• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 State chemist's report, 1918
 Financial report
 Fraudulent fertilizers
 Immature citrus fruit
 Mature and immature citrus...
 Department of agriculture - Division...
 Miscellaneous analyses and examinations,...
 Expenditures chemical division,...
 Index






Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Agricultural Department
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077083/00050
 Material Information
Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Agricultural Department
Uniform Title: Avocado and mango propagation and culture
Tomato growing in Florida
Dasheen its uses and culture
Report of the Chemical Division
Alternate Title: Florida quarterly bulletin, Department of Agriculture
Florida quarterly bulletin of the Department of Agriculture
Physical Description: v. : ill. (some fold) ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- Dept. of Agriculture
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: -1921
Frequency: quarterly
monthly[ former 1901- sept. 1905]
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural industries -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: -v. 31, no. 3 (July 1, 1921).
General Note: Description based on: Vol. 19, no. 2 (Apr. 1, 1909); title from cover.
General Note: Many issue number 1's are the Report of the Chemical Division.
General Note: Vol. 31, no. 3 has supplements with distinctive titles : Avocado and mango propagation and culture, Tomato growing in Florida, and: The Dasheen; its uses and culture.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00077083
Volume ID: VID00050
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 28473206
 Related Items

Table of Contents
    Cover
        Page 1
        Page 2
    State chemist's report, 1918
        Page 3
    Financial report
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Fraudulent fertilizers
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Immature citrus fruit
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Mature and immature citrus fruit
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Department of agriculture - Division of agriculture
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
    Miscellaneous analyses and examinations, 1918
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
    Expenditures chemical division, 1918
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
    Index
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
Full Text


VOLUME 29


FLORIDA QUARTERLY

BULLETIN



January 1, 1919

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

W. A. McRAE
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.


REPORT OF THE CHEMICAL L DIVISION.


R. E. ROSE
STATE CHEMIST.


Analyses of Fertilizers, Feed Stuffs, Food and Drugs.
Rules and Regulations.


Entered January 31, 1903. at Tallahassee, Florida, as second-class
matter under Act of Congress of June, 1900.


These Bulletins Are Issued Free to Those Requesting Them.


T. J. Appleyard, Printer, Tallahassee, Florida.


NUMBER 1












STATE CHEMIST'S REPORT, 1918



Tallahassee, Fla., January 1, 1919.

To His Excellency,

Sidney J. Catts, Governor,

Tallahassee, Florida.

Sir:-I have the honor to submit the following report
of the Chemical Division of the Agricultural Department
of the State of Florida for the year ending December 31,
1918:

The report of the State Treasurer shows the sale of in-
spection stamps covering 204,712.08 tons of commercial
fertilizers and cotton seed meal-

Amounting to ....................... ..... .. 51,178.02
And 130,674.28 tons of Commercial Feeding
Stuffs-
Amounting to ............................. $32,668.57

A total revenue ........................... $83,846.59
paid into the State Treasury to the credit of the General
Revenue Fund. From, which is to be deducted ihe total
expenses of the Chemical Division, incident to the execu-
tion of the Fertilizer, Feed Stuff and Pure Food and
Drug Laws, including the expenses of the Immature
Citrus Fruit Law ($2,318.13), total expense of the chem-
ical division being $21,078.75, showing a balance of $62,-
767.84 paid into the General Revenue Fund of the State.
A summary of these expenditures will be found on the
succeeding page. A detailed financial report will be
found on the last pages of this report.


I $7 ")










FINANCIAL REPORT



Sumwrnary.

RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF CHEMICAL
DIVISION, 1918.


Salary of lie State Chemist .................$
Salary of Asst. State Chemist, Fertilizers.....
Salary of Asst. State Chemist, Food and Drugs
Salary of Asst. State Chemist, Stock Feed...
Salary three Food and Drug Inspectors......
Salary Clerk Chemical Division ..............
Salary Janitor .............................
Traveling Expenses three Food and Drug In-
spectors ............................. .
Samples and incidentals, Pure Food Depart-
m en t ....................................
Chemicals, apparatus and iincidentals, State
Laboratory .... .........................
Traveling expenses 'State Chemist and Assist-
an ts .....................................
Postage State Chemist.......................
Salaries of Citrus Fruit Inspectors ...........
Traveling expenses Citrus Fruit Inspectors....


3,000.00
1,800.00
1,800.00
1,800.00
4,500.00
1,080.00
300.00

2,215.06

467.39

811.86

871.75
114.56
1,083.32
1,234.81


Total expenses Chemical Division.......... $21,078.75
To credit General Revenue ................. 62,767.84

Gross Revenue ...........................$83,846.59

Appropriation, 1918 ....................... .$23,630.00
Expenses Chemical Division................. 21,078.75

Unexpended appropriation .................. $ 2,551.25










SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL REPORT, 1918.

The following analyses were made during the year:
Official samples fertilizers ....................... 35
Special samples fertilizer (sent in by citizens)..... 406
Official samples feed stuff............................... 147
Special samples feed stuff (sent in by citizens)..... 59
Official food and drug samples .................... 94
Special food and drug samples (sent in by citizens) 98
Official samples citrus fruit ..................... 92
Special samples citrus fruit ..................... 350
W ater sam ples .................................. 14
Miscellaneous samples (sent in by citizens)........ 40

Total number analyses ........................ 1,335

SPECIAL SAMPLES DRAWN BY PURCHASERS.

The Florida law is peculiar in this respect, permitting
citizens, purchasers of lawful feeds and fertilizers that
are duly registered, under oath with the Commissioner
of Agriculture as evidenced by the guarantee tag and
stamp upon each package, to draw samples of the same,
according to law, rules and regulations, to prevent the
submission of spurious samples, and obtain, without cost,
a certificate of analysis by the State Chemist. In case
of deficiency in the goods so purchased, the sample being
properly drawn, packed and transmitted, according to
law and regulations, the purchaser can, upon proof of
the fact, obtain a judgment for double the amount of the
price of the goods, while the dealer will be subject to the
penalties of the law. This provision of the law, how-
ever, does not apply to illegitimate goods sold by un-
registered, unlawful dealers or their agents; consumers
who purchase such unlawful goods having no recourse
under the law, for damages.









FERTILIZERS SUMMARY.

FRANK T. WILSON, B. S., ANALYST.

Official samples fertilizers ....................... 35
Special samples fertilizers ..................... .. 406

Total analyses Fertilizer Department......... 411

The fourteen samples of complete fertilizer drawn by
the State Chemist and Inspectors had the following av-
erage composition and guarantee:
Available
Ammonia. Phos. Acid. Potash.
Official analysis ........4.18% 6.68% 2.62%
Guarantee ............. 3.56% 6.07% 2.23%
Excess above guarantee. .0.62% 0.61% 0.39%

Average State value found, per ton.............. ~.57.62
Average State value guaranteed, per ton.......... 49.64

EXCESS 0.20% ABOVE GUARANTEE.

We find complete fertilizers exceeding the guarantee
0.20% (twenty points), as follows:
In ammonia .................... 14 samples, or 100.0%
In available phosphoric acid..... 8 samples, or 57.1%
In potash (KO) ............... 9 samples, or 64.3%

DEFICIENCY 0.201 BELOW GUARANTEE.

We find complete fertilizers below guarantee 0.20%
(twenty points,) as follows:
In Ammonia ..................... 0 samples, or 0.0%
In available phosphoric acid ....... samples, or 21.4%
In potash (K.O) ................ 1 sample, or 7.1%










SUMMARY COMMERCIAL STOCK FEED.

E. PECK IGREENE, B. S., ANALYST.

The following analyses have been made during the
year:
Official samples feed stuff ...................... 147
Special samples feed stuff .................. .... 59

Total analyses Feed Department.............. 206

The average composition of the official samples was as
follows:
Starch and
Protein. Sugar. Fats.
Official analysis .........16.41 49.09 3.80
Guaranteed analysis ...... 14.93 48.37 3.76

Average excess ....... 1.48 0.72 (.04

We find the official samples of feed stuffs exceeded the
guarantee 0.20% (twenty points), as follows:
In protein ..................... 111 samples, or 75.51%
In starch and sugar.............. 69 samples, or 46.93%
In fats ......................... 62 samples, or 42.17%

There was a deficiency of 0.20% (twenty points) as
follows:
In protein ..................... 5 samples, or 5.20%
In starch and sugar.............. 51 samples, or 34.69%
In fats ......................... 37 samples, or 25.17%








8

FOOD AND DRUGS SUMMARY.

A. M. HENRY, B. S., ANALYST.

Official food and drug samples ............... 94
Special food and drug samples ............... 98
W ater samples ............................. 14

Total food and drug samples ............... 206

Official citrus fruit samples ................. 92
Special citrus fruit samples ............... .. 350

Total citrus fruit samples ................. 442

Grand total food and drug samples........ 648

CITRUS FRUIT SUMMARY.

Special ( Official


Inspectors

i I rt I


Greene, E. Peck, Tallahassee. .. 1 1 0 0 2

Henry, A. M., Tallahassee...... 2 3 5 0 10

Johnston, C. E., Daytona...... 63 15 30 7 115

Lewis, J. T., Williston........ 97 22 21 14 154

Robson, Reid, Lakeland........ 48 27 5 0 80

Wilder, L. W., Knights........ 27 44 6 4 81

Total ........ ...... ... 1238 1112 67 25 1442








9

SUMMARY OF ILLEGAL, ADULTERATED, MIS-
BRANDED, LIGHTWEIGHT FERTILIZERS,
COTTON SEED MEALS, FEEDING STUFFS,
FOODS, CITRUS FRUIT AND DRUGS
REPORTED.


ARTICLE E


Fertilizers ................ 1 4 6 1,200

Cotton Seed Meals ......... 4 88 8,800

Feeding Stuffs ............ 26 1,,381 138,100

Foods .................... 37 12,593 9,196

Citrus Fruits ............. 11 2,847 213,525


Total ................ 82 S 16,915 370,821
I










STATE FERTILIZER VALUATIONS.

