xt7gms3jz83d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7gms3jz83d/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1960 journals 164 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.164 text Regulatory series, bulletin. n.164 1960 2014 true xt7gms3jz83d section xt7gms3jz83d Regulatory Bulletin l64
ANALYSES OF OFFICIAL
FERTILIZER SAMPLES
I by the
FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT
KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
> SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
‘ SPRING SEASON
]ANUARY-JUNE, 1960
1 Or
e}   lk
¤:   Z
·— A “$‘ 74"E E
A A QJQQ
/865*
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON

 CONTENTS
Page
Explanation of Tables ........................................................... 4
Companies Represented by Samples Reported in this Bulletin ...................... 5
Explanation of "standing of Manufacturers" ...................................... 7
Tonnage of Fertilizer Sold ...................................................... 7
Standing of Manufacturers ...... . ................................................ 8
Variation in Fertilizer Analyses ................................................ 10
Why A Concern For Variability? .................................................. 10
Reporting the Analyses of Fertilizer ...... . ..................................... ll ‘
Average Analysis, A Measure ..................................................... ll
Measuring Variability ........................................................... ll
"Wild" Samples ............................... . ................................. . 12
Note on Methods of Computation Used ............................................. 12
Infomation Given In Tables ..................................................... 13
Average Percentage of Guarantee and Coefficient of Variation for
all Samples by Fertilizer Manufacturers .............................. 14
Explanation of References in Table l .................. . ......................... 16
Table l, - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Fertilizer,
Superphosphate, and Fertilizer Salts ....................................... 17
Table 2, - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Rock Phosphate, Basic
Slag, Fused Trlcalcium Phosphate, January-June, 1960 ..................... .. 124 V
Table 3, — Analyses of Inspection Samples of Bone Meal, Dried
Manures, etc., January-June, 1960 ............................. . ............ 12/+
Table 4, - Results of analyses of Fertilizer Samples in which the
guarantee for Sulfate of Potash was not met ................................ 125
Table 5, - Results of analyses of Boron in Fertilizers Reported
in Table l ................................................................. 128
Table 6, - Results of analyses of Insecticides contained in
Fertilizers shown in Table 1 ............................ . .................. 130

 a
. FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT
’ KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERDIENT STATION
Bruce Poundstone, Head of Department
Robert Mathews, Asst. Adm. & Chief Inspector
Guy P. Zickefoose, Auditor-Inspector
*David M. Daugherty, Registration Inspector
W. J. Huffman, Acting Registration Inspector
FIELD INSPECTORS
· M. M. Davis Neville Hulette Noel J. Howard
O. R. Wheeler W. M. Routt
` LABORATORY STAFF
Harry R. Allen J. A. Shrader Lelah Gault
Valva Midkiff John H. Ellis Norma Holbrook
J. T. Adair Dewey H. Newman, Jr. Robert N. Price
Paul R. Caudill Jo Ann Dawson
* * * * -1. * ·k * -1. *
` *David M. Daugherty on leave of absence since May l, 1959
This report compiled and prepared by Bruce Poundstone and W. J. Huffman
Analytical data by Laboratory Staff
Special statistical data, explained on pages 10 to 15 by W. G. Duncan

 4 REGULATORY BULLETIN 164
This bulletin contains results of analyses of official samples of commercial
fertilizer made during the period of January 1 through June 30, 1960. The average
analysis of each plant food element and the coefficient of variation for each plant
food are shown in Table l for each plant. The average percentage of guarantee and
the coefficient of variation for all samples of a manufacturer are shown on pages 14
and 15.
Separate tables are provided for the results of analysis of fertilizer, for boron
and pesticides incorporated in fertilizer, and for the percent of potash equivalent to
excess muriate where the guarantee for sulfate of potash was not met.
EXPLANATION OF TABLES
The information given should be useful to farmers, agricultural workers, and company
representatives in determining how closely a given manufacturer and plant is meeting 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 colu ns at the right in terms of nitrogen, available phosphoric
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 sa e procedure is followed for "found va1ues." 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) A
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.
Extreme 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
cannot compensate for deficiency of another nutrient. The purchaser is entitled to
receive the full guarantee of all nutrients as expressed by the manufacturer's guaranteed
analysis.
The results of analyses of all inspection samples are given in tables 1, 2 and 3.
If 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.

