xt71ns0ktt0f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt71ns0ktt0f/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1964 journals 184 English Lexington. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Regulatory series, bulletin. n.184 text Regulatory series, bulletin. n.184 1964 2014 true xt71ns0ktt0f section xt71ns0ktt0f Regulatory Bulletin 184
  ANALYSES OF OFFICIAL
FERTILIZER SAMPLES
by the
FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT
KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
SPRING SEASON
JANUARY-]UNE, 1964
` . g&*=¢§ 
§   I2 c
3wHQ
1s6=,»*
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON

 CONTENTS
Pa 
ExplanationofTables.... .... ................. ....... ..... ........... *
Companies Represented by Samples Reported in This Bulletin., .... . . . . .. ' I
Variation in Fertilizer Analyses ... .... ...... .......,...... . ..... .... '
WhyACOncern For Variability .. .... ...... .... .. ........... .. .... ..» i
Reporting The Analyses of Fertilizer .......... ......... ...... ......... l
AverageAnalysis,AMeasure .... ................. ............ . .......  I-
MeasuringVariability.................. ........ . ....... ...... ........ l
"Wild" Samples. ..................................................... I
Note On Methods of Computation Usecl.............. .... ..... . ....r..... l
Informati0nGivenInTables...... .... .................... .... ... ...... l
Table l - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers .... . . .. l 
Table Z - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Liquid Fertilizers .... 9 
Table 3 - Analyses of Straight Materials.......... ........ .... ......... 9 
Table 4 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Rock Phosphate and Soft
Phosphate with Colloidal Clay.... ... .......... .... .... .. ....4 ll 
Table 5 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Organic Materials . . . . . . ...... llf
Table 6 - Resultsrof Analyses of Fertilizer Samples in Which the
Guarantee for Sulfate of Potash Was Not Met., . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Table 7 - Results of Analyses of Boron in Fertilizers Reported in _
Tablel....................... .... ...... ....... ..... ........ ll

 FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT
KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
` Bruce Poundstone, Chairman
Robert Mathews, Assistant Administrator and Chief Lnspector
i J. M. Fernandez, Auditor—Inspector
*Guy P. Zickefoose, Auditor-Inspector
W. J. Huffman, Registration Inspector
FIELD INSPECTORS
Maurice M. Davis Neville Hulette Noel J. Howard
Eugene Vanderpool Wilson M. Routt
LABORATORY STAFF
Valva Midkiff John A. Shrader Lelah Gault
John T. Adair John Ellis Norma Holbrook
Paul R. Caudill Dewey Newman, Jr. Robert N. Price
Michael A. Karges Robert Teasley
>9= =$¢ =$< >i< =§¢ =‘.= =l< *
*Died April 10, 1964
A This report compiled and prepared by Bruce Poundstone and W. J. Huffman
- Analytical data by Laboratory Staff
Special statistical data explained on pages 9 to ll by W. G. Duncan

 ‘ 4 REGULATORY BULLETIN l8i•
This bulletin contains results of analyses of 1, 850 official samples o 
commercial fertilizer made during the period January l through June 30
1964. The average analysis of each plant food element and the coefficient 0 
variation for each plant food are shown in tables l and Z for each plant.
R e s ea rc h in single core sampling was conducted and l, 745 single cor 
samples were analyzed. Results of this study will be published at a later date
Separate tables are provided for the results of analyses of mixed dr
fertilizer, mixed liquid fertilizer, straight materials, boron, and for the per
cent of potash equivalent to excess muriate where the guarantee for Sulfate o A
Potash is not met. .
EXPLANATION OF TABLES
The information given in the following tables should be useful in deter ·
mining how nearly a manufacturer is meeting the chemical guarantee printe 
on the bag or tag for the fertilizer represented by the samples listed. Thi 
may be done by comparing the guarantee shown at the beginning of each listin 
of samples with the actual analysis in the column at the right in terms of nitro _
gen, available phosphoric acid and potash.
An additional means of comparing guarantees with the analyses of sample
is in the percent of relative value found, shown in the extreme right-hand col
umn. The following examples illustrate how this relative value is calculated
A 5-10-15 sulfate fertilizer is guaranteed to contain 5 units of nitrogen
10 units of available phosphoric acid and 15 units of potash, Factors for com
puting the relative value of these plant foods are; 3 for nitrogen, Z for avail
able phosphoric acid and 1 for potash. Thus the combined guaranteed value o
the product represented is calculated;
5.0 Units of Nitrogen x 3 : 15.0
10.0 Units of Available Phosphoric Acid x 2 : 20. O
l5.0Units of Potash x 1 = 15.0
Total computed guaranteed value 50.0
The same procedure is followed for "found values. " Assuming a sampl
of 5-10-15 was found to contain 5. 1 units of nitrogen, 10. Z units of availabl 
phosphoric acid and 15. 1 units of potash, the relative found value is computed
5.1 Units of Nitrogen x 3 : 15. 3
10. Z Units of Available Phosphoric Acid x 2 : 20. 4
15.1 Units of Potash x 1 = 15.1 .
Total computed value 50. 8
50.8 (computed found value of sample) divided by 50.0 (computed guar
anteed value) times 100 (to arrive at percentage) gives 101. 6 as the percent o
relative value found.
ln some samples a deficiency in one nutrient is accompanied by an over `
run in another nutrient. This may be evidence of improper mixing or weighin 
by the manufacturer. Extreme variations of this kind cannot be attributed t 
separation of materials (segregation) after the product is bagged though thi 
may be a minor factor. Excess of one nutrient cannot compensate for defi
ciency of another nutrient. The purchaser is entitled to receive the full guar
antee for all nutrients as expressed by the manufacturer's guaranteed analysis
The results of analyses of all inspection samples are given in tables 1, Z
3. 4, and 5. If an analysis shows a deficiency of more than the tolerance i 
the amount claimed for nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash, or if the percen
of the relative value is 97 or less, the result is indicated by an asterisk.

