542 
THE RURAL. NEW-YORKER. 
August 15 
THE EXPERIMENT STATIONS AND FERTIL¬ 
IZER ANALYSES. 
THE DIRECTORS STATE THEIR SIDE. 
Last week, we cited the case of a farmer who sus¬ 
pected that his fertilizer was not of the guaranteed 
quality. He wished to have a sample of it analyzed, 
but the director of his State experiment station re¬ 
fused to analyze it until the name of the manufac¬ 
turer and the brand were given. It seems like a 
good time now to learn just what the fertilizer 
analyses made at our experiment stations are in¬ 
tended to accomplish. Who is to be benefited by 
them, and how is this benefit to be obtained ? The 
following letters from experiment station directors 
will give one side of the story : 
From the N. Y. State Station. 
with the appropriation now granted for the work 
In the second place, the Station has, in my judgment, 
a right to demand that full data concerning the source 
of the sample be furnished. Otherwise, it may be 
found when the work has been accomplished, that it 
is of no particular value, or if of value, only to the 
person for whom it was performed. The stations are 
established for the benefit of the public, not for in¬ 
dividuals, and they should first perform work the re¬ 
sults of which may, when published, be of service to 
the public. If any station should occupy its time in 
performing analyses in response to individual ap¬ 
peals, without proper data concerning the samples 
analyzed, its work would not only be enormously in¬ 
creased, but a large part would be of doubtful public 
value. 
I think that if the farmer mentioned will write the 
full particulars in the case to the Station officials of 
his State, he will receive courteous attention, though 
it may be that he will not secure an analysis of his 
particular sample at once, because of the precedence 
of other work, which will fully occupy the time of 
the chemists during the year. Should this be the 
case, and it is his desire to have an analysis, his next 
course is to apply to some commercial chemist, and 
pay the required fee. [prof.] e. b. voorhkes. 
Rules of the Connecticut Station. 
It is a waste of time and money, needed for useful 
work, to analyze samples which have been improperly 
drawn. Analysis of such samples is likely to do only 
harm, either to the seller or buyer, or both. It is not 
the office of the Station to do work which is solely 
for the benefit of one individual. No work should be 
THE CALF’S “ FIRST LESSON.” Fig. 171. See First Page 
As bearing upon the question which you raise, I 
inclose a copy of the rules adopted by the Board of 
Control at some time previous to my connection with 
the Station. It appears to me that the inclosed 
circular gives sound reasons why the Experiment 
Station should undertake no work without a clear 
understanding of the conditions involved. 
There Is a feeling on the part of some, that they pay taxes to 
support this Station, and that, therefore, they have the right to 
ask to have chemical work done for them gratuitously. When we 
consider that each farmer of the State pays less, on an average, 
than one cent a year toward the support of our entire work, and 
that requests for chemical work call for time and materials 
which cost the State many times that sum, it can be clearly seen 
how little ground the individual has for claiming the right to de¬ 
mand special work for himself. 
Rule VII. The analysis of commercial fertilizers and fertilizing 
materials for private parties will be undertaken only on the fol¬ 
lowing conditions: (1.) The brand of fertilizer must be one that 
has not been collected and analyzed by the Station within one 
year. (2.) The fertilizer must be sampled in accordance with in¬ 
structions furnished by this Station. (3.) Blanks describing the 
fertilizer must be filled out; these will be furnished on applica¬ 
tion. (4.) The samples must be taken by consumers from stock 
of present season, and from lots of not less than one ton. (5.) 
All such work for private parties can be done only after the regu¬ 
lar Station work In carrying out the provisions of the State fer¬ 
tilizer law is completed each season. Hence, analyses for single 
individuals may be under the necessity of waiting some months 
for a report, since the regular work of the Station in carrying out 
the provisions of the fertilizer law cannot, under any circumstances, 
be interrupted or delayed. 