(Based on Commercial Values, January 1, 1919.)

For Available and Insoluble Phosphoric Acid, Ammonia
Potash, for the Season of 1919:

Available Phosphoric Acid .............$ .071/2 a pound
Insoluble Phosphoric Acid ............ .01 a pound
Ammonia (or its equivalent in nitrogen) .35 a pound
Potash (as actual potash, K20) ........ .35 a pound
If calculated by units:
Available Phosphoric Acid ............ 1.50 per unit
Insoluble Phosphoric Acid .............20 per unit
Ammonia (or its equivalent in nitrogen) 7.00 per unit
Potash .............................. 7.00 per unit
With a uniform allowance of $3.50 per ton for mixing
and bagging.
A unit is twenty pounds, or 1 per cent. of a ton. We
find this to be the easiest and quickest method for cal-
culating the value of fertilizer. To illustrate this, take
for example, a fertilizer which analyzes as follows:
Available Phosphoric Acid 6.22 per cent. x $1.50-$ 9.33
Insoluble Phosphoric Acid. .1.50 per cent. x .20- .30
Ammonia ................. 3.42 per cent. x 7.00- 23.94
Potash ................... 3.23 per cent. x 7.00- 22.61
Mixing and Bagging ...... 3.50

Commercial value at seaports .................. .59.68

Or a fertilizer analyzing as follows:
Available Phosphoric Acid .8 per cent. x $1.50--12.00
Ammonia ...................2 per cent. x 7.00- 14.00
Potash ......................2 per cent. x 7.00- 14.00
Mixing and Bagging ........ 3.50

Commercial value at seaports ............... .$43.50

The valuations and market prices in preceding illus-
trations are based on market prices for one-ton lots.









MARKET PRICES OF CHEMICALS AND FERTI-
LIZING MATERIALS AT FLORIDA SEA-
PORTS, JANUARY 1, 1919.

"Under unsettled conditions, quotations are wholly
nominal."
AMMONIATES.

Nitrate of Soda, 17% ammonia .............. $110.00
Sulphate of Ammonia, 25% ammonia ........... 175.00
Dried Blood, 16% ammonia .. ............... 144.00
Cyanamid, 20% ammonia ...................... 140.00
POTASH.

High-grade Sulphate of Potash, 90% sulphate
48% K20, .............................. Nominal
Low-grade Sulphate of Potash, 48% sulphate,
26% K,O, ............................... Nominal
Muriate of Potash, 80% ; 48% K20, .......... Nominal
Nitrate of Potash, imported, 15% ammonia,
44% potash KO, ....................... Nominal
Nitrate of Potash, American, 13% ammonia,
42% potash K20, ........................ Nominal
Kainit, potash, 12% K20, .................. Nominal
Canada Hardwood Ashes, in bags, 4% KO
potash .................................. Nom inal
AMMONIA AND PHOSPHORIC ACID.

High-grade Tankage, 10% ammonia, 5% phosphor-
ic acid .......................... ........$. 99.00
Tankage, 8% ammonia, 10% phosphoric acid ..... 84.00
Low-grade Tankage, 61/2% ammonia, 12% phos-
phoric acid ................................. 76.00
Sheep Manure, 31/2% ammonia, /2% potash...... 39.00
Imported Fish Guano, 10% ammonia, 7% phos-
phoric acid ............................... 107.00
Pure Fine Steamed Ground Bone, 3% ammonia,
22% phosphoric acid ...................... 58.00
Raw Bone, 4% ammonia, 22% phosphoric acid.... 62.00
Ground Castor Pomace, 51/2% ammonia, 2% phos-
phoric acid .................. ............ 62.00
Bright Cotton Seed Meal, 7% ammonia........... 62.00
Dark Cotton Seed Meal, 41/2% ammonia. ........ 45.00










PHOSPHORIC ACID.

High-grade Acid Phosphate, 16% available phos-
phoric acid ....................... ...... $23.00
Acid Phosphate, 14% available phosphoric acid... 20.00
Bone Black, 17% available phosphoric acid ....... 32.00

MISCELLANEOUS.

High-grade Ground Tobacco Stems, 2% ammonia,
7% potash ............... ............... .73.25
High-grade Ground Kentucky Tobacco Stems,
21/% ammonia, 8% potash ................. 77.00
Tobacco Dust No. 1, 2% ammonia, 2% potash .... 32.00
Cut Tobacco Stems, in sacks, 2% ammonia, 4%
Potash .................................... 54.00
Dark Tobacco Stems, baled, 2% ammonia, 4% pot-
ash ........................................ 38.00
Land Plaster, in sacks .................. ...... 17.00
The charges by reputable manufacturers for mixing
and bagging any special or regular formula are $3.50 per
ton in excess of above prices.










NEW YORK WHOLESALE PRICES, CURRENT JAN.
1, 1919-FERTILIZER MATERIALS.

"Owing to unsettled conditions quotations are wholly
nominal."

AMIMONIATES.


Ammonia, sulph.. bulk, per 100 lbs......... 4.90 (~
futures ............................. 4.75 @
Fish scrap, dried, 11 p. c. ammonia
and 14 p. c. bone phosphate, f. o. b.
factories .................per unit 7.25 &
wet, acidulated, 6 p. c. ammonia, 3 p c.
phosphoric acid, f. o. b. fish factories 7.00 &
Ground fish scrap, 11 to 12 p. c. ammonia,
15 p. c. B. P. L., f. o. b. fish factory.. 7.75 &
Tankage, 11 p. c. and 15 p. c. f. o. b. Chicago 6.50 &
Tankage, 10 and 20 p. c., f. o. b. Chicago,
ground ......................... 6.50 &
Tankage, 5 and 20 p. c., f. o. b. Chicago,
ground ........................... 6.50 &
Tankage, concentrated, f. o. b. Chicago, 14
to 15 p. c................. .... ... 6.60 @(
blood, f. o. b. Chicago................ 6.75 @
Garbage, tankage, f. o. b. Chicago........ 4.25 ()
Hoofmeal, f. o. b. Chicago........ per unit 6.40 @i
Dried blood, 12-13 p. c. ammonia, f. o. b.
New York ........................ 6.50 @
Tankage, New York.................... 6.50 &
Garbage tankage, New York............... Nomir
Nitrate of soda, 95 p. c., spot...per 100 lbs. 4.421@
96 per cent.......................... 4.55 @


5.00


10




6.45


10
ial










PHOSPHATES.


Acid, phosphate, bulk......... per ton.. 17.00 @
Southern ports .................... 16.00 @ 17
Bones, rough hard..................... 30.00 @
soft steamed, unground.............. 24.00 @
ground, steamed, 11/4 p. c. ammonia
and 60 p. c. bone phosphate....... 31.00 @
do, 3 and 50 p. c. ................. 35.00 @
raw, ground, 4 p. c. ammonia and 50
p. c. bone phosphate ............. 45.00 @
South Carolina phosphate rock, kiln
dried, f. o. b. Ashley River........ Nominal
Florida land pebble phosphate rock, 68 p.
c., f. o. b. Tampa, Fla........... 5.00 @
Florida land pebble phosphate rock, 75 p.
c., f. o. b. Tampa ................ 7.50 @ 8
Florida high grade phosphate hard rock,
77 p. c., f. o. b. Florida ports..... 9.00 @ 10
Tennessee phosphate rock, f. o. b. Mt.
Pleasant, domestic, 78@80 p. c.
........................ per ton.. 7.00 @ 8
75 p. c. guaranteed, per ton, 2,240
Ibs............................ 7.50 @ 8
78 p. c..........per ton, 2,240 lbs... 7.50 @ 8
68@72 p. c., ground so that 90 per
cent. will pass through 100-mesh
screen ........ per ton, 2,000 Ibs... 7.50 @ 8


.00


.00

.00


.00

.00
.00


.00
O00


POTASHES.


Muriate of potash, 38@42 per cent., basis
40 per cent., in bags...... per ton. .182.00 @ -
Muriate of potash, 80@85 per cent., basis
80 per cent., in bags.... per ton. .260.00 @310.00
Muriate of potash, min., 90@95 per cent.,
basis 80 per cent., in bags........260.00 @325.00
Muriate of potash, min. 98 per cent., basis
80 per cent., in bags............. 260.00 @325.00
Sulphate of potash, 90@95 per cent., basis
90 per cent., in bags............. 300.00 @ -
First sorts potashes ............ per lb... 20 @ 25







15

COMMERCIAL STATE VALUES OF FEED
STUFF FOR 1919.

For the season 1919 the following "State values" are
fixed as a guide to purchasers, quotation January 1st.
These values are based on the current prices of corn,
which has been chosen as a standard in fixing the com-
mercial values, the price of corn; to a large extent, gov-
erning the price of other feeds, pork, beef, etc.:
Indian corn being the standard at $65.00 per ton.
($3.25 per sack of 100 lbs., $1.82 per bu., 56 lbs.)
To find the commercial State value, multiply the per-
centages by the price per unit.
A unit being 20 pounds (1%) of a ton.

Protein, 6.8c per pound.................. $1.36 per unit
Starch and Sugar, 3.1c per pound........ .62 per unit
Fats, 6.8c per pound .................. 1.36 per unit

EXAMPLE NO. 1.

Corn and Oats, Equal Parts:
Protein .......................... 11.15x1.36, $15.16
Starch and Sugar .................64.65x .62, 40.08
Fat .............................. 5.20x1.36, 7.07

State value, per ton............. $62.31

EXAMPLE No. 2.
Corn:
Protein ......................... 10.50x1.36, $14.28
Starch and Sugar ................. 69.60x .62, 43.15
Fat .............................. 5.40x1.36, 7.34


State value, per ton .............