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1964 5
COMPANIES REPRESENTED BY SAMPLES REPORTED IN THIS BULLETH\I
llied Chemical Corporation Burley Belt Fertilizer Company
 itrogen Division Route #4
 . O. Drawer 61 Lexington, Kentucky
 opewell, Virginia
California Chemical Company
merican Agricultural Chemical Company Lucas Bm Ortho Way
O0 Church Street Richmond, California
ew York, New York
Carlisle Fertilizer Company
`  merican Cyanamid Company Bardwell
 gricultural Division Kentucky
_  . O. Box 400
 rinceton, New Jersey Cecil Farm Supply
Star Route
 merican Liquid Fertilizer Company Owensboro, Kentucky
nd Street and St. Clair
arietta, Ohio Central Farmers Fertilizer Company
205 W. Wacker Drive
 rmour Agricultural Chemical Company Chicago, Illinois
50 Hurt Building
 tlanta, Georgia Chilean Nitrate Sales Corporation
120 Broadway
 shcraft—Wilkinson Company New York, New York
rust Company of Georgia Building
 tlanta 3, Georgia Christian County Supply Company
Skyline Drive
 ale Fertilizer Company Hopkinsville, Kentucky
orse Cave
entucky Cline Fertilizer Company
Ewing
 artlett & O'Bryan Fertilizer Company Virginia
08 River Road
 wensboro, Kentucky Commercial Solvents Corporation
260 Madison Avenue
 luegrass Plant Foods, Inc, New York, New York
ynthiana
entucky Commonwealth Fertilizer Company
Morgantown Road
 luegrass Supply Company Russellville, Kentucky
091 West High Street
exington, Kentucky Cooperative Fertilizer Service
Southern States Building
.  unton Seed Company Richmond, Virginia
 39 Jefferson Street
ouisville, Kentucky
(Continued)

 6 REGULATORY BULLETIN 18i+
Companies Represented by Samples Reported in this Bulletin (Continued)
Darling & Company Gro-Green Chemical Company
i 4201 S. Ashland Avenue P. O. Box 132
Chicago, Illinois Shelbyville, Kentucky
Elanco Products Company Growers Chemical Corporation
Division of Eli Lilly Ez Company Milan
740 Alabama Street Ohio
Indianapolis 6, Indiana
Hillenmeyer Nurseries
E'town Fertilizer Company Georgetown Pike
Cecilia Lexington, Kentucky
Kentucky
Hutson Chemical Company
Farmers Chemical Association Railroad Avenue
P. O. Box 67 Murray, Kentucky '
Tyner, Tennessee
International Minerals 8.: Chemical Corp _
Farmers Exchange P. O. Box 67_ - Lockland Station
Lancaster Cincinnati, Ohio
Kentucky
S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. V
Farmers Fertilizer Company 1525 Howe Street
Smiths Grove Racine, Wisconsin
Kentucky
Kenco Fertilizer Company
Federal Chemical Company Bowling Green
646 Starks Building Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky
Kentucky Fertilizer Works, Inc.
Glasgow Fertilizer Company P. O. Box 595
Glasgow Winchester, Kentucky
Kentucky
Land-O-Nan Warehouse
W. R. Grace Kr Company Sturgis
Davison Chemical Division Kentucky
101 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland Mayfield Milling Company
Mayfield
W. R. Grace Bi Company Kentucky
Nitrogen Division
P. O. Box 4915 Metcalfe County Farmers Supply
Memphis, Tennessee Edmonton _
Kentucky
Green Valley Farm Supply Company
Island
Kentucky _
(Continued)

 COMDEIRCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON l96i+ 7
ompanies Represented by Samples Reported in this Bulletin (Continued)
id-·South Chemical Company Sadler Fertilizer Company
 222 Riverside Boulevard Union City
emphis, Tennessee Tennessee
ississippi Chemical Corporation Schrock Fertilizer Service
azoo City Congerville
ississippi Illinois
` onsanto Chemical Company O, M. Scott & Sons Company
 OO N. Lindbergh Boulevard Marysville
 t. Louis, Missouri Ohio
I onsanto Agricultural Centers, Inc. Sears, Roebuck & Company
 OO North Lindberg Boulevard 925 South Homan Avenue
`  t. Louis, Missouri Chicago 7, Illinois
I orth American Fertilizer Company Smith-Douglass Company, Inc.
I Preston Street at Bergman P. O. Box 419
Louisville, Kentucky Norfolk, Virginia
I orthwest Nitro Chemicals, Ltd. Southern States Clark County Cooperative
I edicine Hat Winchester
 lberta, Canada Kentucky
Ohio Valley Fertilizer, Inc. Spencer Chemical Company
P. O. Box 799 610 N. Dwight Building
Maysville, Kentucky Kansas City, Missouri
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation Stewart Fertilizer Service, Inc.
P. O. Box 991 Mt. Vernon
Little Rock, Arkansas Kentucky
Phillips Petroleum Company Swift 8: Company
Adams Building Agricultural Chemical Division
Bartlesville, Oklahoma National Stock Yards, Illinois
Rigo Manufacturing Company Tennessee Corporation
238 Benton Avenue 2521 Glendale-Milford Road
Nashville, Tennessee Cincinnati, Ohio
Robin Jones Phosphate Company Tennessee Farmers Cooperative
204 - 23rd Avenue, North LaVergne
Nashville, Tennessee Tennessee
F. S. Royster Guano Company Thompson Sales Company
_ Price Chemical Division Box 246
P. O. Drawer 1940 Montgomery, Alabama
, Norfolk, Virginia
A (Continued)

 8 REGULATORY BULLETIN l8!•
Companies Represented by Samples Reported in this Bulletin (Continued)
Tobacco States Chemical Company V—C Chemical Company
P. O. Box 479 401 East Main Street
Lexington, Kentucky Richmond, Virginia
Tri-State Chemical Company, lnc. West Kentucky Liquid Fertilizer Compan
P. O. Box 123 P. O. Box 507
Henderson, Kentucky Hopkinsville, Kentucky
U. S, Phosphoric Products Division Wathen Farm Service
Tennessee Corporation Madisonville
Tampa, Florida Kentucky
Valley Counties of Kentucky Cooperative .
P. O. Box 351
Benton, Kentucky

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 196A 9
VARIATION IN FERTILIZER ANALYSES
Variation is a basic trait in the analysis of fertilizer. The guarantee
printed on fertilizer bags cannot be acc epted as an exact statement of the
chemical contents. Rather, it tells what the manufacturer was aiming for and
what the purchaser hopes to buy. This is true of all fertilizers. There is al-
ways variation around some average analysis.
Many causes contribute to variability. Pa r tic le size and variability in
chemical content of raw materials are an initial cause of variation. Methods
of assembling, weighing, mixing, delivery into storage piles, and re-handling,
including bagging, present further opportunities for variation. To some ex-
tent they may cancel each other and thus minimize variation. They may pro-
gressively accumulate and thus magnify variation.
The degree of variability in the final fertilizer product is in direct ratio
. to the variation introduced from these causes combined with the care exer-
cised. Precision comes only through the use ofproperly classified ingredients,
employment of methods that are reasonably exact and carefulness at all stages
_ of manufacture.
What has been said of manipulation in manufac tur e is likewise true of
taking samples, their handling and analysis in the laboratory. This, too, may
contribute to variation. Differences from this source, like those brought about
in the manufacturing process, may tend to cancel each other or can accumu-
late. As in manufacturing, care and precision in the manipulation of samples
will reduce the degree of variability.
For the purpose of this report, variations attributable to sampling and
the laboratory may be disregarded. They are usually slight. Also all sam-
ples were taken by the same inspectors and handled in the laboratory in the
same way. If there is "laboratory bias" it will be to change all results in the
same directions to the same degree.
WHY A CONCERN FOR VARIABILITY?
The manufacturer and the farmer alike are interested in this question of
variability. Producers of fertilizer as well as purchasers want a product fully
meeting guarantee. Manufacturers know that a certain amount of variability is
unavoidable. This is a factor in suggesting "over-formulation" in the industry.
The matter of how much over-formulation is necessary varies widely from
plant to plant. The aim or objective of manufacturing is to have full guarantee
as shown on every bag. If there is variability, it should be confined to values
above the guarantee.
From the user's viewpoint, if fertilizer is variable, some purchasers will
get less than they pay for and others will get more. Also, with variability in
composition, different areas in the field will be treated differently correspond-
ing to the degree of variability. The user, therefore, is interested in vari-
ability to the extent that he gets what he pays for, and the fertilizer is suffi-
ciently uniform to give the best possible agronomic return.
— The fertilizer control official is likewise interested in this. His task is to
see that each bag of fertilizer or the average of any two bags or whatever unit
- is selected is r eas onably similar to other units of quantity sold by a given
. manufacturer. Fertilizer laws infer that the ave ra ge of the whole lot pur-
chased should be at least equal to the guarantee. Although there are tolerances
permitting some samples to fall slightly under guarantee, these tolerances are
not large.

