xt769p2w4v9v https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt769p2w4v9v/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1963 journals kaes_bulletins_180 English Lexington, Ky. : The Station, 1885- Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin n.180. text Bulletin n.180. 1963 2014 true xt769p2w4v9v section xt769p2w4v9v Regulatory Bulletin 180 Part 1
ANALYSES OF OFFICIAL
FERTILIZER SAMPLES
by the
FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT Y
KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
SPRING SEASON
]ANUARY—]UNE, 1963
gx? OF4;0
S? E
>
Q 5
/865
2M..-1~y-ii
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON
_ h , 7 . A I ` V __ {`

   FEED AND FERTILIZER DEPARTMENT
KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION {
Bruce Poundstone, Head of Department A
V Robert Mathews, Assistant Administrator and Chief Inspector
Guy P. Zickefoose, Auditor-Inspector V
W. J. Huffman, Registration Inspector _
FIELD INSPECTORS
M. M. Davis Neville I-Iulette Noel J. Howard
Eugene Vanderpool W. M. Routt
LABORATORY STAFF `
Harry R. Allen J'. A. Shrader Lclah Gault
Valva Miclkiff John Ellis Norma Holbrook
J. 'I`. Adair Dewey Newman, Jr. Robert N. Price
Paul R. Caudill Clarence Lowery Clyde Brzxdway
This report compiled and prepared by Bruce Pounclstonc and \V. J. Huffman
Analytical data by Laboratory Staff
Special statistical data explained on pages 8 to IG by W. G. Duncan
¤~. A

 CONTENTS
Page
Explanation of Tables ..,...................... 4
Companies Represented by Samples Reported in This Bulletin ....... 5
· Variation in Fertilizer Analyses .................... 8
· Why A Concern For Variability .................... B
Reporting The Analyses of Fertilizer ............,.... , 9
Average Analysis, A Measure ..,.................. 9
Measuring Variability ...,................i... . 9
"Wild" Samples ..,..................,..... 10
Note On Methods of Computation Used ....... . ....,.... 10
Information Given In Tables ...................... 10
· Table 1 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers ..I. ll
Table Z - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Liquid Fertilizers . . . 131
_ Table 3 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Custom-Mixed Fertilizers . . . 137 ‘
V Table 4 - Analyses of Straight Materials ................ 142
Table 5 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Rock Phosphate, Soft
Phosphate with Colloidal Clay ..,.,..,......,.. 156
Table 6 - Analyses of Inspection Samples of Bone Meal, Dried Manures, etc. 156
Table 7 - Results of Analyses of Fertilizer Samples in Which the Guarantee
)Ward for Sulfate of Potash Was Not Met ............... 157
Rcutt Table 8 — Results of Analyses of Boron in Fertilizers Reported in Tables
1 and 4 ............ . ..... , ........ 160
Table 9 - Results of Analyses of Insecticides Contained in Fertilizers Shown
in Table 1 ......,......,............ 163
Summary of Analyses of Magnesium and Zinc in Fertilizer ........ 168
Gault .
brook
Erme EXPLANATION OF REFERENCES IN TABLES l, Z AND 4
1 way
· Information is given for samples where the words "See note" is shown as follows:
Note 1. See Table 7 for analyses of saniples in which the guarantee for sulphate
[ of potash was not met.
Note Z. See Table 8 for the results of analyses of Boron in fertilizers.
lfm¤·~¤ Note 5. See Table 9 for the results of analyses of Pesticides in fertilizers.
Note 4. Fertilizer represented by this sample returned to plant and re-worked.
A Note 5. Purchaser received a refund based upon this analysis.
tn
Note 6. Product re-labeled and sold according to laboratory finding.
x Note 7. Purchaser could not be determined; refund based upon the analysis, sent
. to charity,
1 NONE 8. Re-worked.
NOIG 9. This sample not included in average. See "Wi1d" samples on page 10.

