xt7nzs2k804s https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7nzs2k804s/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1961 journals 169 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.169 text Regulatory series, bulletin. n.169 1961 2014 true xt7nzs2k804s section xt7nzs2k804s Regulatory Bulletin 169
ANALYSES OF OFFICIAL
FERTILIZER SAMPLES
by the
FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT
KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
SEMLANNUAL REPORT
SPRING SEASON
JANUARY-]UNE, 1961
`~4 or A
2 E
Z re
 
O/865*
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON

 Q
FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT
KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION I
Bruce Poundstone, Head of Department
Robert Mathews, Asst. Adm. & Chief Inspector
Guy P. Zickefoose, Auditor-Inspector
W. J. Huffman, Registration Inspector
FIELD INSPECTORS
M. M. Davis Neville Hulette Noel J. Howard
O. R. Wheeler W. M. Routt
IABORATORY STAFF
Harry R. Allen J. A. Shrader Lelah Gault
Valva Midkiff John Ellis Norma Holbrook
J. T. Adair Dewey Newman, Jr. Robert N. Price
Paul R. Caudill Clyde Bradway
~k * ar 1: a >\· ea ~k ~k
This report compiled and prepared by Bruce Poundstone and W. J. Huffman
Analytical data by Laboratory Staff
Special statistical data explained on pages 13 to 19 by W. G. Duncan

 CONTENTS
Page
Explanation of Tables ................................................................. io
Companies Represented by Samples Reported in This Bulletin ............................ 5
Explanation of "Standing of Manufacturers" ............................................ B
Tonnage of Fertilizer Sold ............................................................ 8
Standing of Manufacturers ............................................................. 9
Variation In Fertilizer Analyses .................... . ...... . .......................   13
Why A Concern For Variability? ...... . ................................................. 13
Reporting the Analysis of Fertilizer .................................................. 13
Average Analysis, A Measure ........................................................... lb
V Measuring Variability .............. . .................................................. 14
‘ "Nild" Samples ........................................................................ 14
Note On Methods of Computation Used ...... L ............................................ 15
Information Given in Tables ............ . .............................................. 15
Average Percentage of Guarantee and Coefficient of Variation for all
Samples by Fertilizer Manufacturers ........................................ 16
Table l - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers ........... . ........ 20
Table 2 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Liquid Fertilizers .... . ............ 103
Table 3 - Analyses of Straight Materials ............................................. 108
Table 4 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Rock Phosphate, Basic Slag,
Fused Tricalcium Phosphate ............................ . .................... 119
Table 5 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Bone Meal, Dried Manures, etc. ........... 119
Table 6 ·- Results of Analyses of Fertilizer Samples in which the
guarantee for Sulfate of Potash was not met ...... . ........... .. ........   120
Table 7 - Results of Analyses of Boron in Fertilizers Reported in Tables l & 2 ....... 123
Table B — Results of Analyses of Insecticides in Fertilizers shown in Table l ........ 125
EXPLANATION OF REFERENCES DI TABLES 1, 2 AND 3
I Infomation is given for samples where the words "See note" is shown
as follows:
Note l. See Table 6 for analyses of samples in which the guarantee
for sulphate of potash was not met.
Note 2. See Table 7 for the results of analyses of Boron in
fertilizers.
, Note 3. See Table 8 for the results of analyses of Pesticides
in fertilizers.
Note io. Fertilizer represented by this sample returned to plant
and re-worked.
Note 5. Purchaser received a refuned based upon this analysis.
Note 6. Product re-labeled and sold according to laboratory finding.
Note 7. Purchaser could not be determined; refund based upon the
analysis, sent to charity.
Note 8. Returned to plant.
Note 9. This smnple not included in average. SCC "wild" sanplos nn
page 14.

 4 RJEGLHJATYDRY BULJJETIN 169
This bulletin contains results of analyses of 3,687 official samples of commercial
fertilizer made during the period January 1 through June 30, 1961. The average analysis
of each plant food element and the coefficient of variation for each plant food are
shown in Tables 1 and 2 for each plant. The average percentage of guarantee and the
coefficient of variation for all samples of a manufacturer are shown on pages 16 thru 19.