$64.77









STATE VALUES.

It is not intended by the "State valuations" to fix the
price or commercial value of a given brand. The "State
values" are the market prices for the various approved
chemicals and materials used in mixing or manufactur-
ing commercial fertiliers or commercial stock feed at the
date of issuing a Bulletin, or the opening of the "season."
They may, but seldom do, vary from the market prices,
and are made liberal to meet any slight advance or de-
cline.
They are compiled from price lists and commercial re-
ports by reputable dealers and journals.
The question is frequently asked, "What is Smith's
Fruit and Vine worth per ton?" Such a question cannot
be answered categorically. By analysis, the ammonia,
available phosphoric acid and potash may be determined
and the inquirer informed what the cost of the necessary
materials to compound a ton of goods similar to "Smith's
Fruit and Vine" would be, using none but accepted and
well-known materials of the best quality.
State values do not consider "trade secrets", loss on
bad bills, cost of advertisements and expenses of collec-
tions. The "State value" is simply that price at which
the various ingredients necessary to use in compounding
a fertilizer or feed, can be purchased for cash in ton lots
at Florida seaports.
These price lists published in this report, with the
"State values," January 1, 1919, are nominal.









SPECIAL SAMPLES.

Florida is the only state in the Union that provides
for the "Special Sample" drawn by the consumer or pur-
chaser, UNDER PROPER RULES AND REGULATIONS FIXED BY
LAW-to be sent to the Commissioner of Agriculture for
analysis free of cost. Any citizen in the State who has
purchased fertilizers or feeds FOR HIS OWN USE MAY DRAW
A SAMPLE OF THE SAME, ACCORDING TO LAW AND REGULA-
TIONS and have the same analyzed by the State Chemist
free of cost. In case of adulteration or deficiency, the
purchaser can, on establishing the fact, receive double
the cost demanded for the goods.

The law requires the "special samples" to be drawn in
a manner to prevent the submission of spurious samples;
rules and regulations are published in every Quarterly
Bulletin for drawing and transmitting "special samples."

This special sample has been a most potent factor in
enforcing the law and discouraging the sale of adulter-
ated or misbranded goods.

Special samples of foods and drugs may also be sent to
the State Laboratory for analysis free of cost when the
sample is properly drawn according to law. The neces-
sary instructions and blanks required to properly draw
and transmit samples of foods and drugs will be sent to
any citizen requesting the same.

"THE SPECIAL SAMPLE FURNISHES THE CON-
SUMER WITH THE SAME PROTECTION DEMAND-
ED BY THE MANUFACTURER, WHO BUYS HIS
MATERIALS ONLY UPON GUARANTEE AND PAYS
FOR THEM ACCORDING TO ANALYSIS, AND IS
PAID FOR BY THE CONSUMER OUT OF THE
FUNDS DERIVED FROM THE INSPECTION FEE
OF TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER TON PAID ON FER-
TILIZERS AND FEEDS SOLD IN THE STATE."


2-Chem.









HOW TO LEGALLY DRAW, PACK AND TRANSMIT
SAMPLES OF FERTILIZERS AND COMMER-
CIAL FEED STUFFS FOR ANALYSIS
BY THE STATE LABORATORY.

1. Only such samples as are drawn from original
packages, EACH BEARING THE GUARANTEE OF A LAWFUL
DEALER, AND THE INSPECTION STAMP REQUIRED BY LAW, will
be analyzed by the State Laboratory, when drawn within
sixty days after date of delivery.
2. If the lot or shipment be TEN or more packages, the
sample must be drawn from NOT LESS THAN TEN packages.
3. If the lot or shipment be LESS THAN TEN packages,
the sample shall be drawn from EACH package.
4. The sample shall be drawn in the presence of TWO
disinterested witnesses, and shall be SEALED IN THEIR
PRESENCE, and TRANSMITTED by a DISINTERESTED PARTY
(one of the witnesses), to the COMMISSIONER OF AGRI-
CULTURE.
5. Not less than one pound of fertilizer, or one-half
pound of commercial feed stuff must be placed in a tin
can or glass bottle and addressed and sent, prepaid to
the Commissioner of Agriculture.
6. The purchaser (or sender) shall address a letter
to the Commissioner of Agriculture, stating:
1. The number of original packages represented by
the sample, and the number of packages sampled.
2. That each package had attached to it the guaran-
tee tag and stamp required by law.
3. That the sample was drawn in the presence of two
or more witnesses within sixty days of delivery.
4. THIS LETTER MUST NOT BE ENCLOSED IN THE PACKAGE.
5. The tags OFF THE PACKAGES SAMPLED, with the guar-
anteed analysis and stamps, must be RETAINED by the pur-
chaser, to compare with the certificate, and for future
evidence, if necessary, and BY NO MEANS SENT TO THIS
OFFICE.
The State Chemist is not the proper officer to receive
the sample.
R. E. ROSE, State Chemist.
Approved:
W. A. McRAE, Commissioner of Agriculture.
Tallahassee, Fla., July 1, 1917.










FORM FOR TRANSMITTING SAMPLES OF COM-
MERCIAL FERTILIZER OR COMMER-
CIAL FEEDING STUFF.

.................. Fla., ............, 191..
HoN. W. A. MCRAE,
Commissioner of Agriculture,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Dear Sir:
I send you today by mail (or express) a sample of
(Indicate Fertilizer, Cotton Seed Meal, or Feed Stuff.)
for analysis by the State Chemist.
This sample is taken from a lot of......packages, each
bearing the guarantee tag and stamp required by law,
purchased from a registered dealer, on the...... day of
......... 191. .. ., and delivered on or about the ......
day of ............. ..... 191.....
This sample was drawn from........ packages in the
presence of two witnesses, this day.
The guarantee tags and stamps off the packages sam-
pled are retained by the purchaser.
This sample is sent by me, one of the witnesses, for
Mr ............................., the purchaser.
Very truly,


COPIES OF LAWS. RULES AND REGULATIONS
AND STANDARDS.

Citizens of the State interested in fertilizers, foods and
drugs, and stock feed, can obtain, free of charge, the
respective laws, including rules and regulations and
standards, by applying to the Commissioner of Agricul-
ture, or State Chemist. Application for the Quarterly
Bulletin of the State Department of Agriculture should
also be made to the Commissioner of Agriculture, or
State Chemist. The bulletins of the Florida Agricul-
tural Experiment Station can be had by application to
the Director, at Gainesville.
The form letter for transmitting special samples of
fertilizers or feeding stuffs as shown above is adopted and
must be explicitly complied with in order to obtain a legal
certificate of analysis.










REPLEVIN OF ADULTERATED, MISBRANDED
FOODS.
(REPORTS OF 1913-14-15-16 AND 17.)

The unresisted replevin of illegal, adulterated, mis-
branded, lightweight or deleterious food stuffs, attached
by inspectors and placed in the custody of the sheriff of
the county, has made the attempt to enforce the law
farcial.
I would respectfully again call your attention to this
evident miscarriage of justice and the necessity of hav-
ing the proper officer resist the replevin of such goods
found to be illegal.
In this connection, I am pleased to say, the position
of this division of the Agricultural Department is sus-
tained by the Attorney General, who, in an opinion dated
November 18, 1913, says:
"In view of this rule and the great public import-
ance of the question, I would suggest that the pro-
per course for your department (the Agricultural
Department) to pursue would be to assume the stat-
ute valid until declared invalid by the highest court
of the State."
In view of the fact that goods attached by Inspectors,
under Section 8 of Chapter 6541-the Pure Food and
Drugs Law-and after analysis by the State Chemist,
showing them to be illegal, have been replevined, with-
out resistance, and sold or shipped for consumption, I
again respectfully call your attention to this very im-
portant matter, on which depends the proper enforce-
ment of the Pure Food Law of the State and the pro-
tection of our citizens from adulterated, misbranded,
immature, unwholesome or deleterious foods and drugs.
The recent ruling by the Attorney General, October 31,
1918, instructing Clerks of Court that "Property after
attachment under a police statute is in the custody of the
Law and not subject to reolevin" has very materially
clarified the situation, and has prevented to a large ex-
tent the former illegal practise.










IMMATURE CITRUS FRUIT.

The shipment of immature citrus fruit during the sea-
son of 1918 has been greatly retarded by the ruling of the
Attorney General, October 31, 1918, instructing Clerks of
Court that "property after attachment under a police
statute is in the custody of the law and is not subject to
replevin;" which has forced the shipper of immature fruit
into the courts. In most cases the courts have enjoined
the State from interfering with the shipment of the fruit,
owing to the proviso in the Citrus Fruit 'Standard Law
of 1913, as follows:
"Provided, That oranges or grapefruit showing an aver-
age on the trees of one-half color, indicating ripeness,
shall be deemed to be mature and fit for consumption,
and may be shipped or sold without first being submitted
to the acid test provided for in this Act."
While all attached fruit was immature according to the
standard adopted by the National authorities, which
standard, in the opinion of the Attorney General Sept. 28,
1915, and August 12, 1918, was also adopted by the State
in 1913. The courts held it was necessary for the State to
establish the fact that the fruit, while upon the tree was
not "one-half color, indicating ripeness."
The detailed report of this season's work shows that
color is no reliable indication of maturity; that a large
percentage of green-colored fruit is found to be mature,
both of oranges and grapefruit; while, at the same time,
a large percentage of well-colored fruit is immature;
hence the provision requiring a knowledge of the color of
the fruit "upon the trees" has made it impractical to de-
termine the maturity of the fruit when being "sold, of-
fered for sale, shipped or delivered for shipment."










COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.

We have averaged the guarantees and prices of 56
brands of complete high grade fertilizers made by three
reputable Florida manufacturers, and find the average
guarantee as follows:
3.73% Ammonia; 6.75% Avail. Phos. Acid; and 2.64%
Potash (K0) ; with an average price of $68.00. Based
on the State values for 1918, for materials in ton lots for
cash f. o. b. factory, their value would be $56.00 per ton,
to which should be added the cost of mixing and sacks,
$3.50; showing an average price above cost of material
of $8.50 per ton.