 ~ COM ERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1960 S
COMPANIES REPRESENTED BY SAMPLES REPORTED IN THIS BULLETIN
Allied Chemical Corp., Nitrogen Div. Cooperative Fertilizer, Inc.
P. O. Drawer 61 Southern States Bldg.
· Hopewell, Virginia Richmond 19, Virginia
` American Agricultural Chemical Co. Darling and Company
100 Church Street 4201 S. Ashland Avenue
New York, New York Chicago 9, Illinois
American Cyanamid Company Davison Chemical Company
` P. O. Box 383 Div. W. R. Grace & Co.
Princeton, New Jersey lOl N. Charles Street
Baltimore 3, Maryland
American Liquid Fertilizer Company
2nd St. and St. Clair J. H. Erbrich Products Company
P. 0. Box 267 1120 East 32nd Street
Marietta, Ohio Indianapolis, Indiana
I Armour Agricultural Chemical Co. E'Town Anhydrous Ammonia Company
P.O. Box l685 Box lb8
350 Hurt Building Elizabethtown, Kentucky
- Atlanta, Georgia
E'Town Fertilizer Company
Armour Agricultural Chemical Co. Cecilia, Kentucky
Nitrogen Division
P. O. Box 128 Farmers Fertilizer Company V
Crystal City, Missouri Smiths Grove, Kentucky
Associated Cooperatives, Inc. Farmers Prescription Fertilizer
P.O. Box 9ll Guthrie, Kentucky
750 W. 20th Avenue
Sheffield, Alabama Farmers Supply & Produce Co.
P. O. Box 433
Bartlett & O'Bryan Fertilizer Co. Monticello, Kentucky
108 River Road
_ Owsnsboro, Kentucky Federal Chemical Company
6h6 Starks Building
_ Bluegrass Plant Foods Louisville, Kentucky
P.O. Box 310
~ Cynthlana, Kentucky Glasgow Fertilizer Company
Box 295
Bunton Seed Company Glasgow, Kentucky
300-306 East Jefferson St.
7 Louisville, Kentucky Grace Chemical Company
P. 0. Box A9l5
Burley Belt Plant Food Works Memphis 7, Tennessee
Route #[0
Lexington, Kentuzky John Deere Chemical Co.
P.O. Box l&17
Central Farmers Fertilizer Co. Pryor, Oklahoma
205 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago 6, Illinois Hutson Chemical Company
Railroad Avenue
Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. Murray, Kentucky
120 Broadway
New York 5, New York International Minerals & Chemical Corp.
P. O. Box 67 Lockland Station
Cincinnati 15, Ohio

 6 REGULATORY BULLETIN 164
Continued from previous page
Commercial Solvents Corp. Semo Liquid Fertilizer, Inc
260 Madison Avenue Box 301
New York 16, New York Charleston, Missouri
Commonwealth Fertilizer Co., Inc. Southern States Clark Coop.
Morgantown Road Winchester, Kentucky
Russellville, Kentucky
Spencer Chemical Company
Kentucky Fertilizer Works, Inc. 610 N. Dwight Building
Box 595 Kansas City, Kansas
W1nchester,Kentucky
Land-O-Nan Warehouse Stenson Farm Supply
Sturgis, Kentucky Horse Cave, Kentucky
Louisville Fertilizer Company Swift & Company
Div. Armour Agricultural Chem.Co. Agricultural Chemical Div.
Nashville, Tennessee National Stock Yards, Ill.
Mid-South Chemical Corporation Tennessee Chemical Company
1222 Riverside Blvd. Div. Armour Agricultural Chem. Co.
Memphis, Tennessee Nashville, Tennessee
Missouri Plant Food Company, Inc. Tennessee Corporation
Sikeston, Missouri Lockland Station
Cincinnati 15, Ohio
Monsanto Chemical Company Tr1—State Chemical Corp.
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. P. O. Box 123
St. Louis 66, Missouri Henderson, Kentucky
North American Fertilizer Company U. S. Steel Corporation
l&l9 Preston & Bergman Streets 525 William Penn Place Room 3004
Louisville, Kentucky Pittsburgh 30, Pennsylvania
Ohio Valley Fertilizer Valley Counties of Kentucky Coop.
P. O. Box 799 Box 35l
Maysville, Kentucky Murray, Kentucky
Olin—Mathieson Chemical Corp. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 99l AOI East Main Street
Little Rock, Arkansas Richmond, Virginia
Price Chemical Company West Kentucky Liquid Fertilizer Corp.
2600 Milk rs Lane P. 0. Box 507
Louisville 16, Kentucky Hopkinsville, Kentucky
Ruhm Phosphate and Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 361
Columbia, Tennessee
Schrock Fertilizer Service
Congervllle, Illinois
Scope Chemicals
15h N. Sparta St.
Sparta, Michigan

