from the stand- 

 point of the consumer as is the available, but the fact that the 

 guarantees differ on the certificates and bags is as much a viola- 

 tion of both the spirit and the letter of the fertilizer law in one 

 case as the other. In some cases bags were found properly 

 marked in one locality, while at another place the same brand 

 was found on which the marks differed from the certificates. 