Separate tables are provided for the results of analysis of mixed dry fertilizer,
mixed liquid fertilizer, straight materials, boron, pesticides incorporated in fertilizer
and for the percent of potash equivalent to excess muriate where the guarantee for Sulfate
of Potash is not met. ·
EXPLANATION OF TABLES
The information given should be useful to farmers, agricultural workers, and com-
pany representatives in determining how closely a given manufacturer and plant is meet-
ing the chemical guarantee printed on the bag for all or specific fertilizers. This
may be done by comparing the guarantee shown at the beginning of each listing of samples
with the actual analysis in the column at the right in terms of nitrogen, available phos-
phoric acid and potash.
An additional means of comparing guarantees with the analyses of samples is in the
percent of relative value found, shown in the extreme right-hand column. 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 computing the relative
values of these plant foods are: 3 for nitrogen, 2 for available phosphoric acid and l
for potash. Thus the combined guaranteed value of the product represented is calculated:
5.0 Units of Nitrogen x 3 = 15.0
10.0 Units of Available Phosphoric Acid x 2 = 20.0
15.0 Units of Potash x 1 = 15.0
Total computed guaranteed value 50.0
The same procedure is followed for "found values". Assuming a sample of 5-10-15 was
found to contain 5.1 units of nitrogen, 10.2 units of available phosphoric acid and 15.1
units of potash, the relative found value is computed:
5.1 Units of Nitrogen x 3 = 15.3
10.2 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 guaranteed value)
times 100 (to arrive at percentage) gives 101.6 as the percent of relative value found.
In some samples a deficiency in one nutrient is accompanied by an over—run in another
nutrient. This may be evidence of improper mixing or weighing by the manufacturer. Ex-
treme variations of this kind cannot be attributed to separation of materials (segregation)
after the product is bagged though this may be a minor factor. Excess of one nutrient can-
not compensate for deficiency of another nutrient. The purchaser is entitled to receive
the full guarantee for all nutrients as expressed by the manufacturer's guaranteed analysis.
The results of analyses of all inspection samples are given in tables l, 2, 3, A and
5. lf an analysis shows a deficiency of more than the tolerance, the amount claimed for
nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash, or if the percent of the relative value is 97 or less,
the result is indicated by an asterisk.

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1961 5
COMPANIES REPRESENTED BY SAMPLES REPORTED IN THIS BULLETIN
Allied Chemical Corp., Nitrogen Div. Commercial Solvents Corporation
P.0. Drawer 61 260 Madison Avenue
Hopewell, Virginia New York, New York
American Agricultural Chemical Co. Commonwealth Fertilizer Company
100 Church Street Morgantown Road
New York, New York Russellville, Kentucky
The American Liquid Fert. Co., Inc. Cooperative Fertilizer Service
2nd St. and St. Clair Southern States Building
. Marietta, Ohio Richmond, Virginia
Armour Agricultural Chemical Co. Darling and Company
350 Hurt Building 4201 S. Ashland Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois
Associated Cooperatives, Inc. Davison Chemical Company
750 West 20th Avenue Div. W. R. Grace & Company
Sheffield, Alabama 101 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland
L. D. Bale & Company
Horse Cave, Kentucky Diamond Fertilizer Company
Sandusky, Ohio
Bartlett & O'Bryan Fertilizer Co.
108 River Road E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company
Owensboro, Kentucky 6054 DuPont Building
Wilmington, Delaware
Bluegrass Plant Foods, Inc.
Cynthiana, Kentucky J. H. Erbrich Products Company
1120 32nd Street
Bunton Seed Company Indianapolis, Indiana
300-306 E. Jefferson Street
Louisville, Kentucky E'Town Fertilizer Company
Cecilia, Kentucky
` Burley Belt Plant Food Works, Inc.