 4 REGULATORY BULLETIN 180
This bulletin contains results of analyses of 3, 850 official samples of
commercial fertilizer made during the period January 1 through June 30,
1963. 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. All
Nil
  Separate tables are provided for the results of analyses ofmixed dry fer- P.
1 tilizer, mixed 1iqui`d fertilizer, custom-·mixed fertilizer, straight materials, Ho
I boron, pesticides incorporated in fertilizer and for the percent of potash
V equivalent to excess muriate where the guarantee for Sulfate of Potash is not An
met. A summary of the results of the analyses of 26 magnesium samples and lO(
5 zinc samples is given on page 168. NB
EXPLANATION OF TABLES AY`!
As
The information given in the following tables should be useful in deter- P-
mining how nearly a manufacturer is meeting the chemical guarantee printed PT
on the bag or tag for the fertilizer represented by the samples listed. This ,
may be done by comparing the guarantee shown at the beginning of each listing Ar
of samples with the actual analysis in the column at the right interms of nitro- V 351
gen, available phosphoric acid and potash. At]
An additional means of comparing guarantees with the analyses ofsamples B8
is in the percent of relative value found, shown in the extreme right-hand col- H0
umn. The following examples illustrate how this relative value is calculated: K*’
A 5-10-15 sulfate fertilizer is guaranteed to contain 5 units of nitrogen, BH
1O units of available phosphoric acid and 15 units of potash. Factors for com- 10*
puting the relative value of these plant foods are; 3 for nitrogen, 2 for avail- OV
able phosphoric acid and 1 for potash. Thus the combined guaranteed value of
the product represented is calculated:  
5.0 Units of Nitrogen x 3 : 15.0 DC
10.0 Units of Available Phosphoric Acid x Z : 20. 0
15.0 Units of Potash x 1 : 15.0 Bl
'l`ota1 computed guaranteed value 50.0  
1
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 Bl
phosphoric acid and 15. 1 units of potash, the relative found value is computed; gl'
e
5.1 Units of Nitrogen x 3 : 15, 3 ‘
10. 2 Units of Available Phosphoric Acid x 2 : Z0. 4 BE
15.1 Units of Potash x 1 : 15.1 ` QJ
Total computed value 50. 8 L5
50. 8 (computed found value of sample) divided by 50.0 (computed guar- BL
anteed value) times 100 (to arrive at percentage) gives 101. 6 as the percent of Rl,
t relative value found. Lt
ln some samples a deficiency in one nutrient is accompanied by an over- CE
run in another nutrient. This maybe evidence of improper mixing or weighing L)
by the manufacturer. Extrerne variations of this kind cannot be attributed to R1
separation of materials (segregation) after the product is bagged though this  
may be a minor factor. Excess of one nutrient cannot compensate for defi- (3*
ciency of another nutrient. The purchaser is entitled to receive the full g\1{\1‘- lf;
antee forall nutrients as expressed by the manufacturer’s guaranteed analysis. lm
The results of analyses of all inspection samples are given in tables 1, L.
3, 4. 5 and 6. lf an analysis shows a deficiency of more than the tolerance in
the amount clainied for nitrogen. phosphoric acid or potasli, or if the percent
of the relative value is 97 or lvss. the result is indicated by an asterisk
lt

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1963 5
pgs}? COMPANIES REPRESENTED BY SAMPLES REPORTED IN THIS BULLETIN
~nt of
Allied Chemical Corporation Cecil Farm Supply
Nitrogen Division Star Route
* fer- P. O. Drawer 61 Owensboro, Kentucky
rials, Hopewell, Virginia
otash Central Farmers Fertilizer Company
ts not American Agricultural Chemical Company 205 W. Wacker Drive
s and 100 Church Street Chicago, Illinois
· New York, New York
Chilean Nitrate Sales Corporation
American Cyanamid Company 120 Broadway
Agricultural Division New York, New York
eter- P. O. Box 4OO
inted   Princeton, New Jersey Commercial Solvents Corporation
This ` 260 Madison Avenue
sting Armour Agricultural Chemical Company New York, New York
.itro- ` 350 Hurt Building .
Atlanta, Georgia Commonwealth Fertilizer Company
. Morgantown Road
nplgs Bale Fertilizer Company Russellville, Kentucky
. col- Horse Cave
.ated; Kentucky Cooperative Fertilizer Service
Southern States Building
Ogeny ~ Bartlett Kr O'Bryan Fertilizer Company Richmond, Virginia
com- 108 River Road
yaj]- Owensboro, Kentucky Ross Daniels, Inc.
ug Of 115 S. W. Sth Street
Better Grow Fertilizer Corporation Des Moines, Iowa
llth at Washington Street
Delphos, Ohio Darling Kr Company
4201 S. Ashland Avenue
Blackstone Guano, Inc. Chicago, Illinois
Blackstone
Virginia E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company
_mP]€ 6054 DuPont Building
lable Bluegrass Plant Foods, Inc. Wilmington 98, Delaware
Mted. Cynthiana
Kentucky Elanco Products Company
Division of Eli Lilly & Corripany
Bunton Seed Company 740 Alabama Street
939 Jefferson Street Indianapolis 6, Indiana
Louisville, Kentucky
J. H. Erbrich Products Company
yuar- Burley Belt Plant Food Works, Inc. 1120 32nd Street
gmt of Route #4 lndianapolis, Indiana
, Lexington, Kentucky
E'town Fertilizer Company
over- California Chemical Company Cecilia
ghing Lucas & Ortho Way Kentucky
ted to Richmond, California
1 this Farmers Chemical Association
defi- Carlisle Fertilizer Company P. O. Box 67
num-- B?*T€1\‘JP1l Tyner, Tennessee
Ivysis. Kentucky
l, 2.  
me ju (Continued)
rcent

