THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
March 19 
198 
THE OLD WAY OF BUYING FERTILIZER. Fig. 84. 
phosphate ” represents the combination of three parts 
of lime and one of phosphorus found in average bone. 
When the term is used in a fertilizer analysis, it means 
that there is enough phosphorus present to equal so 
much “ bone phosphate ”, if it were united with the 
necessary amount of lime. It means nothing to the 
farmer, but is useful to the manufacturer and dealer, 
since many large trades are made on the basis of the 
per cent of “ bone phosphate ” present. 
Mow as we have said, the chemists give what they 
call trade values for these different substances. Here 
is the list taken from the Connecticut Station report : 
Cents Per Pound. 
Nitrogen in ammonia salts. 13*4 
nitrates. 14 
Organic nitrogen in dry and fine ground fish, meat and blood 
• and in mixed fertilizers. 14 
in cotton-seed meal. . . 12 
in fine bone and tankage. 13*4 
in medium bone and tankage. 11 
in coarse bone and tankage. 8 
Phosphoric acid, water-soluble. 5*4 
citrate-soluble. 5 
of fine ground fish, bone and tankage. 5 
of medium bone and tankage. 4 
of coarse bone and tankage. 2*4 
of cotton-seed ineal, castor pomace and 
wood ashes. 4*4 
of mixed fertilizers (insoluble in ammoni¬ 
um citrate). 2 
Potash as high-grade sulphate and in forms free from muri¬ 
ate (or chlorides). 5 
as muriate. 4*4 
These figures represent the average retail cash prices 
of these various substances in our large markets. On 
this basis, let us see what our fertilizer is “valued ” at: 
20 pounds of nitrogen in nitrates, at 14c. $2 80 
20 pounds of nitrogen in ammonia salts, at 13‘4c. 2 70 
60 pounds of nitrogen in organic matter, at 14c. 8 40 
120 pounds of available phosphoric acid, at 5*4e. 6 60 
60 pounds of insoluble, at 2c. 80 
80 pounds of potash, as sulphate, at 5c. 4 00 
60 pounds of potash (as muriate), at 4^4c. 2 70 
$28 00 
What does that mean ? It has nothing to do with 
the agricultural or crop-producing power of the fer¬ 
tilizer. You may use that ton of fertilizer and pro¬ 
duce $20 or $200 worth of produce, according as you 
use it wisely or otherwise. It simply means that the 
manufacturer has put into the ton plant food which 
will cost you $28 at average retail prices. It, probably, 
did not cost him that much, since he bought at whole¬ 
sale rates, and perhaps you cannot buy it at that price 
to-day. Before you buy you might try it and see— 
making up a mixture from the following table. While, 
of course, they are not exactly correct for all locali¬ 
ties, these trade values give us a fair chance to make 
a comparison with the manufacturer’s price that will 
make a basis for figuring, while the system of sepa¬ 
rating the different ingredients into separate classes 
will help us to get the balance that we want in feed¬ 
ing the plants. 
Pounds in 100. 
Nitrate of soda. 
Nitrogen. 
16 
Phos. acid. 
Potash. 
Sulphate of ammonia.... 
30 
Dried blood. 
14 
Ground bone. 
3*/. 
24 
Dissolved bone. 
1*4 
15 
Ground fish. 
7 
7 
Tankage. 
10 
Cotton-seed meal. 
7 
3 
2 
Castor pomace. 
6 
2 
i 
Dissolved bone-black. 
16 
Dissolved S. C. Rock. 
12 
Wood ashes. 
1% 
5 
Muriate of potash. 
50 
Sulphate of potash. 
50 
Kainit. 
12*4 
These are the substances most 
commonly used in 
making fertilizers. Nitrate of soda is the source of 
nitrogen “ from nitrates ”, and “ from ammonia salts ” 
means sulphate of ammonia. Other ordinary sources 
of nitrogen are organic. In the fertilizer pictured on 
our first page, we know that 20 pounds of the nitro¬ 
gen come from nitrate of soda, which would require 
125 pounds. Of sulphate of ammonia, 100 pounds are 
needed to provide 20 pounds. The 60 pounds of “ or¬ 
ganic ” may come from blood, tankage, bone, cotton¬ 
seed meal, etc., and here we see the advantage of 
knowing what this “organic” is taken from, since 
different forms of it have different values. You see 
that Mr. Garrahan is right in saying that a man must 
know what he is doing before he undertakes to use 
fertilizers extensively. The agricultural chemists are 
putting the knowledge within reach of all of us. 
PURCHASING MANUFACTURED FERTILIZERS 
DO THEY VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR ? 
What Safeguard May We Use ? 
The use of fertilizers in certain parts of our eastern 
States, and for certain special crops, is now a neces¬ 
sity, in order to obtain satisfactory results, and while 
the majority of users knoiv that it is a profitable prac¬ 
tice, many are halting between two opinions. This 
indecisive position is due to a variety of causes, chief 
of which are : 1, a lack of definite knowledge as to 
the real function of a fertilizer. That is, farmers do 
not seem to understand fully that a fertilizer in the 
true sense must contain nitrogen, phosphoric acid 
and potash, the constituents liable to exist in too 
small amounts in the soil, and that the crop-producing 
value of the constituents depends, other things being 
equal, upon the rate of their absorption by the plant, 
whether they are quickly or slowly available. In 
other words, that the function of a fertilizer is to feed 
the plant directly throughout the period of its growth. 