Route #4 Farmers Fertilizer Company
Lexington, Kentucky Smiths Grove, Kentucky
California Chemical Company Farmers Supply &Produce Company
· Lucas & Ortho Way Monticello, Kentucky
Kichmond, California
Federal Chemical Company
Central Farmers Fertilizer Co. 646 Starks Building
205 W. Wacker Drive Louisville, Kentucky
Chicago, Illinois
Glasgow Fertilizer Company
Chemical Formulators, Inc. Glasgow, Kentucky
Nitro, West Virginia
W. R. Grace & Co., Nitrogen Division
Chilean Nitrate Sales Corporation P.0. Box 4915
120 Broadway Memphis, Tennessee
New York, New York
_ Gro-Green Chemical Co.
Clover Chemical Company P.0. Box 132
P.0. Box 10865 Shelbyville, Kentucky
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 6 REGULATORY BULLETIN 169 I
Continued from previous page
Goulard 6i Olena, Inc. Ohio Valley Fertilizer, Inc.
Skillman, New Jersey P.O. Box 799
Maysville, Kentucky
A. H. Hoffman, Inc.
Landisville, Pennsylvania Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 991
Hutson Chemical Company Little Rock, Arkansas »
Railroad Avenue
Murray, Kentucky Price Chemical Company, Inc.
Div. F. S. Royster Guano Co.
Hydroponic Chemical Company P.O. Drawer 1940
P.O. Box 97-·C Norfolk, Virginia _
Copley, Ohio
Ra-Pid-Gro Corporation
International Minerals & Chemical Corp. 88 Ossian Street
P.O. Box 67-Lockland Station Danville, New York
Cincinnati, Ohio
E. Rauh & Sons Fertilizer Company
Kentucky Fertilizer Works, Inc. Union Stock Yards
P.O. Box 595 Indianapolis, Indiana
winchester, Kentucky
Robin Jones Phosphate Company
Kentucky Seed Company 20i•—23rd Avenue, North
Louisville, Kentucky Nashville, Tennessee
Land-O-Nan Warehouse O. M. Scott & Sons Company
Sturgis, Kentucky Marysville, Ohio
Lincoln Farm Service Semo Liquid Fertilizer Company
Stanford, Kentucky P.O. Box 301
Charleston, Missouri
Louisville Fertilizer Company
Div. Armour Agricultural Chem. C0. Smith-Douglas Company, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee P.O. Box A19
Norfolk, Virginia
Mid-South Chemical Company
1222 Riverside Boulevard Southern States Clark Co. Cooperative
Memphis, Tennessee Winchester, Kentucky
Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Corp. Spencer Chemical Company
3006 W. Coldspring Lane 610 N. Dwight Building
Baltimsre, Maryland Kansas City, Missouri
Mississippi Chemical Corporation The Stadler Fertilizer Company
Yazoo City, Mississippi 1010 Dennison Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio
Monsanto Chemical Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard Stim-U-Plant Laboratories, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri 2077 Parkwood Avenue
Columbus, Ohio
Na—Churs Plant Food Company
A21 Monroe Street Swift and Company
Marion, Ohio Agricultural Chemical Division
National Stock Yards, Illinois
North American Fertilizer Company
1-.·i·§.r.~¤ sweep ar Bergman Temwssee Chemical C¤mp¤¤y
{,¤uiSv;]]U_ Kentucky Div. Armour Agricultural Chemical Co.
Nashville, Tennessee

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1961 7
Continued from previous page
Tennessee Corporation Valley Counties of Kentucky Coop.
P.O. Box 7-Lockland Station P.O. Box 351
Cincinnati, Ohio Murray, Kentucky
Tobacco States Chemical Company Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp.
P.0. Box 479 Q01 East Main Street
Lexington, Kentucky Richmond, Virginia
Tri-State Chemical Corporation Weil—Elli0tt Chemical Company
. _ P.0. Box 123 401 N. 37th street
Henderson, Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky
U.S. Phosphoric Division West Kentucky Liquid Fertilizer Company
Tennessee Corporation P.O. Box 507
Tampa, Florida Hopkinsville, Kentucky
U.S. Steel Corporation
525 William Penn Place
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 8 REGULATORY BULLETIN 169
EXPLANATION OF "STANDING OF MANUFACTURERS"
The standing of manufacturers, by plants, as determined by the results of analyses
of official samples is given on pages 9 through l2. Purchasers of fertilizer can learn
through a study of these pages how well any manufacturer, or plant, met his guarantee on
the samples analyzed.