 6 REGULATORY BULLETIN 180
Companies Represented by Samples Reported in this Bulletin (Continued) CO
, Farmers Fertilizer Company International Minerals & Chemical Corp, RO
Smiths Grove P. O. Box 67 - Lockland Station Z0.
Kentucky Cincinnati, Ohio Na
X
i Federal Chemical Company Kenco Fertilizer Company pj
646 Starks Building Bowling Green pr
Louisville, Kentucky Kentucky p_
No
Gallatin County Farm Supply Kentucky Fertilizer Works, Inc,
Warsaw P. O. Box 595 Ru
Kentucky Winchester, Kentucky p_
Cc
Glasgow Fertilizer Company Land-O-Nan Warehouse
Glasgow Sturgis gc
Kentucky Kentucky A- CC
Ill
W. R. Grace 8: Company Mid—South Chemical Company
Davison Chemical Division 1222 Riverside Boulevard O,
101 N. Charles Street Memphis, Tennessee M;
Baltimore, Maryland Oy
Monsanto Chemical Company
W. R. Grace & Company 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard ge
Nitrogen Division St. Louis, Missouri 93
P. O. Box 4915 C]-
Memphis, Tennessee North American Fertilizer Company
Preston Street at Bergman gg
Green Thumb Products Louisville, Kentucky 52
P. O. Box 6543 Et
Toledo, Ohio Ohio Valley Fertilizer, Inc.
P. O. Box 799 Sm
Green Valley Farm Supply Company Maysville, Kentucky P_
Island N(
Kentucky Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation
P. O. Box 991 Sp
Gro-Green Chemical Company Little Rock, Arkansas 61
P. O. Box 132 K;
Shelbyville, Kentucky Phillips Petroleum Company
Adams Building ‘ St
Growers Chemical Corporation Bartlesville, Oklahoma , M
Milan Kl
Ohio Plantabbs Corporation
Timonium Sv
Hercules Powder Company Maryland A;
910 Market Street N:
Wilmington 99, Delaware Plant Shine Company
` 404 South 4th Street
Hutson Chemical Company St. Louis 2, Missouri
Railroad Avenue
Murray, Kentucky Ra-Pid-Gro Corporation
88 Ossian Street
Hydroponic Chemical Company Danville, New York '
P. O. Box 97 - C
Copley Z1, Ohio
(Continued)
¤..

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1963 7
. Companies Represented by Samples Reported in this Bulletin (Continued) .
Cal CNP- Robin Jones Phosphate Company Tennessee Corporation
ll 204 - 23rd Avenue, North 2521 Glendale-Milford Road
Nashville, Tennessee Cincinnati, Ohio
F. S. Royster Guano Company L. Teweles Seed Company
Price Chemical Division 222 S. 3rd Street
P. O. Drawer 1940 Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Norfolk, Virginia
· Thompson Sales Company
Ruhm Phosphate 8; Chemical Company Box 246
· P. O. Box 361 Montgomery, Alabama
Columbia, Tennessee
Tobacco States Chemical Company
Schrock Fertilizer Service P. O. Box 479
~ Congerville Lexington, Kentucky
. Illinois _
` Tri-State Chemical Company, Inc.
O. M. Scott & Sons Company P, O. Box 123
Marysville Henderson, Kentucky
Ohio
U. S. Phosphoric Products Division
Sears, Roebuck & Company Tennessee Corporation
925 South Homan Avenue Tampa, Florida
Chicago 7, Illinois
`*Pa¤Y U. S. Steel Corporation
Seedkem, Inc. 525 William Penn Place
526 N. W. Fourth Street Pittsburgh 20, Pennsylvania
Evansville. Indiana
Valley Counties of Kentucky Cooperative
Smith-Douglass Company, Inc. P. O. Box 351
P. O, Box 419 Benton, Kentucky
  Norfolk, Virginia
"”ati9¤ Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation
Spencer Chemical Company 401 East Main Street
610 N. Dwight Building Richmond, Virginia
Kansas City. Missouri
Weil Elliott Chemical Company
Stewart Fertilizer Service, Inc. 401 N. 37th Street
r Mt. Vernon Louisville, Kentucky
Kentucky
West Kentucky Liquid Fertilizer Company
Swift Kr Company P. O. Box 507
Agricultural Chemical Division Hopkinsville, Kentucky
National Stock Yards, Illinois
. _ · 1 i ` V ._ {