 COM ERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1960 7
EXPLANATION OF "STANDING OF MANUFACTURERS" A
The standings of manufacturers, by plants, as determined by the results of analyses
of official samples are given on pages 8 and 9. Purchasers of fertilizer can learn
through a study of this 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
samples 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
u
i 0- 9 0.2
10-19 0.3
20-25 0.4
26-34 0.5
35-39 0.6
40-49 0.7
50-59 0.8
g 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 461,786 tons. This is 6 percent less than the 491,920 tons sold
during the same period of 1959. There was a decrease of 26,409 tons of mixed fertilizer
and 3,725 tons of materials sold this spring. Although there was 6 percent less total
fertilizer sold in the spring of 1960 than in the same period of 1959, the actual plant
food used was only 3 percent less.

 `B REGULATORY BULLETIN 16A
Standing of Manufacturers, Based on Samples Equal to Guaranty in A11 Respects
and Analyses within Tolerance - Spring Season, 1960
I Analyses of N, PZO5, K20, sulfate
Sam les of  otash boron and  esticldes
COMPANY AND PLANT Total Equal to guaranty Total Equal to guaranty or
Number in all res ects Number within To1erance**
Number Percent* Number Percent*
Allied Chem. Corp. Nit. Div. 5 A 80 5 5 100
American Agric. Chem. Co. A00 251 63 1,307 1,187 91
Cincinnati., Ohlo 155 90 58 51A A73 92 X
Johnson Clty, Tennessee 1 1 -- A A ··- *
Knoxville, Tennessee 1 0 -- 3 2 ·-- ’
London, Kentucky 179 12A 69 576 525 91
Nashville, Tennessee 38 21 55 132 115 87
Nat'1. Stock Yards, lll. 7 5 71 21 20 95
Seymour, Indiana 19 10 53 57 A8 8A
American Cyanamid Company 3 3 -- 3 3 ·--
American Liquid Fert. Co. 1 1 -- A A —· _
Amour Agrlc. Chem. C0. 552 331 60 1,739 1,556 89 .
Atlanta, Georgia A A -- 9 9 100 A
Bartow, Florida 3 3 -~ 3 3 --
Cincinnati, Ohlo 225 153 68 718 665 93
E. St. Louis, Ill. 8 2 25 22 13 59
Jeffersonville, Indiana 117 71 61 375 337 90
Louisville Fert. Co. 13 A 31 37 31 8A
Nashville, Tennessee 157 80 51 A98 A29 86
Sandusky , Ohlo 1 1 -- 3 3 --
Tennessee Chemical C0. 2A 13 SA 7A 66 89
Armour Agrlc. Chem. Co. Nit. Dlv. 6 5 83 6 6 100
Associated Cooperatives, Inc. 13 12 92 21 20 95 —
Bartlett & O'Bryan Fert. C0. 67 30 A5 208 17A 8A
Liquid 17 8 A7 51 A6 90
Dry 50 22 AA 157 128 82
Bluegrass Plant Food Works 239 115 A8 796 685 86
Cynthiana, Kentucky 100 50 50 357 313 88
Danville, Kentucky 139 65 A7 A39 372 85
Bunton Seed Company 3 2 -- 9 8 89
Burley Belt Plant Food Works 113 30 27 390 301 77 I
Central Farmers Fert. Co. 3 2 -— 3 2 --
Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. A A -- 6 6 100
Comercial Solvents Corp. 2 2 -- 2 2 --
Commonwealth Fertilizer Co. 98 A9 50 297 256 86
Liquid 17 5 29 51 AA 86
Dry 81 AA 5A 2A6 212 86
Cooperative Fertilizer Service A17 267 6A 1,278 1,179 92
Bristol, Virginia 12 10 83 35 33 9A
Louisville, Kentucky 12A 100 81 390 379 97
Russellville, Kentucky 157 67 A3 A60 389 85
Wlnchester, Kentucky 12A 90 73 393 378 96
Darling and Company 28 16 57 81 71 88
Cairo, llllnols 22 12 55 6A 55 86
E. St. Louis, llllnols 6 A 67 17 16 9A
Davlson Chemlcal Dlv. W.R. Grace 185 10A 56 577 500 87
Columbus, Ohio 1 1 ··- 3 3 ··-·
Nashville, Tennessee 92 3A 37 290 233 80
New Albany, lndlana 92 69 75 28A 26A 93
J. H. Erbrich Products Co. 1 1 -- 3 3 --
E"1`own Anhydrous Armnonla Co. 3 3 -- 7 7 100
E"l`own Fertilizer Company 76 A3 57 235 212 90
Farmers Fertlllzer Company 6 A 67 20 18 90
Farmers Prescription Fett. Serv, [3 8 62 37 33 89
Federal Chemical Company 371 160 A3 1,170 936 80
Columbus, Ohio 3 1 -— 11 8 73
Danville, llllnols 2 0 ·· 6 3 50
* Percent is not indicated when number of samples is less than 5
** See "Tolerance Scale" on page 7 ·