It should be noted that the first three columns of figures refer to number of sam-
ples and that the last three columns refer to number of analyses of nitrogen, phosphoric
acid, potash, sulfate of potash, boron, and pesticides. Attention is directed to the
third column of figures which gives for each manufacturer the percentage of samples that
are equal to guaranty in all respects, and to column 6, which gives the percentage of
analyses that are equal to guaranty or within tolerance. This tolerance is on a sliding
scale varying with the guaranty as follows:
Percent Guarantee in Nitrogen,
Phosphoric Acid or Potash Tolerance
0- 9 0.2
lO-19 0.3
20-25 0.4
26-34 0.5
35-39 0.6
40-49 0.7
50-59 0.8
60 or more 0.9
TONNAGE OF FERTILIZER SOLD
The tonnage of fertilizer and fertilizer materials sold during the period covered
by this bulletin was 459,840 tons. This is 0.4 percent less than the 461,786 tons sold
during the same period of 1960. Thcre was a decrease of 4,025 tons of mixed fertilizer
and an increase of 2,079 tons of materials sold this spring. Although there was 0.4
percent less total fertilizer sold in the spring of l96l than in the same period of
1960, the actual plant food used was 1.4 percent more.

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZ ER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1961 9
Standing of Manufacturers, Based on Samples Equal to Guaranty in All Respects
and Analyses within Tolerance - Spring Season 1961
MIXED DRY FERTILIZER
Analyses of N, P205, KZO, sulfate
Sam les of  otash boron and  esticides
. COMPANY AND PIANT Total Equal to guaranty Total Equal to guaranty or
Number in all res ects Number within To1erance**
Number Percent* Number Pereent*
· American Agric. Chem. Co. 440 276 63 1468 1337 91
Cincinnati, Ohio 156 100 64 528 488 92
Knoxville, Tennessee 1 1 -- 4 4 ——
London, Kentucky 199 125 63 666 615 92
Nashville, Tennessee 49 22 45 167 132 79
Nat'1. Stock Yards, Ill. 14 10 71 41 38 93
New York, New York 9 7 78 27 26 96
Seymour, Indiana 12 ll 92 35 34 97
Armour Agric. Chem. Co. 543 309 57 1,810 1,611 89
Atlanta, Georgia 18 13 72 60 57 95
Cincinnati, Ohio 169 119 70 568 533 94
Jeffersonville, Ind. 158 88 56 539 476 88
Louisville Fertilizer Co. 2 1 -- 7 6 86
Memphis, Tennessee 17 6 35 51 41 80
Nashville, Tennessee 173 80 46 567 484 85
Tennessee Chemical Co. 6 2 33 18 14 78
Associated Cooperatives , Inc. 8 4 50 20 18 90
L. D. Bale & Company 17 4 24 53 45 85
_ Bartlett & O'Bryan Fert. Co. 16 4 25 52 41 79
Bluegrass Plant Foods, Inc. 158 73 46 546 469 86
' Cynthiana, Kentucky 63 31 49 220 194 88
Danville, Kentucky 95 42 44 326 275 84
Bunton Seed Company 1 0 -- 3 2 -—
Burley Belt Plant Food Works 48 8 17 173 128 74
Chemical Formulators, Inc. 1 0 ··- 3 2 --
‘ Clover Chemical Company 1 0 —— 3 3 --