 8 REGULATORY BULLETIN 180
VARIATION I`N 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 l e 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 careexer- `
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 broughtabout
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. lf 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 I
plant to plant. The aim or objective of manufacturing is to have full guarantee
as shown on every bag. lf 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  i
see that each bag of fertilizer or the average of any two bags or whatever unit
is selected is r eas onabl y similar to other units of quantity sold by a given
manufacturer. Fertilizer laws infer that the ave rage 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.

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1963 9
REPORTING THE ANALYSES OF FERTILIZER '
3¤t€€ Some system of characterization is desirable if the chemical analyses
nf the publi s hed in regulatory bulletins are to be meaningful. Marking deficient `
r and samples with an asterisk is one of these. Since 1961, two additional ways of
.5 al- diagnosing such data have been used.
AVERAGE ANALYSIS, A MEASURE
.ity in
thgds The statement has been made that the average of a given lot of fertilizer
iling_ should at least equal the guarante e. If this is c or r e c t, an average of the
B gx- analyses of several samples of such a lot will show whether or not this is true.
ro-  —
P ‘ 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
ratio T means of statistically measuring the manufacturer‘s "true aim." The average
mm-- analysis has been calculated for all of the analyses of mixed fertilizers re-
_€n[s’ ported in this bulletin when as many as two samples are shown. These aver-
tages ages, given in Tables l and Z, follow the words "average analysis. " V
MEASURING VARIABILITY
ue of
may "Average analysis" as an expression of the "true aim" of a manufacturer,
about says nothing in the dimension of variability. Some measure is needed to ex-
umu- press the range in analyses on either side of the average. To further use the
nples 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
; and "wide" of the mark?
sam-
,1 the The coefficient of variation is proposed as a means for reducing this to a
n the 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. O 5. 6 31, 36
°“ °f 15 5.0 5.5 50.25
_f“1}Y . c 5. 0 5. 4 29.16
Wis 15 5.0 5.7 52.49
Sm'- E 5.0 5.5 50.25
{mm t 1-* 5. 0 5. 8 55. 64
"‘*'” G 5. 0 5. 0 25. 00
mcs H 5. 0 6. 0 56. 00
I 5. 0 5. 5 30.25
_ ` J 5, O 5. 3 29. O9
FMP 55.5 306.49
ity in
long" 10 Samples, average analysis = QQ, 3 : 5. 53
Jari- 10 -
wuffi-
Standard deviation : 306. 49 - 55. 32 :   O. 275
_ 10 9
‘S YO 10-1
unit
given Coefficient of variation : 0. 275 x 100 : 4. 97 - 5. 0%
pur· 5. 53
‘nC€s · lf in this example there had been less variation or "scatter", the result-
; are I ing percentage would have been smaller. If there had been more variation, it
would have been larger. The c oe ffic i ent varies directly with the range in
values of analyses.
V _ · · ` _ ._ J

 10 REGULATORY BULLETIN 180
"WILD" SAMPLES T
No matter how much care is exerted ina fertilizer plant, an occasional
· "wild" sample may appear. Such samples are caused by unusual circum-
stances such as putting the wrong fertilizer in bags labeled for another grade W
or large errors in mixing or manipulation in the factory that cannot be said to
E represent usual procedure.
Computations that include such samples would only throw the coefficient A
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 60 such samples in the mixed fertilizer samples
reported. Such samples are indicated in the table as "See Note 9. " As a basis
for excluding these samples, the following rules were followed:
l. 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 + 10% appear to fit a normal distribution pattern.
Z. 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 apparent that the computation of coefficients of variation and even
the simple ave rage s for 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 c omputations to be performed at a rate of
approximately 5,000 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
will be duplicated for use on other IBM 650 or 1620 computers at no charge.
INFORMATION GIVEN IN TABLES
` The coefficients of variation for each grade from each plant are indicated
in Tables 1 and 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 number of samples increases.
 

