The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1877-1885, 1878-06-20

neFI- There are ANALYSES and aralx-
- IL l. no NOR difficult. ] rrIeve
TO say. TO get certificates from chem.
ISIS than II i 10 get high sounding
certificates from farmers. and many q
chemist of unblemIshed reputation
lends himself to a possible deception.
a manufacturer sends him a~ampIe of
fertilizer; he analyzes II. reports upon
II, AMI p~ronounces il perhaps the h-st
fertilizer he ever anaIyzei In some
cases, at least. the article sen, To tn.
farmers J. sadly different from the
one sent TO the chemist. just So in
the field test There i no fertilizer
sol IN this State which does. or could
not lay before a would be purchaser a
volume of recommendations from
arme in all sections OF the country.
III Is needless 10 saw. for every one
knows II, that oftentimes the same
quality of fertilizer Is not shipped To
customer No. , that pleased customer
No. - much. or the same quality will
not suit customer No. 2-s soil and crop
a. well. Far be il from me to assert
or even 10 lnsinuate that TIE Southern
FERTILIZER Company haye done any
thing unfair or dishonest. But in or
Der 10 secure fair samples for analysis
the North Carolina Department Of
~sricultu does not receive its sam
pies ron the manufacturer. nor does
IL send an Inspector 10 procure one
from the works of the company, but
obtain ITS samples anywhere ana eve
rywhere In the State. after the %fertili-
Ger has gotten beyond the reach of its
makers.
= second Point which Is urged. and
n which sounds very plausible from
the way it is put. is this. A certain
" Ar LedouX, the chemist attached TO
the Department of Agriculture IN
North Carolina. still continues to pub
llsh ms yseS and valuations of
fertilizers IN defiance of all acientific
truth and accuracy To this accusa-
tlon Col. OFT seeks to give great weight
ana quotes largely from a vast array
OF prominent scientific authorities who,
1T would seem from Col. Otis state
ment. utterly d~enounce all attempts at
deduclng the commercial value from
the analysis. and indeed make it more
thar doubtful whether analyses can
nave any accuracy whatever. We
cannot doubt that Col. OFT should
know the true position of all these
chemists. as he has taken much pains
10 ascertain their views. and has pri-
vate letters which seem TO ~substantiate
LIS pllL1AcIIS lIOln HIS IIleIu III.
Noelcker, as well as special transcript
tons from the records of Royal Socle-
ties, etc, etc. Briefly, Col. OFT would
have us believe that Lawes. Noelcker.
fresenius and thirty-seven of the most
prominent European chemists. with
Drs. Mallet, Ellzey, Liebig and a host
OF American scientists agree, that it is
either unjust or at least highly unde-
slrable that a chemist should express
an opinion III regard to the value of a
fertilizer. | have neither the time nor
the space TO hunt the expressed opin-
ION OF every one of these chemists and
lind out what Is the present state of
their convictions in the matter, but
will a two representative men and
and see what they nave to say.
First, DR.. Voelcker. He is looked up
on as the great head of chemical agri-
culturists. Col. OFT is not ashamed
to have it known that the Doctor is
his excellent friend" and correspon-
dent Nay more, he speaks of him
as Ian authority as eminent as DIR.
Noelcker being without doubt the best
posted man III such matters in the
world" and says again, His chr.
LedouX's) position : :
is not sustained by the most distin-
SuioiCo aulIlolllN III JIG WOIId. L..
Noelcker." Let us see what this dis
tinguished man really Ices say
The fight against fertilizer control
having extended to Virginia, the same
arguments, brought up by Col. OFT
and others, were advanced to check
the movement and Voelcker was again
quoted as against the analysis and val
uatlOn of fertilizers. The Hon. Thos.
Pollard, Commissioner of Agriculture
for Virginia. wrote to the Doctor and
asked him to please give him his views
fully and clearly, and state his posi-
ton in the matter. DIR. Noelcker's re-
ply fell like a bombshell among the
manufacturers. 1t was insinuated
that the letter. as given tt the public
by DR.. PallOrd, was incomplete, that
he had only published the mature
and contents of hat letter" The fol-
lowing copy has been certified to by
DIR. Pollard as exactly what DIR. Voel-
cker wrote:
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY.
II SALISBURY SQUARE.
FLEET STREET, T.. c..
London, October 9th 1877.
DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 2Sth
August reached me here a few days
ago on my return from Switzerland,
where | spend my autumnal holidays,
which will explain to you the delay
of my reply.