 10 REGULATORY BULLETIN 18A
I REPORTING THE ANALYSES OF FERTILIZER
Some system of characterization is de s ir able if the chemical analyses
pub li s h e d in regulatory bulletins are to be meaningful. Marking deficient;
samples with an asterisk is one of these. Since 1961, two additional ways of
diagnosing such data have been used.
AVERAGE ANALYSIS, A MEASURE
The statement has been made that the average of a given lot of fertilizer
should at least equal the gua rante e. If this is c o r r e ct, an average of the
analyses ofseveral samples of such a lot will show whether or not this is true.
The printed guarantee on each bag is viewed as the "aim" of the manu-
facturer. The average analysis of actual samples of the fertilizer becomes the
means of statistically measuring the manufacturer‘s "true aim. " The average ·
analysis has been calculated for all of the analyses of mixed fertilizers re-
ported in this bulletin when as many as two samples are shown. These aver-
ages, given in Tables 1 and 2, follow the words "average analysis. " -
MEASURING VARIABILITY
"Average analysis" as an expression of the "t1·ue aim" of a manufacturer, V
says nothing in the dimension of variability. Some measure is needed to ex-
press the range in analyses on either side of the average. To further use the
analogy from marksmanship if "average" measures aim at the target and tells
the center of this aim, another measure is needed to express the "scatter" of
the various shots. Are they close to the center of "true aim" or are they
"wide" of the mark?
The coefficient of variation is proposed as a means for reducing this to a
statistic that is useful. The method for doing this will be found in textbooks on
statistics and when applied to a guarantee of 5% nitrogen is calculated as fol-
lows:
Sample Number Nitrogen Guarantee Found Sguared
A 5. 0 5. 6 31. 36
B 5. 0 5. 5 30. 25
C 5. 0 5. 4 29. 16
D 5. O 5. 7 32. 49
E 5. 0 5. 5 30. 25
F 5. 0 5. B 33. 64
G 5. 0 5. 0 25. 00
H 5. 0 6. 0 36. 00
I 5. O 5. 5 30, 25
.T 5. 0 5. 3 29. 09
55. 3 306. 49
10 Samples, average analysis = 55,3 : 5. 53
10
Standard deviation : 306. 49 - 55. 32 :   0. 275 .
10 9
10-1 _
Coefficient of variation : 0. 275 x 100 : 4. 97 - 5. 0% .
5. 53
lf in this example there had been less variation or "scatter", the result-
ing percentage would have been smaller. If there had been more variation, it
would have been larger. The c oe ffic ient varies directly with the range in
values of analyses.

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON l96i+ ll
"WlLD" SAMPLES
No matter how much care is exerted ina fertilizer plant, an occasional
"wild" sample may appear. Such sample s are caused by unusual circum-
stances such as putting the wrong fertilizer in bags labeled for another grade
or large errors in mixing or manipulation in the factory that cannot be said to
represent usual procedure.
Computations that include such samples would only throw the coefficient
of variation as well as the average analysis completely out of line. They are
judged to be so abnormal they have not been included in these statistical deter-
minations. There were only 17 such samples in the mixed fertilizer samples
. reported. Such samples are indicated in the table by a double asterisk (=¥°*).
As a basis for excluding these samples, the following rules were followed:
- 1. Throw out any samples more than 110% or less than 90% in relative
value except:
a. The sample is within i 10% of the average sample value.
b. The variation of all the sample values is such that the samples
more than i 10% appear to fit a normal distribution pattern. `
2. Throw out all of a small group of less than (5) samples if variability
is so great that no clear pattern is apparent.
3. Throw out individual samples whose ratio of ingredients differs
strongly from the balance of samples of the grade. These may in-
clude samples:
a. Whose ratio strongly suggests an entirely different grade of fer-
tilizer.
b. Two or more of whose ingredients are higher or lower by 10% or
more of the extreme values of the remaining normal samples.
NOTE ON METHODS OF COMPUTATION USED
It is appa r ent that the computation of coefficients of variation and even
the simple averages for a large number of sarnples irequires a great many
mathematical operations. The cost would make the operation impossible by
ordinary methods, but the use of the digital computer leased by the University
of Kentucky enables all of the computations to be performed at the rate of
approximately Z4, OOO samples an hour.
The machine program for this work was developed especially for the pur-
' pose and is available for use on the computer at the University of Kentucky. It
A will be duplicated for use on other IBM 1620 or 7040 corriputcrs at no charge. 4
INFORMATION GIVEN IN TABLES
The coefficients of variation for each grade from each plant are indicated
` in Tables land Z. These are calculated for mixed fertilizer only and are
shown when two or more samples of a grade are reported. The coefficients of
variation become more significant as the nurnber of sarnples increases.

