Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1874-10-30

Total phOs. acid ll.95 e3i 1851 1907 1865 sis
Nitrogen o.6s 4,SO 2I9 $50 20l l.s5
Valuation $2i $40 60 S37 rs $40 80 aSl87l 333 Al
'GOid tCurrency ts1ia
As to Wilson's of 1872" it is seen that
Storcr and Goessmann had very different
articles in their hands for their analyses
The most striking difference between the
two samples lies in their content of the most
valuable and most costly fertlizing element,
nitrogen. This difference when displayed in
the manner Prof Horsiord has illustrated,
amounts to more than 600 per cent 0.69 I;
4.30. Assuming that the nitrogen Of both
fertilizers is worth 30 cents per pound, the
estimate adopted by DR.. Goessmann, the
value Of the nitrogen in Storers sample Of
/" Wilson's of 1872" is S4l4, while that of
the nitrogen Of Goessmann's specimen is
more than six times greater, or $3.50.
The two samples Of Bradley's XII agree
much more closely in composition, and for
that reason Storer's and Goessmann's esti-
mated values correspond much more nearly
The two samples of Wilson's Tobacco
Grower also differ not inconsiderably in
composition as seen from the analyses above
quoted, but in each of their cases Prof. Hors-
ford has made an unfortunate error. The
value as estimated by johnson he states to
be SlS.7l per ton, but he omits to add the
word :" gold as qualifying that SlS.71 and
omits also to mention that when that esti-
mate was made, gold commanded premium
of 80 per cent. In the report from which
he copied this estimate, it was distinctly aud
repeatedly stated that the given were s in
gold and not in currency. The true figures
in the comparison should therefore be
S24.32. The value given to Wilson's To-
bacco Grower by Collier, Prof Horsford
states to be s3S.3S, but in the Vermont re.
port, p. 463, the figures are S334l, and
these figures are repeated on p Ago Of that
report. The true comparison stands there
fore, "a 80; 33.4l, instead Of 1871 1888,
and the real difference is 37S per cent in-
stead Of more than 1905" so that Prof.
Horstord has exaggerated this difference by
more than 62 per cent
1t is thus seen that the differences among
the chemists are not nearly so great as Prof.
Horsford would have them appear, and that
they stand directly related to differences in
tho composition OF what he terms "the same
article precisely" l will not conceal the
fact that had Storer and Goessmann really
analysed "the Same article precisely" when
they examined "Wilsons of 1872" they
would not have made exactly the same esti-
mate of its value. The two chemists made
their analyses and their valuations different
ly. Storer Disseminated the nitrogen of his
sample into that existing as ammonia and
that not existing as ammonia. To the for.
mer he assigned the value per pound Of 80
cents, to the latter Of but 20 cents. Phos.
phoric acid he considered in but two forms
that soluble in water, at a value of 10 IA
cents per pound, and that insoluble in water,
at 8 to 6 cents per pound. As to "reduc-
ed" phosphorlo acid, Storer gives in the Bus
sey Bulletin his reasons for not taking its
quantity into separate account.
Goessman, on the other hand, estimated
nitrogen without distinction Of state, and
gave it all the value of 80 cents per pound
to phosphoric acid, soluble in water, he gave
the same value as Storer, but the phosphor
ic acid which with Storer ranked as insolu-
bic Goessman divided into two categories,
that which dissOlyes in solution of ammonia
citrate-so-called Eoduced phOsphoric acid
anu lHhb Hulun 10 lueOluDlO III lulb hbusblu'
um. Goessmann's reduced phosphoric acid
he values at 1872 cents, and his insolublC
phosphoric acid at g cents per pound. The
analysis of Wilson's Tobacco Grower, by
johnson, which Prof Horsford refers to, was
made in 1869, or two years before any
trustworthy method Of estimating reduced
phosphoric acid had been devised. Collier
analysis was made in 1872, and he accord
inglJ gives the proportion Of this ingredient
and brings it into his valuation.
But do not these admitted differences JUS
tify Prof. Horsford's conclusion "that th'
rules by which the results of analysis arr
converted into expressions of the actual val.
ue of fertilizers are as yet unsafe to follow p
In the FIRST place, the chemists differences o
analysis and estimate are on the whole les
than the manufacturer differences in tn,
various shipments Of the same brand Of fer
tilizer, aud, what is more to the point, il
the second place, the chemists do not pre-
tend to have any rules for converting thu
results Of analysis into expressions of tn,
"actual value" Of fertilizers, save in re
strieted and well-defned sense. The esti
mates which Storer affixes to his analysis h,
plainly states to be approximate values
Bussey bulletin, p. lS). Goessman say
Mass. Report, p. 352); Tho detailed val
uation of the principal constituents of tn
fertilizers is based on figures which our man
uihcturers conoede to be liberal"
But, again, Prof. Horsford confound
together two perfectly distinct conceptions
viz, that of commercial value or reasonable
market price, and that of fertilizinI
value or crOp-PrOducing power and EN-