 3;
:6
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1960 9
Standing of Manufacturers, Based on Samples Equal to Guaranty in All Respects _
and Analyses within Tolerance - Spring Season, 1960 (Continued)
 
` Analyses of N, P205, KZO, sulfate
Sam les of  otash boron and  esticldes
CO1QANY AND PLANT Total Equal to guaranty Total Equal to guaranty or
Number in all res ects Number within '1‘olerance**
Number Percent* Number Percent*
Federal Chemical Co. (Cont.)
Humboldt, Tennessee 58 18 31 183 134 73
.. Louisville, Kentucky 178 101 57 581 508 87
Nashville, Tennessee 130 40 31 389 283 73
Glasgow Fertilizer Company 41 22 54 124 106 85
Grace Chemical Company 6 6 100 6 6 100
Hutson Chemical Company 51 20 39 163 133 82
International Min. & Chem. Corp. 242 119 49 768 646 84
Carlsbad, New Mexico 4 3 —- 8 7 88
Clnclnnati., Ohio 84 38 45 283 239 84
Clarksville, Tennessee 58 38 66 188 175 93
Greenville, Tennessee 13 8 62 37 32 86
Skokie, Illlnols 7 6 86 16 16 100
Somerset, Kentucky 76 26 34 236 177 75
A Kentucky Fertilizer Works 146 101 69 467 426 91
Land-0-Nan Warehouse 20 10 50 57 46 81
Llquid 10 7 70 30 28 93
Dry 10 3 30 27 18 67
Louisville Fertilizer Co.
See: Amour Agric. Chem. C0.
, Mid-South Chemical Company 7 7 100 7 7 100
l` Mississippi Chem. Corp. 3 3 -- 3 3 --
Missouri Plant Food Co. 5 3 60 14 l0 71
Monsanto Chemlcal Company A A ··- 4 4 --
North American Fertilizer C0. 137 96 70 446 415 93
Ohio Valley Fertilizer Co. 50 8 16 175 127 73
Olin Mathleson Chemical Corp. 2 0 -- 6 5 83
Price Chemical Company Bl 52 64 263 241 92
Rottger1ng' s Flowerland 1 l -- 3 3 -·
Ruhm Phosphate Company 2 l -- 2 2 --
Schrock Fertilizer Service 1 0 -- 1 1 --
Scope Chemicals 1 l -- 3 3 --
O. M. Scott & Sons Co. 4 2 -- ll 9 82
Semo L1quid Fert., Inc. 1 1 -- 3 3 --
Southern States
See: Coop. Fert. Ser.
Spencer Chemical Company 9 9 100 9 9 100
Stenson Farm Supply 3 0 ·- 9 2 22
Swift 6 Company 16 8 50 53 44 83
Chicago, Illinois ll 5 45 35 28 B0
_ Greenville, Ohio 1 0 -- 3 3 --·
Nat'1. Stock Yards, lll. 4 3 -- 15 13 87
Tennessee Chemical Co.
See: Amour Agric. Chem. Co.
Tennessee Corporation 94 50 53 287 258 90
Cincinnati, Ohio 33 18 55 101 93 92
· New Albany, Indiana 61 32 52 186 165 89
Trl-State Chemical Corp. 58 Z1 36 169 131 78
U.S. Steel Corporation l l -- 1 1 --
Valley Counties Coop. 20 ll 55 44 33 75
Virginia-Carolina Chem. Corp. 272 146 54 865 745 86
Cincinnati, Ohio 87 48 55 274 240 88
Hopkinsville, Kentucky 92 56 61 292 255 87
Memphis, Tennessee ll 5 45 33 24 73
Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee 61 21 34 191 154 81
Richmond, Virginia 21 16 76 75 72 96
West Kentucky Llquld Fertilizer 48 22 46 142 121 85
Bowling Green, Kentucky 13 6 46 38 32 B4
Hopkinsville, Kentucky 35 16 46 104 89 86
° TOTAL 3935 2172 55 12,309 10,714   ‘
* Percent is not indicated when number of samples is less than S
** See "Tolerance Scale" on page 7