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1963 11
TABLE 1.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers,Jqnu¤ry-juh., 1953 _
gional Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent or less
Cum_ indicated by asterisk.
grade _
aid to Manufacturer _ Available Percent of
Grade N·*r¤9¤¤ Phqgphgriq P¤*¤Sh Reqqhve
$¤m¤1¤ Number Acid Value Found
lciem Amenicnw AGRI CHEMICAL c0 CINCINNATI (P€1’€€1'\1) (Percent) (Percent)
y 21T€  
eter-
nples 20 20M
basis 67 19.5* 21.7 101
1321 20.5 20.0 102
2342 20.6 23.1 108
lative 3120 20.5 20.2 102
4091 21.2 19.1* 103
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 20.4 20.8
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2.9 7.5
nples -
20 20M WITH 5 LBS BORAX
bility 2169 SEE NOTE 2 20.5 18.8* 100
3122 SEE NOTE 2 20.0 19.1* 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 20.2 15.9
iffgys COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.7 1.1
1y in-
3 12 12M
{fg]-- 68 3.6 12.3 11.5* 104
1312 3.2 12.3 12.7 104
2340 3.3 12.0 12.5 103
0% OT AVERAGE ANALYSIS 3.3 12.2 12.2
ES. COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 6.1 1.4 5.2
4 12 BM
69 4.2 12.2 8.7 104
Even sez 4.0 12.0 6.1 100
m&“Y 660 4.1 12.7 0.1 104
16 PY 1037 ·1.¤ 12.2 1:1.5 105
=T51¥Y 1385 4.4 12.2 9.2 106
ité af 1625 4.3 11.9 9.4 105
1734 4.3 12.0 9.0 104
3119 4.4 12.2 8.4 105
Pur, 3607 4.3 12.2 B.8 105
Ky, It 3618 4.2 11.9 5.4 102
E 4094 4.1 12.0 8.6 102
g I AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.2 12.1 8.6
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.2 1.8 4.8
cated 4 16 4S WITH 0030 ALDRIN
d are 1280 SEE NOTE 3 4.0 15.4* 4.6 99 ·
nts Of 3124 SEE NOTE 3 4.2 15.7 4.6 101
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.1 15.5 4.6
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.4 1.3
5 10 15S
177 5.3 10.4 15.0 103
1036 5.5 10.0 15.0 103
1065 5.5 10.2 15.3 104
1076 5.4 10.0 15.0 102
1176 5.1 10.0 15.4 101
1177 5.5 9.8 15.0 102
1211 5.4 10.0 15.0 102
1306 5.5 10.2 15.1 104
1307 SEE NOTE 1 5.1 10.8 14.8 103

 12 REGULATORY BULLETIN 180
TABLE 1.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Ferti|izers,Janu¤ry-June, 1963
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values af 97 percent ar less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacture, 4 Available Percent of l
Grade N'"°9E“ Phospharic P°t°Sh Relative
( Scmplé Number Acid Value Found -
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL ca CINCINNATI cams (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) j}
 
5 10 155 CONTINUED
1323 5.3 10.0 14.9 102
1621 5.3 10.1 15.0 102
1821 5.0 10.2 15.0 101
2170 5.0 10.2 15.0 101
2177 5.0 9.9 15.2 100
2202 5.1 10.1 15.0 101
2203 5.4 10.1 15.3 103
3121 5.0 10.2 15.1 101
3435 5.4 10.1 14.9 103
4093 5.2 10.1 15.0 102
4099 5.2 10.1 15.0 102
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.2 10.1 15.0
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.5 2.0 .9
5 10 15S WITH 00,15 ALDRIN
3118 SEE NOTE 1 C. 3 5.9 10.6 15.5 109
5 20 EOM
178 4.8 20.2 20.0 100
1352 4.7* 20.0 20.7 100
1597 4.7* 19.9 20.0 99
1626 5.3 20.4 19.0* 101
2343 5.0 20.0 20.4 101
3112 4.8 20.0 20.0 99
3117 4.9 20.1 19.7 99
3128 5.0 19.9 20.0 100
3604 5.2 20.0 20.2 101
4152 4.7* 19.7 21.0 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.9 20.0 20.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 4.3 .9 2.7
5 20 ZOM WITH 5 LBS BORAX
3608 SEE NOTE 2 4.6* 19.2* 20.2 97*
6 6 185
1116 6.1 6.4 18.2 103
1347 SEE NOTE 1 5.9 6.6 18.1 102
‘ 1594 5.6* 6.5 18.0 100
2171 5.9 6.2 18.2 101
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.8 6.4 18.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3.5 2.6 .5
6 8 65 l
179 6.1 8.5 6.7 105
1118 6.2 8.5 6.5 105
1350 5.8 8.2 6.7 101
1384 6.4 8.2 6.6 106
1587 5.8 8.3 6.5 101 5
1595 5.7* 8.5 7.5 104
1820 5.4* 10.0 7.1 108 V
4098 5.9 8.9 6.4 105
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.9 8.6 6.7 `
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 5.3 6.8 5.4
 