Commonwealth Fertilizer Co. 63 18 29 194 144 74
Cooperative Fertilizer Service 360 247 69 1,168 1,085 93
Bristol, Virginia 15 12 80 43 38 88
Louisville, Kentucky 144 112 78 477 457 96
Russellville, Kentucky 105 55 52 325 289 89
Winchester, Kentucky 96 68 71 323 301 93
Darling and Company 40 18 45 122 97 80
Davison Chemical Company 185 90 49 575 493 86
Nashville, Tennessee 82 31 38 249 200 80
New Albany, Indiana 103 59 57 326 293 90
Diamond Fertilizer Company 1 0 -·- 3 2 --
E'town Fertilizer Company 65 39 60 201 177 88
· Farmers Fertilizer Company 2 0 —— 7 3 43
Federal Chemical Company 326 131 40 1,052 868 83
Danville, Illinois 5 1 Z0 14 10 71
Humboldt, Tennessee 53 23 43 171 139 81
Louisville, Kentucky 144 67 47 474 403 85
Nashville, Tennessee 124 40 32 393 316 80
Glasgow Fertilizer Company 50 10 20 163 131 80
Goulard & Olena , Inc_ 1 1 -- 3 3 —·-
Gro-·Green Chemical Company 28 15 54 98 89 91
A. 1-1. Hoffman, Inc. 1 1 —- 3 3 --
Hutson Chemical Company 29 3 10 95 59 62
Hydroponic Chemical Company l 1 -- 3 3 -—
(Continued)

 10 REGULATORY BULLETIN 169 Y,
Standing of Manufacturers, Based on Samples Equal to Guaranty in All Respects
and Analyses within Tolerance — Spring Season 1961 (Continued)
MDIED DRY FERTHJZZER
  l
Analyses of N, P205, K20, sulfate
Sam les of  otash boron and  esticides
COMPANY AND PLANT Total Equal to guaranty Total Equal to guaranty or
Number in all res ects Number within Tolerance**
Number Percent* Number Percent*
Int. Min. 5: Chem. Corp. 269 112 42 887 731 82
Cincinnati, Ohio 98 43 44 336 278 83
Clarksville, Tenn. 60 29 48 193 162 84
Greeneville, Tenn. 14 6 43 42 41 98
Somerset, Kentucky 95 33 35 310 244 79
Skokie, Illinois 1 0 -- 3 3 --
F10rence,A1abama 1 1 -- 3 3 --
Kentucky Fertilizer Works 103 47 46 345 297 86
Land-0-Nan Warehouse 8 2 25 21 16 76
Louisville Fertilizer Co.
See: Armour Ag. Chem. Co.
Miller Chem. 6: Fert. Corp. 1 1 -- 3 3 --
Monsanto Chemical Company 1 1 -- 4 4 --
North American Fert. Co. 101 40 40 334 278 B3
Ohio Valley Fert. , Ing, 33 11 33 111 90 81
Olin Mathieson Chemical Co. 4 1 -- 12 10 83
Little Rock, Arkansas 3 1 —- 9 8 89
Houston, Texas 1 0 —- 3 2 --
Price Chemical Company 93 43 46 316 269 85
Louisville, Kentucky 19 8 42 62 52 84
Norfolk, Virginia 74 35 47 254 217 85 '·
Ra-Pid··Gro Corporation 2 0 -- 6 3 50
E. Rauh & Sons Fert. Co. 5 4 80 15 14 93
Robin Jones Phosphate Co. 11 6 55 28 22 79
O. M. Scott 6. Sons Co. 2 2 -- 6 6 100
Smith Douglass Company 5 2 40 16 13 81
Columbus, Ohio 1 1 -- 3 3 —·
Norfolk, Virginia 4 1 -- 13 10 77
The Stadler Fert. Company 1 0 -- 3 2 --
Swift & Company 20 10 50 61 52 B5
Chicago, Illinois B 5 63 24 21 88
Nat'1. Stock Yards, Ill. 12 5 42 37 31 B4
Stim-U-Plant Laboratories 1 1 -- 3 3 --
Tennessee Chemical Company
See: Armour Ag. Chem. Co.