 1.2 REGULATORY BULLETIN 1.84
. TABLE 1.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fert1I1zers,j¤nu¤,y_Junel 1964
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values af 97 percent ar less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer _ Available Percent af
Grade N'"°9°“ Phaspharic P°t¤sh Relative
$¤mple Number Acid Value Found
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL CO CINCINNATX (Percent) (PETCGFIY) (PEICETIY)
 
20 20M
4761 20.0 20.0 100
20 20M WITH 5 LBS BORAX '
5465 19.7 20.9 101
3 12 12M
6860 3.2 12.0 12.2 102
7071 3.9 11.5* 12.9 106
7540 3.5 12.0 13.2 106
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 3.5 11.8 12.7
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 9.9 2.4 4.0
4 12 BM
6341 4.5 12.3 8.5 107
4750 4.5 12.1 8.5 105
4 16 45
4765 4.2 15.9 4.4 102
5 10 155
4747 5.1 10.2 16.0 103
4751 4.8 10.2 15.2 100
4753 4.9 10.3 15.0 101 ‘
7100 5.2 10.0 15.0 101
7181 5.2 9.9 15.1 101
7958 5.0 10.1 15.3 101
9449 5.0 10.1 15.5 101
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.0 10.1 15.3
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2.9 1.3 2.3
5 20 20M
3839 4.8 20.3 20.0 100
4762 4.9 19.8 20.2 99
4866 4.9 20.4 20.0 101
4970 4.9 20.9 20.3 102
5459 4.6* 20.0 20.5 99
6950 4.8 19.8 19.2* 98
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.5 20.2 20.0
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2.4 2.1 2.2 `
0 6 185
4767 6.0 6.9 18.0 104
4807 5.8 7.7 17.9 106
AvE¤AGE ANALYSIS 5.9 7.3 17.9
COEFFICIENT OF VAFIIATION 2.4 7.7 0.3
6 B 65
7070 6.6 8.7 6.5 109

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1964 13
TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, January-June, 1964
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent or less
indicated by asterisk.
Mcnufccmmr _ Available Percent of
Grade N‘I"°9°" Phaspharic P°I°$l" Relative
$¤mPl€ Number Acid Value Found
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL CO CINCINNATI CONT
 
6 12 12M
4832 6.0 12.0 12.9 102
6343 6.2 11.9 12.7 102
— 7239 6.5 11.8 13.0 104
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.2 11.9 12.B
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 4.0 0.8 1.1
6 12 IBS
4749 6.0 12.1 18.9 102
4795 6.0 12.3 19.0 103
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.0 12.2 18.9
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.1 0.3
6 24 12M
4868 5.9 24.1 12.4 100
10 10 IOM
4746 10.0 10.5 10.1 102
4833 10.0 10.5 10.1 102
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 10.0 10•5 10.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
' 12 I2 12M
4763 11.5* 12.2 13.5 101
4766 10.6* 13.7 13.0 100
4769 1L.5* 12.6 12.4 100
4890 11.4* 12.5 13.7 101
4892 12.2 12.3 12.2 102
5433 11.7 12.7 12.5 101
5463 11.7 12.4 12.5 100
5607 11.3* 12.5 13.3 100
6299 11.6* 12.6 12.7 101
7099 11.6* 12.4 13.0 101
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 11.5 12.5 12.8
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.4 3.3 3.9
16 8 BM
4966 15.7 8.7 8.2 101
6103 15.9 8.5 8.6 102
‘ AVERAGE ANALYSIS 15.8 8.6 8.4
, COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 0.9 1.6 3.3
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL C0 DANVILLE
 
10 10 IOM
5765 9.7 10.7 10.1 101
6778 9.2* 11.7 10.1 102
7536 10.5 10.3 10.7 105
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 9.8 10.9 10.3
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 6.6 6.6 3.3