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1963 13
,63 TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers, January-June, 1963 ’
less Analyses deficient more than talerance and relative values of 97 percent or less ·
indicated by asterisk. ’_
W Manufacturer _ Available Percent of
Relcmvgf Grade N‘"°9°" Phosphoric p°t°sh Relative
Jlue Found S¤mPl€ Number Acid Value Found
 
AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL ca CINCINNATI cowr (P€F¤€¤*) (P€'€€¤1) (Percent)
6 12 12M
102 1178 5-9 12-4 12-1 101
102 ` 1305 6-2 12-0 I2-7 102
101 1351 6-I 12-0 12-5 101
101 3115 5-9 12-9 11-9 103
100 3620 6-I I2-1 12-7 102
101 4092 5-6* 12-4 12-4 100
103 AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5-9 I2-3 12-3
191 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3-6 2-B 2-6 _
103
102
102 6 12 1BS
1279 6-0 12-2 17-B 100
1596 6-0 12-O 18-2 100
3113 6-3 12-7 17-B 104
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6-I 12-3 17-9
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2-B 2-9 I-2
109 I
6 24 12M
3116 SEE NOTE 4 6-O 22-2* I2-2 96*
100 3428 5-6* 24-0 12-6 99
100 AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5-B 23-I 12-4
99 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 4-B 5-5 2-2
101
101
99 12 12 12M
99 59 11.7 12-5 12-2 100
100 BBA 10-9* 12-5 Il-9 97*
101 385 12-2 12-O 12-5 102
99 643 11-6* 12-3 12-1 99
731 11-B 11-9 12-7 100
1353 11-3* 13-2 12-7 101
1627 11-6* 12-2 12-7 100
2344 11-5* 12-7 12-4 100
3114 11-3* 12-6 12-2 99
97; 3156 11-9 I2-I 12-4 100
3537 11-7 12-6 11-9 100
3605 I0-B* 12-2 12-2 96*
4095 11-5* 12-3 12-5 99
103 AVERAGE ANALYSIS 11-5 I2-3 12-3
102 ~ COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 3-3 2-7 2-2
100 '
101
16 8 BM
1349 15-5* B-4 B-5 100
2732 16-5 B-3 B-4 103
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 16-0 B-3 B-4
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 4-A -B -B
105
105
101
106  I
101 AMERICAN AGRI CHEMICAL CO KNOXVILLE
104  
105
105 9 27M WITH 3 LBS BORAX
3199 SEE NOTE 2 L- 5 9-O 23-3* 92*
· 3 9 6 3M 3S
1075 3-I B-6* 6-5 100
. I . ` _ _ 4