Tennessee Corporation 97 46 47 314 278 89
Cincinnati, Ohio 40 19 48 127 111 87
New Albany, Indiana 57 27 47 187 167 89
Tri-State Chemical Company 32 8 25 101 75 74
Valley Counties of Ky. COOp_ 2 1 —- 5 3 60
Virginia-Carolina Chem. Corp. 190 99 52 613 543 B9
Cincinnati, Ohio 62 32 52 202 180 89
Hopkinsville, Ky. 83 46 55 265 236 B9
Memphis, Tennessee 6 4 67 18 16 89
Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee 26 9 35 86 73 85
Richmond, Virginia 13 8 62 42 3B 90
MIXED LIQUID FERTILIZER
The Amer. Liquid Fert. Co. 3 3 -- 9 9 100
California Spray Chem. Co. 1 1 -- 3 3 ·-
(Continued)

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1961 11
Standing of Manufacturers, Based on Samples Equal to Guaranty in All Respects
and Analyses within Tolerance ·- Spring Season 1961 (Continued)
MIXED LIQUID FERTILIZER
 
Analyses of N, 1*205, KZO, sulfate
Sam les of  otash boron and  esticides
COMPANY AND PLANT Total Equal to guaranty Total Equal to guaranty or
Number in all res ects Number within '1`olerance**
. Number Percent* Number Percent*
_ Commonwealth Fertilizer Co. 4 l -- 13 10 77
J. H. Erbrich Products Co. 2 O -- 6 4 67
Farmers Supply & Produce Co. 1 1 -- 3 3 --
Hutson Chemical Company l O -- 3 l ··-
Kentucky Seed Company 1 1 -- 3 3 --
Land-O-Nan Warehouse 11 7 64 34 31 91
Lincoln Farm Service 1 O -- 3 2 -—
Na-Churs Plant Food Company 1 0 ·- 3 2 --
Semo Liquid Fertilizer Co. 2 0 -- 6 4 67
S. S. Clark Cooperative 1 1 -—· 3 3 -··
Tobacco States Chemical Co. 2 1 -- B 6 75
Weil Elliott Chemical Co. 3 0 -- 9 5 56
West Ky. Liquid Fertilizer Co. 54 12 22 161 120 75
Bowling Green, Kentucky 8 4 50 19 16 84
Hopkinsville, Kentucky 29 7 24 90 67 74
Guthrie, Kentucky 17 l 6 52 37 71
STRAIGHT MATERIALS
“ Allied Chem. Corp., Nit. Div. 5 4 BO 5 5 100
Hopewell, Virginia 2 2 -- 2 2 --
Memphis, Tennessee 1 1 -- 1 1 --
‘ New York, New York 1 O -- 1 1 --
South Point, Ohio 1 1 -- 1 1 —-
The American Ag. Chem. Co. 27 23 85 30 27 90
London, Kentucky 17 13 76 18 15 83
Nashville, Tennessee 1 l -- 1 1 --
· New York, New York 9 9 100 ll 11 100
Armour Agric. Chem. Company 27 22 81 34 30 88
Atlanta, Georgia 1 1 —— 2 2 --
Bartow, Florida 2 2 -·· 2 2 --
Cincinnati, Ohio 7 5 71 B 6 75
Crystal City, Missouri 3 3 -- 3 3 --
Jeffersonville, Indiana ll B 73 16 14 88
Nashville, Tennessee 3 3 --· 3 3 --
Associated Cooperatives, Inc. 9 9 100 9 9 100
L. D. Bale 6; Company 2 1 -- 2 l --
Bluegrass Plant Foods, Inc. 6 2 33 8 5 63
. Cynthiana, Kentucky 2 1 -- 4 3 --
Danville, Kentucky 4 l -·· 4 2 --
_ Burley Belt Plant Food Works 3 l -- 3 1 --
Central Farmers Fertilizer Co. 1 0 -- l 0 ·-
Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. 3 3 -- 3 3 --
Commercial Solvents Corp. 1 1 -- 1 l --
Commonwealth Fertilizer Co. 7 3 43 7 4 57
Cooperative Fertilizer Service 29 24 83 40 37 93
Bristol, Virginia 1 1 -- 1 1 --
Louisville, Kentucky 14 10 71 19 17 89
Morganfield, Kentucky 1 1 -- 1 1 -·
(Continued)

 12 REGULATORY BULLETIN 169
Standing of Manufacturers, Based on Samples Equal to Guaranty in A11 Respects
and Analyses within Tolerance - Spring Season 1961 (Continued)
STRAIGHT MATERIALS
Analyses of N, PgO5, K20, sulfate
Sam les of  otash boron and  esticides
COMPANY AND PLANT Total Equal to guaranty Total Equal to guaranty or
Number in all res  ects Number within To1erance*’<