 14 REGULATORY BULLETIN 184
` TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, J¤nu¤.·y-_|u,{g, 1964
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values af 97 percent ar less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer N_ Available Percent of
Grude '1"°9€" Phaspharic Pomsh Relative
$¤mr>l¤ Number Acad venue Foun 
AMERICAN AGM CHEMXCAL CO LONDON (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) .
20 20M
3892 19.6 19.9 99
5967 20.7 19.3* 101
8086 21.3 17.6* 100
8911 19.7 20.6 100 `
AVERAGE ANAL.Y$1S 20.3 19.3
COEFFICIENT OF VAR1AT1ON 4.0 6.6
20 20M WITH 5 LBS BDRAX
5369 20.0 20.2 100
8090 19.2* 21.1 99
8434 19.6 21.7 102 '
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 19.6 21.0
COEFFICIENT OF VAR1AT1ON 2.0 3.6
30 3OM
3957 29. 4* 29.7 98
7520 30.1 29.2* 99
AVERAGE ANALYS1 S 29.7 29.4
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.6 1.2
3 9 6M
3887 3.1 8.9 6.2 101 ·
6281 3.1 8.9 6.3 101
6301 3.1 8.8 6.5 101
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 3.1 8.8 6.3
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 0.6 2.4
3 9 65
8084 3.1 8.9 6.3 101
3 12 12M
8092 3.0 11.9 13.1 102
a I2 8M
3863 4.1 12.0 8.0 101
3949 4.2 11.7 8.3 101 V
6991 4.2 12.0 8.1 102
8096 4.1 11.7 8.8 101 _
AVERAGE ANALVSIS 4.1 11.8 8.3
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.3 1.4 4.2
4 16 45
4830 4.1 15.8 4.5 101
6283 4.1 15.3* 4.2 98
7227 4.1 16.0 4.3 101
AVERAGE ANALYS15 4.1 15.7 4.3
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATKON 2.3 3.5

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1964 15
TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, January-June, 1964
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent or less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer _ Available Percent af
Grade N'"°9°“ Phospharic P°t°$h Relative
Sample Number Acid Value Found
Amemcm AGRI cuemicm. ca •.0N¤ai~i com (Perm") (P°'°°"I) (Percent)
5 10 IOM
6303 5.0 10.2 10.0 101
. 6751 5.2 10.3 11.5 106
6822 5.0 10.0 10.4 101
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.0 10.1 10.6
COEFFICIENT OF VARXATION 2.2 1.5 7.3
5 I0 15S
3893 5.1 10.2 15.0 101
3951 5.0 10.1 15.5 101
8094 5.1 10.8 15.1 104
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.0 10.3 15.2
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.1 3.6 1.7 A
5 20 20M
3756 5.0 19.5* 20.0 99
3895 4.9 20.0 19.9 99
3953 4.9 20.1 20.5 101
6993 5.0 19.7 20.0 99
8088 4.9 20.2 19.8 100
8939 5.0 19.6 20.3 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.9 19.8 20.0
` COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.1 1.4 1.3
6 6 IBS
3956 5.9 6.2 18.0 100
7094 6.0 6.0 18.0 100
7390 5.9 5.8 18.0 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.9 6.0 18.0
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 0.9 3.3
6 12 12M
3954 6.1 12.0 12.1 101
6305 6.2 11.8 12.0 100
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.1 11.9 12.0
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.1 1.1 0.5
I 8 8 185
3955 7.6* 8.3 17.6* 98
5447 7.8 8.6 17.5* 100
5763 8.0 8.1 17.5* 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 7.8 8.3 17.5
COEFF1C1ENT OF VARIATION 2.5 3.0 0.3
I0 10 IOM
3864 10.0 10.6 9.8 102
3885 9.9 10.2 10.0 100
3894 10.1 9.8 10.1 100
6995 10.1 9.8 9.7 99
7522 10.3 9.4* 9.8 99
8432 10.0 9.9 10.2 100
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 10.0 9.9 9.9
COEFF1C1ENT OF VARIATION 1.3 4.1 1.9

 16 REGULATORY BULLETIN 1.84 ·
A LE 1. Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, Jqnuql-y-JFmE, ]964
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent ar less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer N_ Available Percent of
Grcdc '"°g°“ Phospharic P°1°sh Relative
$¤m¤*¤ Number Acid vuiue rem 
P r
AMERICAN Aem cnemxcm. ca i.oN¤or~a com ( ewan) (Percent) (percent)
 
12 12 12M
3952 12.0 11•6* 12.0 99
738B 11.6* 11•B 12¤3 98
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 11.8 11•7 12.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2.4 1•2 1•7
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL CO NASHVILLE
 