 14 REGULATORY BULLETIN 180
TABLE 1.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers,J¤nuary-Jane, 1963 `
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values af 97 percent or less
indicated by asterisk.
Manufacturer _ Available Percent of (
i Grade N'"°9€“ Phasphoric P°m$I" Relative
é 5¤¤¤¤*¤ Number Acid value Found
Amenlczm nam cHEM1cAL c0 L0N¤0N (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) A
10 30M
341 9.5* 30.2 95
20 20M `
555 20.4 20.0 101
610 20.4 20.2 102
1761 20.4 20.2 102
3239 20.1 21.0 102
3297 20.0 20.2 100
3438 20.0 19.3* 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 20.2 20.1
COEFFICIENT OF VAIQIATION 1.0 2.6
20 20M WITH 5 LBS BOIQAX
3241 SEE NOTE 2 20.2 20.0 101
3296 SEE NOTE 2 19.4* 20.2 95
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 19.5 20.1
COEFFICIENT OF VAQIATION 2.5 .7
30 3OM
1426 29.5 30.0 99
1651 26.4* 33.4 96*
3543 26.5* 34.0 97*
AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 27.4 32.4
COEFFICIENT 0F VARIATION 6.4 6.6
3 9 6M
65 3.4 9.4 6.4 107
241 3.0 9.1 6.3 102
463 3.0 9.3 7.0 105
4096 3.3 9.2 6.5 105 l
AVEPAGE ANALYSIS 3.1 9.2 6.5
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 6.4 1.3 4.7
3 9 65
3092 3.4 9.0 6.2 104
3146 3.5 9.0 6.1 105
3292 3.2 9.2 6.2 104
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 3.3 9.0 6.1
COEFFICIENT OF VAFIIATION 4.5 1.2 .9 .
3 9 1BM \•I1TH 5 LBS BORAX
464 SEE NOTE 2 3.2 9.0 15.0 101
3240 SEE NOTE 2 3.2 9.0 15.0 101
AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 3.2 9.0 15.0
COEFFICIENT 0F VAFZIATION
3 12 12M
465 3.0 12.0 11.5 100
3200 3.2 12.4 13.0 105
3456 3.1 12.7 11.5 103
AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 3.1 12.3 12.2
COEFFICIENT OF VAQIATION 3.2 2.8 5.6
A.

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1963 15
33 TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers,j¤¤u¤ry-Ju¤e, 1963 -
egg Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values ot 97 percent 0r less I
indicated by asterisk. ‘
arcent of Mcnufucmre,. _ Available Percent of
lelqrive Grqde N'“°9€" Phospharic p°*°$I" Relative
Iue Found Sample Number Acid Value Found
AMEQICAN AGRI CHEMICAL co LONDON 001.11 (p€*’“€"‘*1 (P°'C€"‘*) (P°"C°"‘*)
4 12 8M
98 611 4.1 12.0 0.4 102
2397 4.1 11.9 B.7 102
2774 4.0 11.7 9.2 101
3017 4.1 11.5* 8.0 9B
101 3147 4.1 11.7 0.4 100
102 3154 4.0 11.6* 0.5 100
102 3293 4.2 11.9 5.4 102
102 3538 4.1 12.2 B.5 103
100 ~ ssa; 4.1 12.1 5.0 101
99 AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 4.0 11.8 8.4
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.4 1.9 4.4
4 16 45
180 4.3 15.6* 4.2 101
101 242 4.3 15.4* 4.1 100
98 1311 4.4 15.0* 4.5 99
4097 4.3 15.3* 4.0 99
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.3 15.3 4.2
COEFFICIENT OF VAQIATION 1.1 1.6 5.1
99 4 16 4S WITH 0030 ALDRIN
99* 1366 SEE NOTE 3 4.0 16.0 4.2 100
97* 2057 see Nara 2 4.5 14.7* 4.0 96*
2324 SEE NOTE 3 4.2 15.5* 4.3 100
3145 SEE NOTE 3 O 4 4.1 15.3* 4.5 99
` 3152 SEE NOTE 3 0 4 4.4 16.0 4.1 103
3234 SEE NOTE 3 4.3 16.0 4.1 102
4149 SEE NOTE 3 4.4 15.6* 4.1 101
107 4300 sae NOTE :1 4.3 15.3* 4.0 99
102 AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.2 15.5 4.1
13; c021=•=1c1em· OF VAIQIATION :1.:1 2.9 4.0
5 10 SM
191 5.1 10.1 5.4 102
104 5 10 IOM
105 57 4.0 10.7 10.2 102
104 466 4.0 10.2 10.2 100 '
612 4.9 10.4 10.1 101
3609 4.8 10.2 10.1 100
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 4.B 10.3 10.1
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.0 2.2 .5
101
101 5 1O 10M WITH 00,50 ALDQIN
_ 192 SEE NOTE 3 G 4 5.0 10.4 10.1 102
5 I0 155
243 5.0 10.1 14.8 100
100 286 5.0 9.8 15.2 100
105 467 5.0 10.3 15.0 101
103 465 5.0 10.4 14.9 101
I 613 4.9 10.4 15.0 101
; 614 5.0 10.1 15.2 101
629 5.0 10.2 14.9 101