AMMONIATES.

The National Government is now furnishing Nitrate
of Soda to farmers at $81.00 per ton for cash, f. o. b. sea-
ports, or $5.00 per unit. Wholesale quotations for Ni-
trate of Soda in New York, in car lots, January 1, are
$88.50 per ton, or $5.20 per unit for 17% Ammonia.
Hence the price at Florida seaports, in ton lots $110.00,
or $6.46 per unit, $1.26 per unit above wholesale prices
is by no means excessive.

ORGANIC AMMONIATES.

Blood, tankage, cotton seed meal, tobacco dust, etc.,
are still quoted at from $2.00 to $3.00 per unit in ton
lots, above the cost of. ammonia and nitrate salts. The
demand for organic salts being greater than the supply.










FRAUDULENT FERTILIZERS.

The unusual scarcity and high values of all fertilizer
materials, sulfur, sulfuric acid, nitrates and potash, and
the great demand by farmers for fertilizers, caused by
the high prices of grain, forage and feed crops, has in-
duced a number of unscrupulous profiteers to place upon
the market in a number of instances practically worth-
less fertilizers; generally clandestinly through agents,
and without having legally registered their formulas or
guarantees, under false guarantees and without payment
of the inspection fee required by Law. Goods adulter-
ated with water (the universal adulterant) selling water
at $1.50 or more per gallon to say nothing of the cost of
packages and freights; or sand, 40% or more (800 pounds
of sand in a ton) at $40.00 per ton; sold to farmers un-
der false and misleading statements, garbled and deleted
quotations from scientific authority.
It is unnecessary to say that the sale of such goods
not only defrauds the consumer, but fails to protect the
honest manufacturer of legitimate material.

ADULTERATED MISBRANDED, AND FRAUDU-
LENT EGG SUBSTITUTES.

Your particular attention is called to the report here-
with of the prevalence not only in this State, but in
numerous others, particularly Pennsylvania and Kansas
and also to the reports of the United States and Canadian
authorities, of this fraudulent material sold at enormous
prices to the public, a system of profiteering and camou-
flage and misrepresentation.










ILLEGAL, UNREGISTERED, ADULTERATED, MIS-
BRANDED AND LIGHT WEIGHT FEEDS.

I quote from my report of 1917, as follows:

"MISBRANDED LIGHTWEIGHT FEED.
"A number of such infractions of the law are
reported, largely consisting of the failure to properly
register the goods, or to place the proper guarantee and
inspection stamp upon each package as required by law.
Dealers and consumers should decline to purchase goods
not properly registered, and duly guaranteed under oath;
such goods are not only illegal, but their sale subjects
the dealer to the penalties of the law, while the pur-
chaser, having no guarantee, cannot recover, in any ac-
tion for damages, for deficiency either in the quality or
quantity of the goods.
We find that in many cases these lightweight and de-
ficient feeds are sold direct to the consumer by agents of
unregistered dealers from other states, and not through
Florida merchants or dealers, hence it is difficult, if not
impossible, to col!edt for deficiencies in quantity or
quality. Both the State and National laws require a
truthful statement of the net weight of all foods (for men
or animals) printed on the package. The failure to state
"conspicuously, legibly and correctly the net contents of
the package in terms of weight, measure or numerical
count" under the laws, both State and National. consti-
tutes a misdemeanor, and subjects the guilty party to the
penalties of the law.










"INVOICES, WITH BILL OF LADING ATTACHED.

Instances have occurred wherein Florida citizens have
paid 'drafts with bill of lading attached,' and on exami-
nation have found the shipment not only short weight,
but also not of quality as guaranteed, being deficient in
quality, as well as quantity. Such goods, under the law,
have been attached in the possession of the purchaser,
sold by the sheriff and the proceeds paid into the State
Treasury. The purchaser, having in good faith paid the
shipper's draft, has been further penalized by having the
goods (for which he has paid) attached and sold as light-
weight, misbranded or adulteralted, and has been forced
to seek redress by suit instituted in the State where the
shipment originated, at his own cost.
A more cordial and efficient cooperation with the Na-
tional authorities as provided by law, by reference to the
'U. S. District Attorney in whose district the violation
of the law may have been committed,' through the 'office
of State Cooperative Food and Drug Control,' of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, would result in the
protection of the citizens of the State, (who are paying
a large sum-more than $75,000 per annum for such pro-
tection), from this imposition.
"The efficiency of the National authorities in convict-
ing criminal violators of the law being proverbial.










"COOPERATION WITH NATIONAL FOOD AND
DRUG AUTHORITIES.

"Section Two of the Florida Food and Drugs Law pro-
vides that in cases of violation of interstate laws the
'Commissioner of Agriculture shall certify the case to the
United States District Attorney in whose district the
violation of the law may have been committed.'
Section Fifteen provides 'that the Commissioner of
Agriculture, with the advise of the State Chemist, shall
establish such rules and regulations as shall not be in-
consistent with the provisions of this Act in conformity
with the rules and regulations formulated by the United
States Department of Agriculture, by authority of the
National Food and Drugs Act of June thirtieth, nineteen
and six, and amendments thereto.'
"The United States Department of Agriculture has es-
tablished the 'Office of State Cooperative Food and Drug
Control' for the purpose of cooperating with the states
in cases of violation of interstate laws, and will take
charge of all cases of violation of interstate laws on re-
ceipt of the evidence transmitted by the State authori-
ties, and will refer the same to the 'U. S. District At-
torney in whose district the violation of the law may
have occurred" for prosecution. It is evident that the
Florida law (Section Two) contemplates such reference,
and cooperation, as cases of violation of interstate laws
originate at the point of manufacture or shipment from
other states, and are not within the jurisdiction of the
U. S. District Attorneys of Florida. The officers, 'Chem-
ist in Charge,' of the 'Office of State Cooperative Food
and Drug Control,' and 'United States Local Inspec-
tors,' have shown an active interest in this essential co-
operation, and have visited this State on numerous oc-
casions for consultation with the 'State authorities.'
"As a very large proportion, 75% or more, of the man-
ufactured foods and drugs sold in Florida are of inter-
state origin, an active cooperation with the National au-
thorities is essential in order to more effectively protect
the citizens of Florida from misbranded, lightweight, or
adulterated foods, drugs and feeds."










FALSE ADVERTISING.

A law to prevent extravagant and false advertising,
similar to that provided by other states, would go far
toward preventing the sale of many so-called specifics for
hog cholera and diseases of animals and men; "wonder-
ful" substitutes for fertilizer, extravagant and untruth-
ful statements as to seeds and fruits, generally of little
or no value, sold at enormous profits generally to the
farmer.
Florida has an excellent "Blue Sky Law" to protect
her citizens from "wild cat" speculation in stocks and
bonds, and should have a similar law to protect her far-
mers and others from worthless fertilizers, seeds, plants
and so-called specifics for most disease to which man or
animal is subject.
While the "label" may be truthful or evasive, and cun-
ningly devised to avoid the Food and Drugs Law, the
advertisements are extravagantly untruthful. This abuse
has been corrected in many states. These swindlers find
Florida a fruitful field for their swindles.
ANALYTICAL FORCE.
SThe three analysts employed by the State Laboratory
are industrious, capable and necessarily work long hours
in the effort to promptly report upon all samples. This
report shows the number of analyses made by each; each
sample involving four to seven determinations.
I have reported the necessity of additional analysts
previously. The growers of the State are paying annual-
ly some $80,000 for protection, and are entitled to more
prompt service, which can only be given by a larger force
of competent analysts, it being physically impossible for
the present force to meet the demands as promptly as the
consumer has a right to expect.
A correspondent writes:
"Many of my farmers are paying 8% interest while
waiting for these certificates of analysis, and are
also losing the opportunity to correct shortages in
plant foods in their fields."
The fertilizer laboratory is at present congested with
"special samples" form all parts of the State, which are
analyzed and reported in the order of their receipt.










CONGESTION IN OFFICE ROOMS.

The small building occupied by the State Laboratory
and the Geological Survey is greatly congested. The
business of the State has greatly increased; and the de-
mands for public service have increased in proportion to
population and development.
Relief is imperatively demanded, and as stated before,
the people of the State are paying for this service a
much larger sum than is expended in their protection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

I wish to extend to the analytical chemists of the State
Laboratory, Messrs. A. M. Henry, Frank T. Wilson and
E. Peck Greene, also to the Food, Feed and Fertilizer
Inspectors, Messrs. A. C. Harllee, John Mullady, Marcus
Endel, J. Frank Smith and C. B. McKinnon, as well as
the Citrus Inspectors, Messrs. J. T. Lewis, Reid Robson,
L. W. Wilder and C. E. Johnston, the thanks and appre-
ciation of the State Chemist for their hearty cooperation,
their constant labor and vigilance in the effort to aid in
the protection of the citizens of the State, and the honest
manufacturers and dealers from dealers in "short weight,"
"adulterated," "misbranded" foods, feeds and fertilizers,
quack remedies and green fruit.
Respectfully submitted,
R. E. ROSE,
State Chemist.










FRAUDULENT FERTILIZERS



Two Cases of Bold and Unscrupulous Profiteering



To the Farmers and Truckers of Florida:
The two following records of profiteering and mis-
representation are published for the information of the
public:
Nitro-Fertile, a concentrated liquid fertilizer, made by
the Fertile Chemical Company of Cleveland, Ohio;
Phos-pho-Germ, made by the Nitro-Phospho Corpora-
tion of Richmond, Virginia; Newark, New Jersey, and
Ocala, Florida; with various selling agents throughout
the country.