9 27M WITH 3 LBS BORAx
B293 8•2* 30•3 104
18 36M WITH 5 LBS BORAX l
5503 1B•1 35•5 100
25 25M
2034 26•O 24.7 102
9109 26.6 23.0* 102
AVERAGE ANALYSIS E6•3 23nB
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.6 5.0
3 9 6M
2038 3•2 10•3 6.7 112
5181 3.3 9•9 7.2 112 -
AVERAGE ANALVSI 5 3.2 10.1 6•9
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2.1 2.8 5.0
3 12 12M WITH 3 LBS BORAX
5270 3.0 11.B 12.0 99
4 12 BM
5501 A•O 11•9 B.1 100
4 12 B5
5269 4.2 11•B 9.6 104
5 10 155
5182 4.7* 10•3 1A¤8 99
5183 ¤.7* 10•2 10•5* 98 _
6862 5.0 10•O 15•O 100
7056 #3.7* 10.1 14.5* 98
B267 4.7* 10.4 15.0 100
9405 5•O 10•4 15.5 103
Ax/EQAGE ANALYSIS 4.8 10.2 14.9
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.2 1.6 2•7
5 20 10M
I 5187 5.0 19•9 9.7 99

 COMM RCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1964 17
TABLE 1.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, _|¤nu¤ry_June’ I964
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent ar less
. indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer _ Available Percent af
Grade Nltmgen Phaspharic Pdmsh Relative
$¤mPl¢ Number Acid Value Found
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL CO NASHVILLE CONT Ipewenn (Pewe¤0 (Pemend
5 20 20M
5154 5.0 19.9 19.5* 99
5185 4.8 19.5 20.2 99
5569 me 19.5* 2511 oa
6002 4.4* 19.9 20.0 97*
8265 5.1 19.8 19.9 100
_ AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.8 19.7 19.9
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 5.5 0.8 1.3
· 6 12 12M
5171 6.0 12.2 12.1 101
6634 6.0 12.1 12.4 101
6784 6.2 11.9 12.0 101
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.0 12.0 12.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.9 1.2 1.7
10 10 IOM
5172 9.8 10.3 10.1 100
5186 9.7 10.5 10.1 100
5451 9.B 10.2 10.6 101
6636 9.8 10.4 9.9 100
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 9.7 10.3 10.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 0.5 1.2 2.9
AMERICAN AGRI CHEM C0 NATIONAL STOCK YARDS
 
6 12 12M
7392 6.1 11.6* 12.0 99
12 4 BM
7334 11.8 4.9 6.5* 99
16 B 8M
7330 15.3* 9.5 9.4 103
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL CO NEW YORK
6 10 4M
6192 6.2 9.9 5.0 103
7055 6.5 9.8 5.4 106
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.3 9.9 5.2
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.3 0.7 5.4
IO 10 IOM
9202 10.3 10.0 10.1 102

 18 mzaumrony BULLETIN 184
TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, Junuuryjune 1964
. . I
‘ Analyses defncnent more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent ar less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer _ Available Percent of
Grade N'"°g°" Phaspharic P°1°Sh Relative
Sample Number Acid Value Foun 
Amenicnru Aani CHEMICAL ca sevmausz lpemenll lP°"°°"’1l (Percent)
 
20 20M
7069 21.7 19.4* 105
3 12 12M
6864 3.5 11.7 12.7 104
4 16 16M _
7074 4.0 16.0 16.2 100
5 10 155
7077 5.6 9.8 15.0 103 -
7956 5.0 10.5 15.1 102
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.3 10.1 15.0
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION B.0 4.8 0.4
5 20 20M
6866 5.0 20.1 21.0 102
7073 5.2 21.0 19.9 103
7076 5.2 20.7 20.7 104
7534 5.2 20.3 20.1 102
7952 6.0 20.0 19.1* 103
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.3 20.4 20.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 7.3 2.0 3.6
12 12 12M
6868 11.5* 12.5 12.0 99
7075 12.0 13.0 12.2 103
7954 12.2 11.9 12.2 101
8941 11.3* 12•6 12.0 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 11.7 12.5 12.1
COEFFICIENT OF VAQIATION 3.5 3.6 0.9
ADMOUR AGRI CHEMICAL CO ATLANTA
 
5 10 5M
6084 4.6* 10.3 7.2 104
5 10 55
3766 5.4 9.6* 6.9 106
6198 5.2 10.3 5.5 104
7057 5.0 10.5 5.1 103
7141 5.6 9.6* 7.6 109
AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 5.3 10.0 6.2 l
COEFFICIENT OF VAQIATION 4.8 4.6 18.6
10 3 7M
6800 10.0 4.3 7.5 107