 16 REGULATORY BULLETIN 180
TABLE 1.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers,Junuary-June, 1963 T
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values of 97 percent ar less
indicated by asterisk.
l Manufacturer _ Available Percent of W
E Grade N'I"°9°n Phosphoric Pomsh Relative
; $¤r¤¤l¢ Number Acid v¤iue Found
l AMe¤icAN nam CHEMICAL ca Lamaam com (Percent) (percent) lpercenll Q
 
5 10 15S CONTINUED
734 5.0 10.3 15.2 102
1405 5.1 9.9 14.6* 99
1759 5.0 10.3 15.2 102
2145 5.2 10.0 15.0 101
2775 SEE NOTE 1 4.9 10.4 14.3* 100
3015 5.0 10.5 14.3* 101
3095 5.1 10.1 14.9 101
3144 4.9 10.1 15.0 100
3153 5.0 10.0 15.2 100
3294 5.1 10.0 15.0 101
3454 5.1 10.0 14.6* 100
3455 5.3 10.1 15.0 102
3540 5.0 10.3 15.0 101
3557 5.0 10.2 15.2 101
3555 5.1 10.0 15.0 101
3552 4.9 10.2 15.0 100
3610 5.1 10.3 15.0 102
3625 5.0 10.7 14.5 102
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.0 10.1 14.9
COEFFICIENT 0F VAQIATION 1.5 2.0 1.6
5 10 15S WITH 0C\15 ALDRIN
2955 SEE NOTE 3 5.1 10.4 14.7 102
3236 SEE NOTE 3 5.0 9.9 15.0 100
3237 SEE NOTE 3 5.0 10.0 14.9 100
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.0 10.1 14.5
COEFFICIENT OF VAIQIATION 1.1 2.6 1.0
5 20 2OM
469 5.0 19.9 20.0 100
615 5.1 20.2 20.0 101
3093 5.1 19.7 20.0 100
3155 5.0 19.9 20.5 100
3195 5.0 19.5 19.9 99
3235 5.0 19.4* 20.0 95
3291 4.9 20.4 19.2* 100
3451 5.0 19.6 20.0 99
3541 5.0 19.9 20.0 100
I AVERAGE ANALYSIS 5.0 19.5 19.9
COEFFICIENT OF VADIATION 1.1 1.5 1.6
6 6 155
1672 6.1 6.0 15.0 101
1757 6.2 6.1 15.4 103
2101 5.9 6.4 15.0 101
2147 6.2 6.2 15.0 102
2276 6.0 6.2 17.9 101
2542 6.0 6.3 17.9 101
2730 6.1 6.1 15.1 101
2731 6.0 6.0 15.1 100
2733 6.1 6.1 15.1 101
2951 6.1 6.6 15.0 103
AVEQAGE ANALYSIS 6.0 6.2 15.0
COEFFICIENT OF VAQIATION 1.5 3.0 .7

 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN KENTUCKY, SPRING SEASON 1963 17 A
TABLE I.- Analyses of Inspection Samples of Mixed Dry Fertilizers,.Ianuary—June, I963 ·
Analyses deficient more than tolerance and relative values af 97 percent or less '
indicated by asterisk.
ntof Mcnugucturer N_ Available P t h Percent of
tive Grade ‘"°9e“ Phosphoric O °s Relative
Found Sample Number Acid Value Found
AMERICAN AGRI cnemiczxi. co common com (P€¤’€€¤1) (P€•'¤€¤1) (P€F¤€¤*1
 
6 6 155 WITH 00,15 ALDRIN
12 3235 SEE NOTE 3 5.9 6.2 17.2* 99
>9 3544 SEE NOTE 3 6.1 6.0 15.4 101
12 3545 SEE NOTE 3 6.1 6.1 15.4 102
,1 AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.0 6.1 15.0
,0 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.9 1.6 3.5
11
11 . '
,0 6 5 6S ‘
,0 244 6.1 7.9 6.0 100
,1 1760 6.1 5.2 6.5 103
,D AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.1 5.0 6.2
,2 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2.6 5.6
n1
r1
.1 6 12 12M
.0 55 6.0 11.5 12.6 100
ig 470 6.1 11.9 13.5 103
,2 1425 6.2 12.0 12.2 101
2157 6.0 11.9 12.0 100
3290 6.1 12.1 12.4 102
3539 6.0 12.0 11.9 100
AVERAGE ANALYSIS 6.0 11.9 12.4
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.3 .5 4.6
2