NITRO-FERTILE

In December, 1917, the attention of this Division was
called to this "Nitro-Fertile, so-called concentrated liquid
fertilizer." Samples were obtained, together with circu-
lars, price lists and guarantees from Tampa and Miami.
Investigations discovered that the guarantee under oath
filed with the Commissioner of Agriculture was as fol-
lows:

W ater ......................................................... ............................. 100 %
N itrogen ...................................................................... 2 %
(Equal to Ammonia, 2.40%)
P hosphoric A cid .............................. ............................. 3%
P o ta sh ........................................................ ......... ........ 3 %
Chlorine .......................... ............................................ T race

T otal............................................ ... ...................... 108 % "
Clearly an impossibility.









Two samples obtained in Tampa and Miami were ana-
lysed with the following results:
No. 2521, from Miami; No. 2522, from Tampa.

Average
2521 2522 Difference
W ater .................................... 69.00% 77.57%
Avail. Phos. Acid...... 1.98% 2.10% -0.96%
Ammonia .............................. 4.49% 2.49% +1.19%
Potash .................................... 1.64% 2.11% 1.13%
Chlorine .............................. 1.54% 2.14% +1.84%

showing an average deficiency of 0.96% in available
Phosphoric Acid, 1.13% in Potash, and an excess of 1.19%
in Ammonia and 1.84% in Chlorine. Considering the
impossible oath of analysis and failure in each sample to
meet the published guarantee, the Commissioner of Agri-
culture very properly cancelled the certificate of regis-
tration.
Subsequently, on February 27, 1918, an amended oath
of analysis was filed with the Commissioner of Agricul-
ture, guaranteeing as follows:

W after ....................................................................................... 70.00%
A vail. Phos. A cid ............................ ..... ......... .......... 3.00%
A m m onia .............. .... ................................................. 2.40%
P otash .................... ....................... ........................ ... 3.00%
C h lorin e .......... .................................................... ..... 2.60 "

"Compounded from the following materials only:
Nitrate of Soda, Sulphate of Ammonia, Nitrate of Am-
monia, Phosphoric Acid, Nitrate of Soda, Sulphate of
Potash, Sulphate of Magnesium. Sworn and subscribed
to at Cleveland, Ohio, February 27, 1918," and accepted
for registration March 21, 1918.
Subsequent samples were obtained and complete anal-
yses made, which show that the solution is made from
Nitrate of Soda, Acid Phosphate, Muriate of Potash and
Low Grade Sulphate of Potash only, and failed to dis-
cover that any Ammonium Nitrate, Phosphoric Acid or
Magnesium Sulphate (Epsom salt) were used in making
the solution.
By using the following formula, paying the present
abnormal war prices, a ton of fertilizer containing the









same percentage and kind of plant food can be made to
cost as follows:

300 lbs. of nitrate of soda=2.50% NH....................... $16.50
50 lbs. of muriate of potash=1.00% potash......... 8.40
150 lbs. of 1. g. sulfate of potash=2.00% potash 13.65
400 lbs. of acid phosphate=3.00% PO........................ 4.20

900 lbs. of material purchased.
1,100 lbs. of water (filler).

2,000 lbs. Cost per ton, including water, or filler...... $42.75

This ton of liquid fertilizer will make 200 gallons of
Nitro-Fertile, weighing ten pounds per gallon, costing,
per gallon, 21.37 cents, or 5.34 cents per quart, or 2.137
cents per pound; one ton, 200 gallons, $42.75.
The prices at which this material is sold to the public
are as follows:

One quart, at $1.00........................................a profit of 1,773%
One gallon, at $3.00...........................a profit of 1,303%
Fifty gallons, at $82.50..................a profit of 672%
One ton, 200 gallons, at $330.. a profit of 672%

In addition to the extravagant prices at which this
material is sold, containing as it does nothing but ordi-
nary fertilizer materials, Nitrate of Soda, Sulphate and
Chloride of Potash and Acid Phosphate, to which has
been added a large portion of water as a filler, the fact
that the oath of analysis with the statement of materials
composing the solution is not true, and that the guarantee
tag upon the package is false upon its face, justifies, in
my opinion, the cancellation of the registration of the
goods and the prosecution of the manufacturers, their
agents or vendors throughout the State for violation of
the Commercial Fertilizer Law.
There is nothing new in this so-called concentrated
liquid fertilizer. Various mixtures of Nitrate of Soda,
Muriate or Sulfate of Potash and Acid Phosphate, which
are the only fertilizer materials in "Nitro-Fertile," have
been published at various times in agricultural journals
and. works upon gardening and trucking. The only thing
new is the attempt to sell water at $1.65 per gallon.









PIOS-PHO-GERM BACTERIAL SOIL VITALIZER.

The following letter to the manufacturers of this so-
called "Nitro-germ" and "Soil vitalizer" explains itself.
The conclusions therein stated are fully justified by the
complete analysis by this Laboratory, which analysis
fully sustains those made by reputable chemists and pub-
lished in the journals alluded to:
Tallahassee, October 26, 1918.
Nitro-Phosphe Corporation of Florida,
Ocala, Florida.
Gentlemen: The letter of your president, Mr. M. W.
Lloyd, to the Commissioner of Agriculture, of October 16,
referred to this office for reply. We have also received
your letter of October 23, addressed to this office. * *
I fully agree with the editorials of Dr. H. E. Stock-
bridge, published in the "Southern Ruralist," July 15
and September 1; and also of Dr. Tait Butler, in the
"Progressive Farmer," August 24, and Prof. J. F. Dug-
gar, of September 7.
The analyses published by these reputable farm jour-
nals show that the only available plant food contained
in Phos-pho-Germ is 0.51% of available Ammonia and
0.21% of water-soluble Potash; at the present retail price
worth $5.04 per ton, to which has been added, probably,
certain Nitro-germs, so-called vitalizers, that can be ob-
tained free of cost from the U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture; that the material is composed approximately of
1,700 pounds of low-grade raw phosphate with 300
pounds of humus (?) (muck), to which has been added
nitro-germs (which, as stated above, can be obtained by
farmers, free of cost, from the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture).
The opinion of this Department is that this is simply
another case of "New Mineral Fertilizer," "Bread from
Stones," "Life Rock," or "Vithumus," using as a base
insoluble raw phosphates, with a small amount of pre-
pared (1) muck, and the adding (?) of certain Nitro-
germs; selling the same at enormous profits; using gar-
bled extracts from scientific experiments by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture and other authorities, as in
the case of the materials mentioned, in order to sell inert
materials at enormous prices to uninformed farmers, who,
in their dire necessity at the present time, owing to the










high price of available fertilizer or plant food-available
nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid-become the ready
victims of such propaganda.
Yours truly,
(Signed) R. E. ROSE,
State Chemist.

The following complete analysis of Phos-pho-Germ,
made by this Laboratory, Sample No. 2534, was reported
November 19, 1918:
M moisture ........... ......................... .......................... 16.40%
A vail. Phos. A cid ................................... .................... 1.35%
Insol. Phos. A cid ....................... ..................... 8.85%
Avail. Ammonia........................... .......... .......... 1.09%
Insol. A m m onia............................. ............. ............ 0.58 %
P otash (K ) .................. ...................... ................. 0.17%
Sulphur .................. ............... ..... ................... 0.40%
(arbon Dioxide, 2.60%
Equivalent to Calcium Carbonate.................. 5.92%
Volatile matter (other than HO and
Sulphur) ..................................................................... 25.00%
Insoluble matter, sand, organic matter,
etc. .............................. 40.24%

This material was composed of approximately equal
parts of Soft Phosphate and muck, with a very small
amount of wood ashes and sulphur added.
This material is sold, to the best of our information,
at $40.00 per ton.
Its actual fertilizing value at present abnormal war
prices is $12.62, showing an excess charge for the valuable
fertilizing material therein of $27.38, or more than 200%
above the cost of the material to manufacture a goods of
equal fertilizing value.
The manufacturers claim an unusual value for this
material by adding certain Nitro-germs. Such pure cul-
tures of Nitro-germs for different leguminous plants are
furnished to farmers by the U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture, free of cost. On application to the Bureau of Plant
Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, a circular de-
tailing methods of application and blank for requesting a
supply of these pure cultures, suitable for different legu-
minous crops, will be sent, free of cost.
The literature on this subject published by the U. S.
3-Chem.










Department of Agrciulture is voluminous. Farmers or
truckers interested should write for Bulletin No. 71, Bu-
reau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture;
also for Farmers' Bulletins of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Nos. 124, 240, 271, 276, 315, 333, 339 and 374.
The analyses alluded to, one published in the "South-
ern Ruralist, three by the "Progressive Farmer," all
made by reputable chemists, specialists in fertilizer work,
average as follows:

Insoluble Phos. Acid............................................... 11.93%
Available Phos. Acid ......................................... ....... 1.14%
Amm onia, available.... ......................................... 0.54%
Potash, K 2O, soluble ................................ ................. 0.44%

These analyses, together with that of this laboratory,
No. 2534, reported November 19, show a careless or
ignorant manipulation of the material used. The irregu-
larity of the composition of the goods doubtless explains
the reason for attempting to evade the law and declining
to register the chemical analysis under oath, and to mag-
nify the claims of unusual value by adding (1) certain
"nitro-germs," so-called "vitalizers," that can be had
free of cost on application to the U. S. Department of
Agriculture.
The Florida Fertilizer Law, Section 3, provides "That
all commercial fertilizer shall have the guarantee tags
showing the minimum percentage of Ammonia, insoluble
and available phosphoric acid and potash soluble in water
and the inspection stamp attached to each package; that
the sheriffs of this State are hereby authorized, and it is
hereby made their duty to seize and sell at public sale
each and every bag, barrel or package of commercial fer-
tilizer manufactured, imported or sold in this
State which shall not have securely attached the tag or
label and stamp mentioned in this Section."
Section 4 provides a penalty for misrepresentation of
the proportion of ammonia, phosphoric acid and potash.
Section 5 provides for the filing under oath, with the
Commissioner of Agriculture, the guaranteed chemical
analysis, with penalties for failure.
Section 6 provides for the payment of the inspection
fee, with penalty for failure.
The Food and Drug Law, Section 9, provides "That










the Governor shall appoint four food, drug and fertilizer
inspectors for the Chemical Division of the Department
of Agriculture of the State of Florida. * Said *
* inspectors shall have authority and it shall be their
duty * to inspect foods and drugs and commercial
stock food and commercial fertilizers, and other material
subject to inspection, as now provided by law *
and to seize and attach all goods subject to inspection
* * that shall fail to bear the guaranteed analysis
and inspection stamp provided by the commercial fer-
tilizer and commercial stock feed laws, and place the
same in the custody of the sheriff of the county wherein
found, subject to the order of the Commissioner of Agri-
culture."
As neither of these provisions of the law have been
complied with, these goods are liable to attachment wher-
ever found, and the manufacturers, importers and deal-
ers subject to prosecution under the provisions of the
law; while purchasers of such goods have no protection
under the law, having failed to protect themselves by
purchasing only such goods as are legally guaranteed
under oath and registered in the office of the Commis-
sioner of Agriculture, each package bearing the guaran-
tee tag and inspection stamp provided by law.
R. E. ROSE,
State Chemist.