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON l96A l9
TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertili1ers,Janu¤ry-June, ]964
Analyses deficient mare than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent or less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer _ Available Percent of
Gmdgu N N'"°g°" Phosphcric p°'°sh Relative
"‘Pl° umbel Acid Value Found
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
ARMOUR AGRI CHEMICAL CO ATLANTA CONT
11 22 22M
3819 12.8 21.5* 21•5| 104
7892 11.5 24•O 22.0 106
_ AVERAGE ANALYSIS 12.1 22.7 21.7
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 7.5 7.7 1.6
· 12 za 24H
4717 12.2 2]•9* 23.0* 96*
I3 13 13M
4715 12.8 17.9 15.0 114
15 15 15M I
995 13.6* 15.2 16.0 97*
4716 14.8 17.3 14.6* 104
7318 14.6* 16.1 I5•0 101
7472 14.3* 17.0 16.1 103
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 14.3 16•4 15.4
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.6 5.7 4.6
18 46 O
` 7747 17.0* 45.6 97*
ARMOUR AGRI CHEMICAL C0 CHEROKEE
12 24 24M
5305 12.0 25-1 25.7 104
15 15 15M
5304 14.7 15•9 15.5 102
> ARMOUR AGRI CHEMICAL CO CINCINNATI
20 20M
6208 16.7* 19.6 88*
6209 20•O 19.0* 98
6963 18.7* 20.1 96*
· AVERAGE ANALYSIS 18.4 19.5
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 9.0 2.8
20 20M WITH 5 LBS BORAX
5557 14.4* 17.7* 78*
8028 19•5* 19.6 98
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 16.9 18.6
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 21.2 7.2

 20 REGULATORY BULLETIN 1.84
· TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, J¤nu¤,·y-_|une_ ]g64
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent or less
indicated by asterisk.
Mqnufqcgurey _ Available Percent of
Grade N'"°9°" Phcsphoric Pmcsh Relative
$¤r¤r>|e Number Acid Value Found
Anraaua Asn; CHEMICAL co cimciiwnri c0NT lperceml (percent) (Percent)
4 12 8M -
982 4.3 12.3 8.4 104
4744 4.2 12.6 8.0 104
4836 4.3 12.2 8.6 104 i
4B7B 4.2 12.7 B.2 105
6285 4.3 12.3 8.2 104
7101 4.3 12.6 8.1 105
AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 4.2 12.4 8.2
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.2 1.6 2.6
4 16 45 -
6119 5.0 14.5* 5.9 104
5 10 55
4710 5.6 10.2 5.2 106
5 10 IOM
983 5.0 10.6 9.6* 102
4745 5.4 10.4 10.0 104
4794 5.0 10.3 9.9 101
4837 5.1 10.0 9.3* 99
4870 5.1 10.1 9.6* 100 ‘
6317 5.1 10.2 10.1 102
6997 5.0 10.0 9.9 100
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.1 10.2 9.7
COEFFICIENT OF VAQIATION 2.7 2.1 2.8
5 I0 155
4709 4.7* 10.9 15.0 102
4741 4.8 10.1 15.7 101
4752 5.0 10.4 15.2 102
4790 4.4* 10.6 15.0 99
4816 5.0 9.9 15.7 101
4838 4.6* 10.0 15.1 98
4859 5.2 9.8 15.4 101
5134 5.0 10.3 15.1 101
6802 5.0 10.1 14.8 100
6965 4.7* 10.5 15.6 101 _
7006 4.9 10.0 15.0 99
7103 4.7* 9.9 15.7 99 ·
8913 5.0 9.9 15.1 100 .
AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 4.8 10.1 15.2
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 4.5 3.2 2.0
5 10 205 .
4861 6.3 10.6 18.7* 107
5 20 20M
4862 5.0 19.3* 19.1* 97*
4872 4.9 20.0 19.4* 99
6121 5.7 18.5* 19.8 99
6967 5.2 18.2* 19.3* 95*
6975 4.9 18.1* 21.1 96*

 COMM RCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1964 21
TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples af Mixed Dry Fertilizers,.Junu¤ryJune, ]g64
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent ar less
indicated by asterisk.
Mgnufgcfurgr _ Available Percent of
Grade N'Ir°9e“ Phosphoric P°I°Sh Relative
$¤mp|¤ Number Acid Value Found
ARMOUR AGRI CHEMICAL co CINCINNATI cam' (P"'°"’“Il lP€'°""‘I) lP°"°°“Il
5 20 20M CONTINUED
8924 4.8 19.2 20.8 98
. 9200 5.1 18.9* 20.2 98
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.0 18.8 19.9
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 5.9 3.5 3.8
6 6 IBS
4819 6.2