You ask why the Station authorities demand the 
name of the maker of a brand before making an 
analysis of a sample of commercial fertilizer. I will 
say, in reply, that we shall, this year, analyze at this 
Station, between 300 and 400 brands of commercial 
fertilizers, these samples having been taken in various 
portions of the State by the authorized agents of the 
Station. We have so much to do here that we 
cannot afford needlessly to duplicate work. It is en¬ 
tirely possible that a sample sent us by an individual 
farmer is from a brand of goods which we have 
already analyzed ; and, therefore, we may be able to 
give him the desired information without going to the 
expense of an additional analysis. For this reason, 
then, we wish to know the character of the sample. 
I think that this request is entirely reasonable, and 
in any case, where a farmer refuses to give it, I would 
be inclined to doubt the sincerity of his desire to be 
protected. In my opinion, the easy and desirable 
method for a farmer to get assistance from us, is to 
state the case frankly, and we will certainly give him 
all the aid we can consistently with a proper con¬ 
summation of the work which we have on hand, and 
which, for reasons you must certainly understand, 
cannot be lightly turned aside. A brief experience 
as director of an experiment station, would convince 
you, I think, that we cannot afford to work blindly 
on the basis of such requests as this farmer made. 
rPROF-l W. H. JORDAN. 
From the Director of the New Jersey Station. 
The reasons given by the unmentioned experiment 
station for not making an analysis of a suspected 
fertilizer, are, probably, entirely legitimate. This 
may be illustrated by the experience of our own Sta¬ 
tion, which has never refused to make an analysis of 
a fertilizer because the chemists were too busy ; but 
it has frequently been obliged to refuse to make an 
immediate analysis, because of precedence of other 
work, which in the judgment of the officials is quite 
as important. For instance, at the present time, we 
have in the laboratory something over 500 samples of 
fertilizers to be analyzed; many of them are finished, 
many are in process of analysis, and many not yet 
begun. These must all be analyzed and the results 
prepared for publication previous to October 31. To 
take in new samples now, and make immediate 
analyses, would seriously delay the work of the 
laboratory, besides giving preference to parties who 
have no greater claims upon us than those other 
citizens who are interested in the analyses of the 
samples already in the laboratory. 
Where so large an amount of work is required in 
this direction as in this and some other States, sys¬ 
tematic and business-like methods must be adopted, 
or it could not be accomplished in a reasonable time 
undertaken which does not, or may not, benefit all 
farmers, or a considerable number of farmers. These 
are the reasons why this Station requires that any 
one sending an article to be analyzed shall give the 
Station some assurance that the sample has been 
properly drawn, and shall describe the sample on blanks 
provided for the purpose, so that the Station may know 
what the material is, who made it, who sold it, and 
what is claimed regarding it. No objection has ever 
been made to this plan, to my knowledge, by farmers. 
If no such requirement is made, the Station may 
easily be “ worked ” to make analyses which are of 
no interest and value to any one but the sender or 
some concern which is using him for the purpose. 
Attempts to do this thing have not infrequently come 
to my knowledge. Let me ask, in return, What pos¬ 
sible objection can any one have to giving the Station 
the name of the brand and of the manufacturer if he 
desire to have legitimate work done by the Station ? 
If a farmer wish an analysis made for his private 
use, and that of no one else, he should do as any 
other business man does, go to a reputable analytical 
chemist, and pay for the work. This Station is never 
too busy to answer any call for immediate work. 
DR. E. H. JENKINS. 
The Rhode Island Experiment Station. 
The farmer who asked for the analysis may not have 
stated that he is a farmer, and the Station authorities 
may have had reason to suspect, owing to his refusal 
to give any information in regard to the fertilizer, 
that he was a dealer and was trying this ruse to obtain 
an analysis for advertising purposes, gratis. In my 
own experience, I have met with two or three such 
cases. Stations that are supported by State funds, in 
part or whole, act wisely, I think, in refusing work 
which appears to be of strictly private interest, and 
where no data are furnished, or can be furnished, to 
make the results of interest generally, or even to a 
section of the State. Should all such work be done 
without a question, the laboratory would soon become 
a place where private work of all kinds would be 
done at public expense, which should not be the case. 