 l0 REGULATORY BULLETIN 164 Y
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 no departure from this principle. Evi-
dence to the contrary is more likely a manifestation of variations of smaller magnitude.
Many causes contribute to variability. Particle 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 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
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 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
manufacture. For the purpose of this report, variations attributable to sampling
and the laboratory 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 direction to the
same degree.
WHY A CONCERN FOR VARIABILITY?
The manufacturer and the farmer alike are interested in this question of varia-
bility. 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 seems never to have been settled as it varies widely
from plant to plant. Over—formulation becomes a contributing factor in product varia-
tion, especially between companies. 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 corresponding to the degree of
variability. 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 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 sauples to fall slight-
ly under guarantee, these tolerances are not large and it is expected will seldom be
applied. —
(Continued)

 COM ERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1960 ll
REPORTING TH  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
percentage 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.
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 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 reported in this bulletin when as many as two
s mples 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
nothing 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 SZ nitrogen is calculated as follows:
Sample Number Nitrogen Guarantee Found Sguared
A 5.0 5.6 31.36
y B 5.0 5.5 30.25
C 5.0 5.4 29.16
, D 5.0 5.7 32.A9
J E 5.0 5.5 30.25
· F 5.0 5.8 33.6h
‘ 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
10 Samples, average = 2%;; = 5_53
0
(Continued)

 12 REGULATORY BULLETIN 16h
2
s¤.·mdarddev1a¤1¤n= 306.49 - L = \/QQ = 0.275
l0 9
10 — l
Coefficient of variation = 0-275 X 100 : Q_Q7 = 5_gZ
5.53
If in this example there had been less variation or "scatter," the resulting per-
centage 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 b
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. Com-
putations that included such sa ples 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 determinations. There
were only 57 such samples in the mixed fertilizer sa ples reported. Such samples are
indicated in the table as "See note 8." As a basis for excluding these samples,
the following rules were followed:
1. Throw out any samples more than 110% or less than 901
in relative value except:
H- The sa ple is within j 10% of the average sample
value.
b. The variation of all the sa ple values is such
that the samples more than j 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 highest
or lowest by 101 or more of the extreme value
of the remaining normal samples.
NOTE ON METHODS OF COMTUTATION 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 g
computations to be performed at a rate of approximately 5,000 samples an hour.
(Continued)

 COM ERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1960 13
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 IBM 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
a more samples are reported. The coefficients of variation become more significant as
the nu ber of samples increases.
Coefficients of variation for all grades have been calculated for N, PZOS and K20
for each plant. Where more than one plant is operated by a given company, average
coefficients of variation for each of the three components are given on pages lh and 15.
Averages for plants or companies are given where as many as 10 samples were secured
and then only if more than 2 samples were recorded for a given fertilizer grade. In
one instance, a company had l0 samples but each was a sample of a different grade. An
average c. v. could not be computed.
The average percentage of guarantee for all samples for each element of plant food
was calculated by plants. This likewise is calculated by companies in case more than
one plant is shown.