Number Percent* Number Percent*
Coop. Fert. Service (Con't)
Russellville, Kentucky 2 1 —·· 3 2 --
Winchester, Kentucky ll 11 100 16 16 100
Darling and Company 1 1 -- 1 1 --
Davison Chemical Co. 16 9 56 18 12 67 —
Baltimore, Maryland 1 1 -— 1 1 ··-
Bartow, Florida 1 1 —- 1 1 —-
Nashville, Tennessee 7 5 71 8 7 88
New Albany, Indiana 7 2 29 8 3 38
E. I. DuPontde Nemours & Co. l 1 -- 1 1 -—
E't¤wn Fertilizer Company 4 2 -- 4 3 --
Federal Chemical Company 9 4 44 12 8 67
Louisville, Kentucky 5 2 40 8 5 63
Nashville, Tennessee 4 2 -- 4 3 —-
Glasgow Fertilizer Co. 4 3 -- 5 5 100
W. R. Grace 6c Co. Nit. Prod. Div. 5 5 100 5 5 100
Gro-Green Chemical Company 1 1 -- 1 1 --
Hutson Chemical Company 3 3 -- 4 4 -·—
Int. Min. & Chem. Corporation 10 10 100 14 14 100
Cincinnati, Ohio 1 1 -— 1 1 --
Carlsbad, New Mexico 5 5 100 7 7 100
Skokie, Illinois 3 3 -- 5 5 100
Somerset, Kentucky 1 1 -- 1 1 --
Kentucky Fertilizer Works 5 1 20 6 4 67
Land—O-Nan Warehouse 1 1 -— 1 1 --
Mid-South Chemical Corporation 9 9 100 9 9 100
Mississippi Chemical Corp. 3 3 -- 3 3 --
Monsanto Chemical Company 1 1 —- l 1 --
North American Fert. Company 7 3 43 9 7 78
Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp. 1 1 -- 1 1 -—
Price Chem. Co. Div. F.S. Royster 2 1 -— 3 3 ·—
Louisville, Kentucky 2 1 -·- 3 3 —··
Robin Jones Phosphate Co. 1 1 ·- 1 1 -—
Spencer Chemical Company 13 12 92 13 13 100
Henderson, Kentucky 5 4 B0 5 5 100
Kansas City, Missouri 8 8 100 8 8 100
Tennessee Corporation 2 2 -- 2 2 --
New Albany, Indiana 2 2 -- 2 2 --
U.S. Phosphoric Div. Tenn. Corp. 1 1 -- 1 1 --
U.S. Steel Corporation 1 1 -- 1 1 --
Valley Counties of Ky. Coop. 6 6 100 8 8 100
Virginia-Carolina Chem. Corp. 3 2 —- 3 2 --
Cincinnati, Ohio 2 1 -- 2 1 --
Richmond, Virginia 1 1 -- 1 1 --
West Ky. Liquid Ferl;. Co. 3 1 —- 3 1 —·-
Bowling Green, Kentucky 1 0 -- 1 0 --
Hopkinsville, Kentucky 1 1 -- 1 1 --
Guthrie, Kentucky 1 0 -- 1 0 --
TOTAL 3687 1895 51 11562 9966 86
*Percent is not indicated when number of samples is less than 5
**See "1`olerance Scale" on page 8

 C()b4h4IEI{(ZIA I. F`EE{TTIslZ Eli ITQ l(EPJTlJ(Zl(YQ Sl°I{I}J(} S]Z}\S()lJ 1961 13
VARIATION IN FERTILIZER ANALYSES
Variation is a basic trait in the analysis,of fertilizer. The guarantee as printed
on fertilizer bags cannot be accepted 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 fertilizer. There is always variation around some average
analysis.
Many causes contribute to variability. Particle size and variability in chemical
‘ content of raw materials are an initial cause of variation. Methods of assembling, weigh-
ing, mixing, delivery into storage piles, and re-handling, including bagging, present fur-
ther opportunities for variation. To some extent these may cancel each other and thus
» minimize variation. They may progressively 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 exercised. Precision
comes only through the use of properly classified ingredients, employment of methods that
are reasonably exact and carefulness at all stages of manufacture.
what has been said of manipulation in manufacture is likewise true of taking sample;
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 accumulate. As in manufacturing, care and precision in
the manipulation of samples will reduce the degree of variability.