In the true sense, therefore, a fertilizer is no more a 
stimulant than is good food a stimulant for man or 
beast; well-fed plants, as well-fed men or beasts, are 
usually more vigorous and productive, more able to 
withstand unfavorable conditions, than are those 
which are poorly nourished. Farmers cannot expect to 
get something for nothing from fertilizers, as seems to be 
their expectation when they buy products which con¬ 
tain a low content and poor forms of the essential con¬ 
stituents. 2, imperfect information concerning the 
composition and quality of the brands offered. They 
do not seem to realize that, as in most other lines of 
business, there are two kinds of manufacturers, and 
while both may be reliable, the one kind possesses 
reliability in a broader sense than the other. For ex¬ 
ample, first, those who make it their primary and 
only business expect to continue in it, and they know 
that, in the long run, the interest of the farmer, the 
only consumer of their product, is their interest, 
therefore that their business will be prosperous 
largely in proportion as the farmer is able to secure 
profitable returns from the use of fertilizer. The 
second kind make the fertilizer business an adjunct 
to other lines of work ; they do not regard it as a per¬ 
manent business, do not study it carefully, and are, 
therefore, more likely to be unduly influenced by 
present profit, rather than by those characteristics 
which insure permanency. While it does not follow 
that they make poor products, they cannot be regarded 
as permanent sources of uniform supply, therefore 
possess a reliability of a different sort. 
The farmer, to secure best results, should know for 
a certainty whether the brands offered from year to 
year are uniform, both in amount, proportion and 
quality of the constituents contained in them ; he 
cannot afford to take any chances after having once 
secured that brand which meets his conditions as to 
crop and soil. In reference to this point, the reports 
of analyses from year to year are to be depended 
upon to give exact information, and such study as 
I have made of the fertilizer business leads me to 
say that these brands are uniform, especially in so 
far as the first class of manufacturers is con¬ 
cerned. For example, an examination of the guar¬ 
antees and actual composition of the leading brands 
of eight of the manufacturers who sell the bulk 
of the product used in New Jersey, shows that 
six of these have not changed the proportions or 
amounts of the constituents in the past seven years, 
1891 to 1897, inclusive, and that two have made minor 
changes for the better in the amounts furnished, and 
which do not materially influence the proportion of 
the constituents. In other words, the reliable manu¬ 
facturer, having established his brand, does not con¬ 
stantly change it, though the inducement to do so, 
owing to the fluctuation in the prices of raw materials, 
has, at times, been very strong. This is a point of 
importance, and the farmer should know upon whom 
he can depend to supply a practically uniform product 
in this respect, from year to year. 
The farmer should know, also, whether he can de¬ 
pend upon the quality of plant food offered. This 
point is really of much more importance than the 
other, because the question of proportion of con¬ 
stituents is not really an influencing factor, until 
there is an abundant supply of all of the deficient 
elements. Hence, up to a certain point, it is rather 
amount of all, rather than their proportions, but the 
availability of the constituents is important in any 
case. By this is meant, whether the manufacturer 
will, from year to year, change his form of nitrogen ; 
for example, from nitrate to ammonia, or to organic, 
depending upon the relative cost of these constituents ; 
whether he will change his form of phosphoric acid, 
deriving a larger proportion from the lower grade 
materials, when such materials are relatively cheaper 
than the others, and whether he will change his potash 
from a sulphate to a chloride. How changes of this 
sort may affect the field results is easily understood. 
Hence, it is an important matter to have positive 
evidence as to whether the various brands offered do, 
or do not, vary widely in the kind of plant food sup¬ 
plied. 
An examination, again, of the composition of the 
brands of the same manufacturers, shows that, in all 
cases, the best forms of nitrogen and of phosphoric 
acid and potash, are used ; that from one-third to the 
entire number of the brands of individual manufac¬ 
turers contain nitrogen either as nitrate or ammonia, 
or both, and that the sum of these forms of nitrogen 
in many cases frequently exceeds the nitrogen derived 
from organic sources, and furthermore, that the brands 
of these manufacturers have contained practically the 
same proportion of soluble nitrogen for the last seven 
years, 1891 to 1897, inclusive, though the proportions 
of nitrogen as nitrate and as ammonia vary slightly. 
In other words, it is clearly shown that the brands of 
these manufacturers may be depended upon to con¬ 
tain, if not all, at least a large proportion, of the 
nitrogen, the chief element to be considered in this 
connection, in available forms. It does not follow that 
the organic forms of nitrogen associated with am¬ 
monia or nitrate are always the best, yet the presence 
of so large a proportion of the best forms is pretty 
good evidence of the intention of the manufacturer 
to furnish good materials, and such digestion tests as 
have been made indicate that, where a considerable 
proportion of the soluble forms are used, the organic 
forms are highly available. 
This information is derived from the analyses made 
annually at this experiment station, and has been 
distributed to, at least, one-half of the farmers in 
the State, who, if they studied and kept their bul¬ 
letins on file, would be able to select wisely the best 
brands. While the primary function of an analysis 
control is to execute the law in reference to the keep¬ 
ing of guarantees, it is my judgment that the second¬ 
ary purpose is fully as, if not more important, viz., to 
instruct the farmers in the whole matter pertaining 
to fertilizers, and thus to protect the reliable manu¬ 
facturer, and directly to assist the thoughtful and 
business-like farmer who studies the reports of an¬ 
alyses, and indirectly to benefit the farmer who does 
not avail himself of the advantages to be derived from 
a study of such reports. E. b. voorhees. 
New Jersey Experiment Station. 
MAKING AND SAVING MANURE. 
GOOD ADVICE FOR CAREFUL FARMERS. 
Much has been said and written on this subject, and 
very much more will be necessary before even one- 
half the tillers of the soil will awaken to the fact 
that the manure heap is the farmer’s Klondike. The 
cry that “ farming don't pay,” nine times out of ten, 
can be traced directly or indirectly to the waste of 
manure and improper use of fertilizers. One needful 
thing is plenty of some good absorbent; dry muck, 
THE NEW WAY—BUYING BY BULLETIN. Fig. 85. 