SO-CALLED EGG SUBSTITUTES.

R. E. Rose, State Chemist. A. M. Henry, B. S., Analyst.

A Typical Case of Profiteering; False and
Misleading Labeling.


There are on the market today many so-called egg sub-
stitutes that are sold under various names. Their labels
claim that the three or four ounces in the package will re-
place from two to three dozen eggs. These products are
composed principally of starch, with a small amount of
nitrogenous matter added, which is usually.derived from
skimmed milk powder. They are often colored with a coal
tar dye, and occasionally a small amount of baking pow-
der is added. In no sense are they a substitute for eggs.
They are all labeled to be more economical than eggs and
to take the place of eggs in baking and cooking. As a con-
sequence, they are sold to those people who most desire to
practice economy, and who can least afford to pay the
exorbitant prices that result if they use enough of these
substitutes to really take the place of eggs. If used in the
amount called for on the label, they could just as well
have used an equal amount of flour or starch with a small
quantity of skimmed milk and saved the cost of these sub-
stitutes. They are frauds and are typical examples of
profiteering, false and misleading labeling. These substi-
tutes have been condemned in many instances as fraudu-
lent by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, also by the
Canadian authorities, and by numerous States, particu-
larly Pennsylvania and Kansas. They have been exposed
and driven from many States, and have now infested Flor-
ida and other Southern States. Instructions have been
given to all Food Inspectors to attach at once wherever
found and place in the custody of the Sheriffs as provided
by law for the seizure of all "palpably adulterated or vis-
ibly misbranded" foods, drugs, feeds and fertilizers.
Eggs serve a five-fold purpose in cooking:
(1) By virtue of their high food value and composition
eggs increase the food value of any preparation in which
they are used.
(2) The albumen of the egg coagulates at the cooking










temperature to form a foundation for raised cakes such as
sponge cakes, where the supporting framework is coagu-
lated albumen from the egg.
(3) To bind together materials of poor adhesive quali-
ties and to improve the texture of cakes and breads.
(4) To give the flavor characteristic of eggs to the fin-
ished product.
(5) To give the color characteristic of eggs to the fin-
ished product.
The average hen's egg contains 0.48 ounce of dry ma-
terial, of which 0.24 ounce is protein and 0.20 ounce is
fat. The so-called egg substitutes generally recommend
one level teaspoonful of the preparation to be used for
each egg called for in the recipe. The amount of material
directed to be used in place of an egg contains from noth-
ing to one-tenth of the amount of fat that an egg con-
tains; and from one-seventy-second to one-eighth the
amount of protein that is contained in an egg. An egg
contains a very small amount of carbohydrates in the
form of sugars, while these so-called substitutes contain
from four-tenths to eight-tenths of carbohydrates, princi-
pally in the form of starch, although some of them con-
tain a small quantity of carbohydrates in the form of
milk sugar. From a nutritive standpoint protein and
fat are worth about two and one-half times the value of
starch, sugars and other carbohydrates. These so-called
egg substitutes neither in composition or nutritive values
can replace or be substituted for eggs in food products and
preparations, though they contain large quantities of cheap
starch.
The following table of composition and comparative
values shows how these so-called egg substitutes compare
in value and composition with fresh shell eggs; and des-
sicated, or dried, egg powder.









COMPOSITION AND COMPARATIVE VALUE OF EGGS AND SO-CALLED EGG SUBSTITUTES.

1- Value per Lb. o a c
in Terms of 'W
T ERd CWhole Eggs o
MATERIAL COLOR from
MT I ? Standpoint of o

__ ; gd Fat Protein 0 g _

Fresh eggs in shell..... 65 10 12 1 1 Natural .......... 8 8 $0.40 $0.05 ....
Dried egg powder....... 10 37 47 3 3 Natural .......... 30 30 $1.05 $0.035 ....
Savo and Purity........ 13 Tr. 22 3 62 Coal tar dye...... 0 15 $1.33 $0.18 128
Mazo ............. .... 10 Tr. 12 7 71 None ............ 0 8 $1.00 $0.25 144
Eggno and Newto....... 12 2 14 3 69 Coal tar dye...... 2 9 $1.14 $0.21 158
Algo and Egg-O........ 11 Tr. 17 9 63 Coal tar dye...... 0 11 $1.14 $0.21 114
Egg-Sub ................ 14 0 3 3 80 Coal tar dye...... 0 2 $1.00 $1.00 144
Eggine ................. 11 0 24 6 59 Coal tar dye...... 0 16 $1.00 $0.12 144
Ecc-O-Gene ............. 9 20 25 3 43 Natural .......... 16 17 $1.14 $0.07 158
Egg-O-No .............. 14 0 25 3 58 Coal tar dye...... 0 17 $1.00 $0.12 144
Sa-Van-Eg and Sa-Van.. 10 Tr. 7 12 71 Coal tar dye...... 0 5 $1.00 $0.40 144

A. M. HENRY, B. S., Food and Drug Analyst.









The materials used for the protein content in these
so-called egg substitutes are commercial albumen, casein,
gluten and gelatin. Commercial albumen is a serum al-
bumen derived from the blood of slaughtered animals,
though ,in some cases the albumen from dried egg whites
may be used in whole or in part. Serum albumen is sol-
uble in cold water, but, unlike egg albumen, it cannot be
whipped to a froth. The casein is derived from skim milk
and is of some value if a sufficient amount is used. Al-
though it can be whipped to a froth, the froth is not as
permanent as in eggs. The gluten used is a by-product
from starch manufacture and can be whipped to a stiffer
and more permanent froth than can eggs. If sufficient be
used there is little doubt but that a satisfactory substi-
tute for eggs could be made having the property of coagu-
lating and forming a supporting framework for cakes.
Gelatin is a very poor substitute for eggs for the reason
that it softens instead of coagulating at cooking tempera-
tures, so that a substance baked with it invariably falls
flat.
As a test for the truth of the statement which these so-
called egg substitutes always bear on the label, that they
can be used as a substitute for eggs in baking and cook
ing, sponge cakes were made using the following recipe:

1 egg. 1/2 cup sugar.
3 tablespoons hot water. 1/2 cup flour.
3/4 teaspoon baking powder. 1/% teaspoon salt.
1/s teaspoon lemon extract.

"Beat egg until thick and lemon-colored, add one-half
the sugar gradually, and continue beating; then add the
water, remaining sugar, lemon extract, and flour mixed
and sifted with baking powder and salt. Bake twenty-
five minutes in a moderate oven."
Cakes were baked by this recipe, using one egg as called
for; using an amount of dessicated egg powder equal to
one fresh egg; using a number of various egg substitutes
in the manner and amounts specified on their labels to be
equal to a fresh egg; and also no egg or egg substitute at
all. The cut shows the results better than description.














1'


4


L 'v __-y, A I *
CAKES BAKED WITH EGGS AND EGG SUBSTITUTES.
1-Cakes made with an egg. 2-Cakes made without eggs or egg substitutes. 3-Typical examples of
cakes made with egg substitutes. 4-Cakes made with an amount of dessicated whole egg powder equal to
one fresh egg.