The variation caused in laboratory handling is normally much less than that in manu-
facture. For the purpose of this report, variations attributable to sampling and the lab-
oratory may be disregarded. They are usually slight. Also all samples 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 con-
fined 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, differ-
ent areas in the field will be treated differently corresponding to the degree of variabi-
lity. The user, therefore, is interested in variability to the extent that he gets what he
pays for, and the fertilizer is sufficiently 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
‘ reasonably similar to other such units of quantity sold by a given manufacturer. Ferti-
· lizer laws infer that the average of the whole lot purchased 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.
REPORTING THE ANALYSES OF FERTILIZER
In the past, regulatory reports of this Station, have published results of thousands
of chemical analyses of fertilizer samples. Some system of characterization is desirable
if these are to be meaningful. Several methods have been used to bring meaning to these
data. Marking deficient samples with an asterisk is one of these. Supplementary tables
have been presented showing the standing of manufacturers based on the‘criteria of the per-
centage of samples equal to guarantee in all respects and the proportion of analyses above
tolerance. Two additional ways of diagnosing such data are proposed in this report.
(Continued)

 14 REGULATORY BULLETIN 169 '
AVERAGE ANALYSIS, A MEASURE
The statement has been made that the average of a given lot of fertilizer should at
least equal the guarantee. If this is correct, an average of the analyses of several
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 manufacturer. The
average analysis E actual samples gi the fertilizer becomes the means gi statistically
measuring the manufacturer's "true aim". The average analysis has been calculated for
all of the analyses of mixed fertilizers reported in this bulletin when as many as two
samples are shown. These averages, given in Table l, follow the words "average analysis".
MEASURING VARIABILITY
"Average analysis" as an expression of the "true aim" of a manufacturer, says noth-
ing in the dimension of variability. Some measure is needed to express 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 57. nitrogen is calculated as follows:
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 5.0 5.7 32.49
E 5.0 5.5 30.25 .
F 5.0 5.8 33.64
G 5.0 5.0 25.00
H 5.0 6.0 36.00
I 5.0 5.5 30.25
J 5.0 5.3 28.09
55.3 306.49
. · _ 55.3
l0 Samples, average analysis - T = 5_53
. . $$.22
Standard deviation = 306.49 - Y = 0.68 = 0.275
9
l0 - l
Coefficient of variation = 0.275 x l00 = 4.97 - 5.0%
5.53
Q
If in this example there had been less variation or "scatter", the resulting percent-
age would have been smaller. If there had been more variation, it would have been larger.
The coefficient varies directly with the range in values of analyses.
"WILD" SAMPLES
No matter how much care is exerted in a fertilizer plant, an occasional "wild" sample
may appear. Such samples are caused by unusual circumstances 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.
(Continued)

 "` COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1961 15
Computations that included such samples would only throw the coefficient of varia-
tion 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 determinations. There were
only58 such samples in the mixed fertilizer samples reported. Such samples are indica-
ted in the table as "See note 9 ." As a basis for excluding these samples, the follow-
ing rules were followed:
l. Throw out any samples more than ll0% or less than 90% in
· relative value except:
a. The sample is within j 10% of the average sample
value.
I 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 include samples:
a. Whose ratio strongly suggests an entirely different
grade of fertilizer.
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 COM UTATION USED
It is apparent that the computation of coefficients of variation and even the simple
averages for such a large number of samples requires 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 a rate of approximately 5,000 samples an hour.
The machine program for this work was developed especially for the purpose and is
available for use on the computer at the University of Kentucky. It will be duplicated for
use on other I M 650 computers at no charge.
INFORMATION GIVEN IN TABLES
The coefficients of variation for each grade from each plant are indicated in table l.
These are calculated for mixed fertilizer only and are shown when two or more samples are
reported. The coefficients of variation become more significant as the number of samples
increases.
I Coefficients of variation for all grades have been calculated for N, P2O5 and KZO
for each plant. Where more than one plant is operated by a given company, average coef-
ficients of va