Fertilizer Control.—The dreams of the patent-medicine vender never pictured more favoring conditions for his activity than were found by fertilizer manufacturers and agents before state laws provided for inspection and control. Men who wanted to do a legitimate business welcomed protection from the unscrupulous competition that dishonest men employed. The memory of some of the frauds perpetrated lingers, and causes a questioning to-day that is unnecessary. All fertilizer-control laws afford a good degree of legal protection to the buyer, although in most states they do not demand a clearness and fullness in statements of analyses that would be helpful to many, and they fail to require that sources of plant-food be given. Some fertilizers are sold for more than they are worth, and some are bought for soils and crops that need other kinds of plant-food, but this is due to lack of knowledge on the part of the buyer that he can acquire. The law does its part in the work of protection better than many buyers do their part. It has driven fraudulent brands off the market, compelled carefulness in factory-mixing, and given to the intelligent buyer a knowledge of the kinds and amounts of plant-food in the bag or ton. The sampling is done by disinterested men, and the analyses are made by competent chemists. There need be little distrust of the analysis as printed on the bag, unless a failure of the manufacturer to keep his goods up to the standard has been made public in the state's fertilizer bulletin.
Brand Names.—Notwithstanding all that has been done by the state to acquaint the buying public with the composition of fertilizers, many purchasers are guided in selection by the brand name, and that usually is fanciful in character, no matter whether it be "Farmers' Friend" or "Jones' Potato Fertilizer." In either case it may be far from friendly to soil or pocket-book, and widely at variance with the needs of the soil for which it is purchased. The pretense of making a fertilizer peculiarly adapted to the potato, or to wheat, or to corn would not attract a single buyer if the public would compare the analyses of these special crop fertilizers offered by manufacturers and note their dissimilarity of composition. Any kind of a mixture may be given any kind of a name. It is the composition that counts. The farmer is in the market for nitrogen and phosphoric acid and potash, singly or combined, for a certain soil, and all he wants is to know the number of pounds he is getting, its availability, and its price per pound. Any added detail not required by law is an impertinence.
Statement of Analysis.—It would be well if the law refused to the manufacturer the privilege of printing unnecessary detail in the statement of analysis that must be placed upon the fertilizer bag. It is added to confuse the buyer and mislead him regarding actual value. The following statement is an example of this practice:
ANALYSIS
| Per Cent | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrogen | 0.82 | to | 1.00 |
| Equal to ammonia | 1.00 | to | 2.00 |
| Soluble phosphoric acid | 6.00 | to | 7.00 |
| Reverted | 2.00 | to | 3.00 |
| Available | 8.00 | to | 10.00 |
| Insoluble | 1.00 | to | 2.00 |
| Total | 9.00 | to | 12.00 |
| Potash (actual) | 1.00 | to | 2.00 |
| Equal to sulphate of potash | 2.00 | to | 3.00 |
As the row of larger figures is not guaranteed percentages, it has no value.
The buyer is not concerned regarding the amount of ammonia to which the nitrogen is equal, and so the second line is a needless repetition.
The fifth line gives the sum of the third and fourth, the available being the total of the soluble and reverted. Therefore the third and fourth lines may be ignored.
The sixth line gives the percentage of unavailable phosphoric acid in the rock, and should be ignored by the purchaser who wants available plant-food.
The seventh gives the sum of the available and insoluble, and should be ignored.