 14 REGULATORY BULLETIN 164
Average Percentage of Guarantee and Coefficients of Variation for all Samples by
Fertilizer Manufacturers, Kentucky, Spring Season, 1960*
Average Percentage of Coefficients of
CGQANY AND PLANT Guarantee for all Samples Variation
I "2°5 "¤° K *2**5 *20
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
X
American Agric. Chemical Co. 99.9 102.5 101}, 3.3 2.4 3.3
Cincinnati, Ohio 99.2 104.0 102.2 3.7 2.8 3.1
London, Kentucky 100.3 101.4 102.0 2.9 2.7 3.4
Nashville, Tennessee 99.6 103.1 98.9 2.6 2.0 4.4
Seymour, Indiana 101.7 100.4 101.6 3.2 2.0 2.9
/a4.{ /¢.z J /44 Y
Amour Agric. Chemical Co. 99:8 9979 1·09·r1 3.5 3.2 4.5
Cincinnati, Ohio 101.2 101.5 102.0 3.7 2.4 3.6
Jeffersonville, Ind. 100.2 103.5 103.3 4.1 3.4 4.4
Louisville Fert. Co. 97.7 104.8 101.8 2.4 5.3 3.0
Nashville, Tennessee 100.0 101.7 100.8 3.8 3.7 6.5
Tennessee Chemical Co. 99.7 103.5 101.5 2.7 2.2 2.3
Bartlett 6. O'Bryan Fert. Co.
Liquid 101.2 104.6 97.7 0.9 3.5 3.6
Dry 102.1 102.4 101.8 5.9 4.9 6.9
Bluegrass Plant Food works 101.6 102.5 101.1 4.3 3.4 4.2
Cynthiana, Kentucky 100.8 102.3 103.2 4.0 3.4 3.6
Danville, Kentucky 102.1 102.6 99.5 4.6 3.4 4.8
Burley Belt Plant Food Works 99.0 100.1 101.6 6.9 3.0 5.1
Commonwealth Fertilizer Co.
Liquid 100.7 103.9 100.4 2.3 5.5 2.9
Dry 102.0 101.7 104.6 4.6 3.3 5.7
Cooperative Fert. Service 103.0 102.2 100.9 3.0 3.1 3.2
Bristol, Virginia 102.8 105.4 103.2 5.1 3.7 2.6
Louisville, Kentucky 103.7 103.1 102.2 2.4 2.8 3.1
Russellville, Kentucky 103.5 100.9 99.4 3.8 3.4 4.0
Winchester, Kentucky 101.7 102.6 101.2 2.2 2.9 2.4
Darling and Company (Cairo) 103.0 104.4 104.3 3.4 3.9 6.3
Davison Chem. Div. W.R. Grace 102.3 103.8 102.1 6.0 4.2 6.0
Nashville, Tennessee 100.9 101.4 100.0 5.1 3.6 6.9
New Albany, Indiana 103.6 106.4 104.3 6.9 4.8 5.2
E'Tow·n Fertilizer Company 109.4 106.0 99.4 4.5 4.3 5.5
Federal Chemical Company 100.8 100.8 101.9 5.8 4.1 5.4
Humboldt, Tennessee 102.3 97.9 99.4 5.1 4.7 6.1
Louisville, Kentucky 102.1 102.0 102.2 4.9 3.6 4.3
Nashville, Tennessee 98.3 100.4 102.5 8.1 4.5 6.6
Glasgow Fertilizer Company 104.0 102.7 103.4 4.5 3.2 4.7
Hutson Chemical Company 104.0 101.0 101.7 8.0 5.2 5.3

 COMMERCIAL. FERTILIZER Di KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1960 15
Average Percentage of Guarantee and Coefficients of Variation for all Samples by
Fertilizer Manufacturers, Kentucky, Spring Season, 1960* (Continued)
Average Percentage of Coefficients of
· COMPANY AND PLANT Guarantee for all Samples Variation
_1 1*205 ¤