With the fresh egg nice, spongy, fine-textured cakes
were produced with the characteristic flavor and color of
eggs. With the dessicated egg powder the cakes were not
as fine-textured and were tougher, not as large, nor did
they have quite as good an appearance, flavor, or color
as those made with fresh eggs. There is no difference in
the cakes made with egg substitutes and without any egg
or egg substitute, as they were all dismal failures as cake.
They all rose beautifully, but fell hopelessly, and were
tough, hard, and without the flavor characteristic of eggs.
The color of the baked cake did not resemble the color of
cakes baked with fresh eggs. There is no substitute that
can wholly take the place of fresh eggs in the properties
of forming a supporting framework for cakes nor in bind-
ing the materials together, thus producing a fine even tex-
ture. The so-called egg substitutes were dismal failures
in trying to produce these results. However, had there
been less starch and more casein, albumen, or gluten used
in these substitutes, and had the labels directed the use
of a sufficient amount, it is possible that they would as-
sist to some extent in binding the materials together
and in improving the texture. None of these substitutes
produce the egg flavor in the finished product.
Those containing one-half dessicated egg powder, di-
rected that an amount be used for each egg which con-
tains but 1-15 of the egg powder that would be equal to
one egg.
Many of these so-called egg substitutes contain state-
ments on the label such as "use one-third less shortening
than the egg recipes call for," "makes richer cake than
eggs;" which are false and misleading as these so-called
egg substitutes do not make "richer cake" and no less
shortening is required, as they do not contain the amount
of shortening (fat) found in the egg.
All of these substitutes are illegal and in violation of
the food laws. They are in direct violation of the fol-
lowing sections and provisions:
"Sec. 4. * an article shall be deemed to be adulter-
ated:
In the Case of Food: Fourth-If it be mixed, colored,
or powdered, coated or stained in a manner whereby in-
feriority is concealed."
"Sec. 5. That the term "misbranded" as used herein
shall apply to all drugs, or articles of food, or articles










which enter into the composition of food, the package or
label of which shall bear any statement, design, or de-
vice regarding such article or the ingredients or sub-
stances contained therein which shall be false or mislead-
ing in any particular. * That for the purposes of this
Act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded:
In the Case of Food: Second-If it be labeled or brand-
ed so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser.
Fourth-If the package containing it or its label shall
bear any statement, design or device which shall be false
or misleading in any particular. * "
The following are examples of some of the false and
misleading statements on the labels of these substitutes:
Sa-Vo. "The contents of this package should be used
in place of two dozen eggs. Use one rounding teaspoon-
ful of Sa-Vo in place of each egg."
Mazo. "Use contents of this package as 3 doz. eggs.
Mazo is a pure, wholesome product for use instead of eggs
in making cakes, muffins, quick breads, cookies, puddings,
French toast, custards, sauces, salad dressings, ice creams,
etc., and costs but a fraction of the price of eggs. Guar-
anteed to comply with all Pure Food Laws."
Eggno. "Use a teaspoonful for each egg called for in
recipes requiring eggs. Eggno is an excellent substitute for
eggs and is to be used for baking and cooking purposes.
Eggno is an article of real merit and is far superior to the
usual Egg Substitutes on the market. Eggno contains
the constituents that cause fresh eggs to fill such an im-
portant place in every kitchen."
Aigo. "To use in place of eggs in baking and cooking.
Contents of this package used in place of 25 eggs., [t
gives you purity, satisfaction and economy. Use one level
teaspoonful Aigo and one tablespoonful luke-warm wa-
ter instead of one egg. There is nothing like Aigo. Con-
vince yourself of the great saving it affords you over
eggs."
Egg-Sub. "Use one level teaspoonful for each egg called
for in your recipe. Use one-third less shortening than
the egg recipe calls for. Egg-Sub is unsurpassed in econ-
omy and convenience."
Eggine. "Unsurpassed for purity and economy. Use
in place of three dozen eggs in baking and cooking.
Makes richer cake than eggs. Used for baking and cook-
ing same as eggs."










Ecc-O-Gene. "Use this package in place of 36 eggs.
Makes richer cake than eggs."
Egg-O-No. "Use in place of three dozen eggs. Guaran-
teed to replace the use of eggs in cooking. Very economi-
cal. A great discovery to reduce the high cost of living.
Dollars saved to every family by the use of Egg-O-No.
Takes the place of eggs in baking and cooking."
Sa-Van. "One level teaspoonful may be used for each
egg called for in the recipe. Use one-third less shortening
than the usual egg recipe calls for. May be used in place
of eggs. 'Sa-Van will make, without a single egg, the most
delicious cakes, pancakes, puddings, pastry, and other
foods that you ever tasted."
All of these so-called egg substitutes are so different
in properties and composition from eggs that it is im-
possible to so label them that they will comply with the
provisions of the food laws. When dessicated egg powder
is used, as much as one-half, the element of deception, of
false and misleading labeling, is still present, for the label
states that "one teaspoonful is equal to one fresh egg."
In the use of pure, dessicated whole egg powder it re-
quires seven or eight level teaspoonfuls to equal one fresh
egg. Milk, skimmed milk powder, milk casein, serum al-
bumen, and gluten may be used as a substitute for eggs
in a great many ways, but they do not give the same re-
sults as eggs, and in a great many cases are of no value
at all. A number of these substitutes contain baking pow-
der and added color so that when the material is mixed
with water the color dissolves, giving a color similar to
eggs and on whipping the baking powder causes it to froth,
resembling whipped egg.
If it is desired to use milk as a substitute for eggs, one-
half cup should be used for each egg. If one desires to
make an "egg substitute" use two tablespoonfuls of milk
and one-half teaspoonful of corn starch for each teaspoon-
ful of substitute called for. If the substitute is desired in
a dry form, mix one pound of skimmed milk powder and
one pound of corn starch. If you desire color, a package
of certified food color or dye can be purchased for a dime
and a pinch of it added to the mixture will give you an
"egg substitute," equal to any on the market, at a cost of
less than thirty cents a pound, instead of from $1.00 to
$1.33 a pound, which you will pay for the fancy-named
"egg substitutes."










CONCLUSIONS.

As succinctly said by Dr. Charles LaWall in the Penn-
sylvania State Bulletin Number 314, these so-called egg
substitutes "afford an opportunity for unpatriotic profi-
teering, combined with the development of the art of
camouflage to the point of perfection."
The composition and properties in no wise resemble
those of an egg. The presence of color and baking powder
where used is a fraud, as it causes the mixture to imitate
an egg. The labels are a mixture of deliberate misstate-
ments and ambiguous phrases with a smattering of truth.
These so-called egg substitutes serve no purpose that
cannot be more satisfactorily and cheaply served by ar-
ticles in common use in every kitchen.
Finally the sale of these so-called egg substitutes is
absolutely prohibited by the Florida Food and Drug Law.
They being "visibly misbranded and palpably adulterated,"
it is the duty of all food, drug, fertilizer and feed stuff
inspectors to attach the same wherever found placing them
in the custody of the Sheriffs of the State.
R. E. ROSE,
Approved: State Chemist.
W. A. McRAE,
Commissioner of Agriculture.










IMMATURE CITRUS FRUIT

By R. E. ROSE, State Chemist.

This subject probably has been discussed more fre-
quently by the grower, shipper and consumer of citrus
fruit during the past twenty years than any other sub-
ject, affecting the production and marketing of citrus
fruit.
It became the subject of discussion by the citrus grow-
er, the agricultural press, and trade journals before the
great freezes of Florida and California, at which time
the crops of citrus fruit in each state had become of large
size-some 5,000,000 boxes in Florida and some 8,000,000
boxes in California. For some years after these freezes
the crop being small, far less than the demand, there was
little, if any, immature citrus fruit sent to market, hence
the quality of the fruit was seldom questioned.
However, when the crop again reached 5,000,000 boxes
in Florida, with a proportionate increase in California,
the problem of marketing and distribution became acute.
The natural desire to get the fruit into the market in
advance of a possible freeze, by which the fruit at least
would be made unfit for market, with the possibility of
serious damage to the groves, and shortening the crop for
several years to come; the temptation to ship the fruit
as early as the market would accept them irrespective of
quality was great, hence the shipment of immature fruit
became general, particularly by shippers who had pur-
chased crops on the trees-often with a clause in the con-
tract requiring the purchaser to remove the entire crop
from the trees at a fixed date, generally by January 1;
sometimes earlier.
The flooding of the market with this fruit, largely im-
mature and undesirable, early in the season necessarily
had the effect of destroying the reputation for excellence,
formerly enjoyed by the Florida orange.
In order to deceive the consumer as to ripeness and
desirability, it became a common practice to "sweat"
green, or immature oranges, thus simulating ripeness or
maturity. It was soon discovered that green fruit shipped
in an unventilated car "Released, Vents Closed and Plugs










In," thus affording "a warm moist atmosphere" would
arrive at destination, some six or ten days later, yellow
and apparently mature.
This abuse became so common when the Florida and
California crops reached large proportions, as to demand
some action by our national pure food officials, who,
after investigation, declared that:
"There is evidence to show that the consump-
tion of such immature oranges, especially by
children, is apt to be attended by serious dis-
turbances of the digestive system.'
This fact, however, was generally accepted prior to the
issuance of F. I. D. No. 133, April 6, 1911, by the national
pure food authorities.
This ruling by the national authorities was quickly
followed by the State of Florida; on June 5, 1911, the
Florida "Immature Citrus Fruit Act" became a law; in
response to a practically universal demand by the orange
growers of the State, and that of many shippers inter-
ested in maintaining the quality, reputation and market
value of Florida oranges, and was bitterly opposed, I am
pleased to say, only by a few notorious "Green Fruiters"
and speculators, who had little or no interest in the gen-
eral welfare of the industry. Its constitutionality was
questioned by those interested in the shipment of "Imma-
ture Citrus Fruit," carried to the Florida Supreme Court,
and the law sustained, as reported in the case of Sligh
vs. Kirkwood, Sheriff, reported February 7, 1913. 65
Florida, page 123. This judgment was affirmed on appeal
to the U. S. Supreme Court, April, 1914.
It will be noted that in F. I. D. No. 133, and in the
Florida "Immature Citrus Fruit Law of 1911" no stand-
ard was fixed for determining the maturity of oranges.
However, in both cases, "Immature Oranges" were de-
clared unwholesome and unfit for consumption.
Necessarily, the question-"When is an orange mature
and wholesome?" became immediately one of great public
interest in the orange producing states. It is well known
that immature citrus fruit, after removal from the tree,
though it may be artificially colored by "holding in a
warm, moist atmosphere for a short period of time," or
by shipment in an unventilated car, does not, as in the
case of deciduous fruits, ripen; that such immature
oranges "do not change in sugar or acid content after










