124 
Lot ns consider, for example, the material sodium nitrate. This contains the three 
elements, sodium, nitrogen, and oxygen, as the name indicates. It is valued only 
for the nitrogen it contains, which amounts to nearly IB per cent in a good com- 
mercial grade of sodium nitrate. This is all simple enough. If sodium nitrate 
contains JO per cent of nitrogen this would he 320 pounds of nitrogen in a ton of the 
material, and, at L5 cents a pound for nitrogen, a ton of sodium nitrate would he 
worth about $48. It is both absurd and unnecessarily complicated to sell sodium 
nitrate on the basis of "ammonia": First, because it contains no "ammonia"; 
second, because "ammonia" is not what the plant needs; and, third, because it is not 
"ammonia" that we should wish to buy even if we needed to purchase nitrogen. 
"Ammonia" is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen, but no hydrogen is con- 
tained in sodium nitrate, and we have no need to purchase hydrogen, as water 
contains ahundance of that element, 
Let us consider steamed hone meal. This is valued for its phosphorus content, hut 
it is commonly sold on the basis of "phosphoric acid." This is perhaps more con- 
fusing and more absurd than "ammonia." Phosphoric acid is not contained in 
bone meal, and phosphoric acid is not suitable for plant food, and people do not mean 
phosphoric acid when they say "phosphoric acid" in connection with fertilizers. 
What they do mean is phosphoric oxid, a compound of phosphorus and oxygen, 
containing less than 44 per cent of the element phosphorus, the real thing which we 
wish to purchase. Phosphoric acid is a compound of phosphorus, oxygen, and 
hydrogen, the last two elements being contained in water. Why all this unnecessary 
complication? Good steamed bone meal contains about 12£ per cent of phosphorus, 
or 250 pounds of phosphorus in a ton. This is a valuable element of plant food. At 
10 cents a pound for phosphorus, the steamed hone meal would he worth about $25 a 
ton. This is all simple and plain enough so that any one can easily and fully under- 
stand it, the farmer as well as the fertilizer dealer or manufacturer. 
Again, let us consider such a material as potassium chlorid, a compound of the two 
elements potassium and chlorin, containing in the common market grade about 42 
per cent of the element potassium. This compound is commonly sold under the 
incorrect and confusing name of " muriate of potash," and it is sold on the basis of 
"potash." The term "muriate," ending in ate, would indicate that this material 
contains oxygen, but this is not true, as it contains only potassium and chlorin, 
although there is no indication of chlorin in the name "muriate of potash." " Pot- 
ash" is a compound of potassium and oxygen, containing 83 per cent of the element 
potassium; but, as stated above, there is no oxygen in potassium chlorid, and conse- 
quently there is no "potash" in potassium chlorid. Furthermore, " potash," which 
is potassium oxid, contains the element oxygen, which nobody cares to consider in 
the purchase, as the air is one-fifth oxygen and water is eight-ninths oxygen. 
Potassium is a valuable element of plant food.' Ordinary potassium chlorid con- 
tains about 42 per cent of that element, or about 840 pounds in a ton of material, 
which at 6 cents a pound for potassium would be worth $50.40 a ton. This, again, 
is direct and simple, and all that is necessary to fully understand the purchase of 
this element. 
Of course we can say "potash" and explain what we mean by it. For example, 
if potassium chlorid contains 42 per cent of potassium it contains sufficient potas- 
sium to make about 50 per cent of "potash," if the potassium were made to unite 
with oxygen to form "potash;" but as the "potash" which might thus be formed 
would contain oxygen, its value per pound would be less than that of potassium, the 
value of "potash" depending entirely upon the amount of potassium it would con- 
tain. By remembering that "potash" would contain only about 83 per cent of 
potassium it will he seen that, with potassium at 6 cents a pound, potash would he 
worth only about 5 cents a pound, and consequently that a ton of potassium chlorid 
(or shall we say "muriate of potash"?) containing sufficient potassium to make 50 
per cent of "potash" would contain in one ton enough potassium to make 1,000 
pounds of "potash," which at 5 cents a pound for potash would make $50 a ton for 
potassium chlorid, or, if we were to make all the computations with absolute accu- 
racy, it would come out $50.40, as given above for potassium. 
I once spent nearly two hours' time with a very progressive and intelligent Illinois 
farmer who desired me to explain exactly what "muriate of potash" is, and what the 
analysis showing 50 percent of " potash" means. After nearly two hours' work, he 
actually gave the problem up, saying that he could not understand it. As a chemist, 
I can understand it, but I can not understand why scientific men, working in the 
interest of agriculture, should encourage the continuation of such an outrageous 
system for reporting the analysis of fertilizers or plant-food materials. 
About the only reason which is ever given for using the terms "ammonia," "phos- 
phoric acid," and "potash" is that they do so in the older States; although there are 
some people who say that the farmers don't need to understand the matter. 