Stations supported by the income from the Hatch 
act, must use the funds in the manner and for the 
purpose designated in the second section of that act, 
and in no other way. The work of these stations is 
to “ conduct original researches and verify experi¬ 
ments.” The original researches and verification of 
experiments apply unquestionably to fertilizers. An 
examination of any new fertilizing material for the 
purpose of ascertaining its agricultural value, either 
by analysis or by analysis and test with crops, comes 
within the province of such stations, but not the 
analysis of an artificial fertilizer of unknown origin 
and unknown brand-name, which has been sent to 
gratify one person only. 
Many stations have charge of the State inspection 
of fertilizers, and by knowing the name of the brand 
and maker, could refer the party to other analyses of 
the same goods which might already have been made 
in the same season, and thus avoid duplicating work ; 
or, by knowing the name of the maker and the brand, 
the station could, if it were not analyzed, send its 
collector to draw an official sample so that a public 
report could be made and the farmers of the State be 
put on their guard, provided the material were fraudu¬ 
lent in its character. If the brand-name were with¬ 
held, the inspector might find that the goods had 
already been collected and analyzed, while, had he 
been informed at the outset, much expense for trav¬ 
eling could have been avoided. The license fees paid 
are in many States small, consequently the time of the 
chemists who can be employed, is insufficient to allow 
of duplicate samples being analyzed. How could it 
be possible, as indicated above, to warn the public 
when the name of the maker and the brand were 
withheld? Those stations which exercise great care 
in the inspection of fertilizers, refuse to analyze and 
report officially upon samples unless they are collected 
by their own inspector, and are thus assured that the 
sample was properly drawn and had not been tampered 
with. This is impossible if samples not vouched for 
and drawn with undue care are to be reported upon. 
The value of a fertilizer inspection to any State, de¬ 
pends upon the maintenance of care in these particu¬ 
lars, as much as it does upon carefully-made analyses. 
If the farmers of a State have ground for not having 
sufficient confidence in their station chemist to expect 
an impartial report, even if he know the name of the 
maker of a fertilizer, they ought to do their duty and 
get rid of him at once. For one who thinks that the 
position taken is wrong, and who insists upon the 
use of public funds for jirivate work, my advice would 
be to go to any good, reliable commercial chemist, 
and pay for the analysis just as a man in any other 
line of business would do. My advice to farmers 
would be to tell the whole story to the station chem¬ 
ist, i. e ., the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 
the truth, and there is no doubt that the station will 
render all the assistance which it riyhtly can. 
[prof.] h. j. wheeler. 
A GOOD CROP OF GRASS. 
ITS PEDIGREE, FROM SEED TO MOWER. 
A Revolution and a Revelation. 
Part TIL 
After the land was put in perfect condition, which 
means that all living plants were killed and the upper 
six inches of soil made as fine as an ash heap, the 
grass seed was sown as described last week. Fourteen 
quarts each of Red-top and Timothy, and four of 
Medium clover are used on each acre. This will be 
considered by many farmers an extravagant seeding. 
All Mr. Clark has to say to this is that he gets big 
yields of grass when he uses this seeding, and fails 
when he uses only four to eight quarts of seed. The 
seed is broadcasted, half being sown the long way of 
the field, and the other half across. Of course, the object 
of this is to secure a thorough distribution of the seed. 
You can see that this is very necessary if we are to get 
15,000,000 good plants on an acre. Such a seeding 
would satisfy almost any one, but Mr. Clark is a hard 
man to satisfy. After broadcasting the seed, he goes 
on with the light harrow described last week, and 
goes up and down and diagonally until every part of 
the field has been scratched over eight times. The 
object of this is to scatter the seed more completely, 
and also to give the surface soil another fining. When 
the surface has been stirred enough, the whole field 
is packed with the roller, and that is the end of cul¬ 
tivation for four or five years, or until the acre has 
produced 25 to 30 tons of hay. 
But that is not all. “ Tillage is manure,” perhaps, 
but such tillage makes the grass plants eager for more 
manure than the tillage alone can supply. They must 
•be fed, and fed at once. Mr. Clark does not use stable 
manure at all. It contains a good many weeds, and 
should go on a crop that can he cultivated or hoed. 