removal from the tree" and are not prone to decay, rather
to desiccate or "dry up."
It can be readily perceived that some simple method,
easily and quickly applied, one that could be applied by
any one-grower, shipper or receiver-one that would
positively determine the degree of ripeness, irrespective
of color, became necessary.
Hence, a standard, fair to all parties-the grower, the
shipper, the receiver, and particularly to the consumer-a
reliable and accurate standard, quickly applied by any
intelligent man or woman, not requiring great skill, tech-
nical training, or expert knowledge to apply, was de-
manded, a legal standard fixed by authority, for the
guidance not only of the Inspector, but also for the
grower and shipper.
This problem of devising such a standard was delegated
by the Agricultural Department of Florida to a com-
mission of eminent scientists, trained horticulturists,
specialists in orange growing and marketing, chemists,
and business men.
This commission was appointed by the Commissioner of
Agriculture of Florida in June, 1912, and met July 6,
1912, at the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
and assigned to its various members different phases of
the problem submitted.
After several sessions and much correspondence, this
Commission prepared a report of their conclusions and
presented the same to a largely attended convention of
Florida orange growers, convened by the authority of the
Florida Agricultural Department, at the State University
at Gainesville, August 15, 1912.
This convention unanimously adopted the standard for
oranges recommended by the Commission as follows:
"If the chemical analysis shows the percent-
age by weight of the total sugar, as invert sugar,
to be seven times, or more, than the weight of
the total acid, as citric acid, the fruit shall be
deemed mature."
This standard now generally known as the "Florida
Standard," I am pleased to say has been adopted by the
National Bureau of Chemistry and by the National Asso-
ciation of Food, Drug and Dairy Officials, slightly modi-
bed as to terms, in order that the "test" or "analysis" can
be readily and quickly applied in the field or in the lab-










oratory. The standard now adopted by the National
Food and Drug authorities, and by many of the Food
Officials and Health Officers of the Nation, is that:
"All mature oranges shall contain not less
than eight parts of total solids to one part of
total acid, calculated as citric acid, without
water of crystalization; and that
"All mature grapefruit shall contain not less
than seven parts of total solids to one part of
acid, calculated as citric acid, without water of
crystalization."
It will be noted that one part crystalized citric acid
to seven parts of total sugar, as invert, is practically
identical with the standard now universally adopted. It
can readily be applied by any one, not color-blind, with
a few inexpensive instruments and reagents, thus obtain-
ing the information necessary, without the tedious and
expensive sugar determination, requiring a chemical labo-
ratory and a trained chemist.
It will be readily perceived that total solids include
acids, hence seven parts sugar is practically identical to
eight parts total solids.
Much time, labor and study has been devoted to this
problem by the U. S. Bureau of Chemistry in California
and in Florida, also by the Laboratories of the Universi-
ties and Experiment Stations and State Laboratories of
these States, as well as by several reputable commercial
laboratories in these, and other States, all of which agree
that the standard fixed by the Florida Commission is
equitable and fair alike to the grower and the shipper,
and the consumer.
Since the unanimous adoption of the standard by the
National Association of Dairy, Food and Drug Officials,
at Berkeley, California, August 2-5, 1915; the Health and
Food Officials, Chambers of Commerce and Boards of
Trade of many states, particularly those in which large
distributing points are situated-New York, Chicago,
Cincinnati, St. Louis, Denver and others-have adopted
the standard and decline to accept delivery of fruit which
does not comply with the National standard; and have
destroyed large quantities of citrus fruit that has failed
to pass the standard required, not only in car lots and
cargoes, but have followed and attached the fruit in the
possession of the retail dealer.










Two cargoes of Porto Rican grapefruit (windfalls from
a recent storm) were condemned and destroyed by the
Health Officers of New York, recently. This has resulted
in a notice by the New York Chamber of Commerce to the
Porto Rican and other foreign shippers, that hereafter
delivery would not be accepted of fruit that failed to pass
the National and state standards. Citrus fruit, therefore,
can not he shipped from these localities until certified as
mature by an official chemist at the shipping point.
The time is rapidly approaching when all contracts for
delivery of citrus fruit will be conditioned upon its
"passing the test" of maturity on arrival at destination.
Receivers, commission and auction houses, brokers and
dealers, wholesale and retail, will not assume the risk of
the loss of the fruit by condemnation. The work of in-
spection has been greatly facilitated and improved.
The fact that a shipper can not now ship "Released,
Vents Closed and Plugs In" without calling attention to
his evident desire to "sweat" the fruit in transit; nor
prevent State or National Inspectors from obtaining this
information from the railroad agents, has had a wonder-
ful retarding effect on the "Green Fruiter," a very few of
whom still try to operate and occasionally get off a car
from some lonely siding, packed and shipped at night,
and, 1 am credibly informed, not billed as citrus fruit.
The act of 1910, amending the Interstate Commerce
Act, provides as follows:

U. S. ACTS OF 1910.

Chapter 309-To amend An Act to regulate
commerce. (The Interstate Commerce Law).
Section 10. Any person, corporation, or com-
pany, or any agent or officer thereof, who shall
deliver property for transportation to any com-
mon carrier or for whom, as con-
signor or consignee, any such carrier shall trans-
port property, who shall knowingly and will-
fuly, directly or indirectly, himself or by em-
ployee, agent,. officer, or otherwise, by false bill-
ing, false classification, false weighing, false
representation of the contents of the package, or
the substance of the property * whether
with or without the consent or connivance of
4-Chem.










the carrier, its agent, or officer * shall
be deemed guilty of fraud, which is hereby de-
clared to be a misdemeanor, and shall, upon
conviction thereof, be subject, for each offence,
to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or
imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of
not exceeding two years, or both, in the discre-
tion of the court:
Section 12. Provided, That nothing in this
act shall be construed to prevent the giving of
such information in response to any legal pro-
cess issued under the authority of any state or
Federal Court, or to any officer or agent of the
Government of the United States, or of any
State or Territory, in the exercise of his powers,
or to any officer or other duly authorized person
seeking such information for the prosecution of
persons charged with or suspected of crime;
Any person violating any
of the provisions * of this section, shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each offense,
on conviction, shall pay to the United States a
penalty of not more than one thousand dollars.
Those two amendments to the Interstate Commerce
Act have had a wonderful deterent effect upon the ship-
ment of unlawful goods by means of false statements as
to kind or class of material shipped and also afford
officials, State and National, means to promptly ascer-
tain all facts as to the place, and date of shipment, name
of consignor and consignee, car initial, number and rout-
ing, thus affording an opportunity to fix the responsi-
bility for the shipment of all unlawful goods, not only
immature citrus fruit but numerous others. Citrus fruit
is by no means the only class of fruit or vegetable and
other farm products now demanding laws and regulations
to prevent their shipment in an immature condition-
notably the canteloupe and celery growers, shippers and
consumers are now demanding laws and regulations to
prevent this deception and abuse. Particularly are
brokers and consignees declining to accept delivery and
pay for goods that do not conform to the National and
State standards fixed by law.
I am pleased to say that most of the larger shippers
of the State, handling most of the citrus crop, are now










in full accord with the National and State authorities,
and are upholding the law and aiding in its enforcement
The fertilizer, Feed Stuff and Food and Drug Laws,
which at first met with the active opposition of the man-
ufacturers and dealers, are now recognized by the legiti-
mate manufacturer and dealer in honest goods as their
best protection against the dishonest competition of the
manufacturer or dealer in inferior or adulterated goods.
It will be noted that previous to the season of 1914-15,
when the law had been declared constitutional by the
Supreme Court of the State and Nation, and the adop-
tion of the Florida Standard by the National authorities;
but little was accomplished in preventing the shipment of
immature fruit by State officers. The shipment of citrus
fruit being practically exclusively interstate, the State
without the co-operation of the National authorities, was
seriously handicapped, hence the shipment of 900 cars
of grapefruit prior to November 5, 1913-thus flooding
the markets with inferior fruit to the disgust of the con-
sumer and demorilization of the market, which did not
recover until very late in the season-to the great finan-
cial loss of the grower and legitimate shipper.
However, during the season of 1914-15, owing to the
hearty co-operation of the National authorities but 90
cars of grapefruit had left the State when the season
closed, November 5, while there was but little complaint
of immature oranges. These facts are well known to the
grower and shipper, hence the general approval of the law
and demand for its enforcement by all except a few no-
torious "Green Fruiters," who still persist in the efforts
to evade the law by packing and shipping at night from
lonely sidings, and, as alleged, by false billings.
A number of thes cars have been attached as immature,
the necessary evidence obtained of their being shipped
"Released, Vents Closed and Plugs in," and full informa-
tion forwarded to the National authorities and to the
consignee. It is believed that this practice will cease
when found unprofitable and liable to end in conviction
and punishment.







52

With the active co-operatibn, now assured, of the
National authorities, and the various states that have
adopted the Florida standard, and the fact that numer-
ous Boards of Trade, Chambers of Commerce and other
trade organizations are now refusing to accept delivery
of citrus fruit, foreign or domestic, that does not meet
the national standard, there is reason to believe that the
effort of the honest grower and shipper of citrus fruit to
prevent the violation of the laws of the State and Nation
will be accomplished.
R. E. ROSE.









MATURE AND IMMATURE CITRUS
FRUIT

By A. M. HENRY, B. S., FOOD AND DRUG ANALYST.

Results and conclusions drawn from analyses and ob-
servations of Florida citrus fruit, season of 1918:
Citrus fruits are divisible into three classes as regards
taste:
First: Acid fruit with a large percentage of citric acid
and little or no sugars, such as limes and lemons;
Second: Sub-acid fruit with considerable acid and also
coni-derable sugars, such as grapefruit and some of its
hybrids;
Third: Sweet fruit, with large percentage of sugars
and sufficient acid to impart a good flavor, such as ma-
ture oranges, tangerines, etc.
The first class of fruit, limes and lemons, are edible at
any time after they have developed a considerable amount
of acid. They are usually harvested at the time that
their acid content is greatest. The second class of fruit,
grapefruit, should be well matured before being har-
vested, as they have a very nauseous and bitter principal
which permeates the fruit throughout, if harvested be-
fore maturity. When mature the bitter principal is
found principally in the "rag" and pell of the fruit. The
third class of fruit, oranges, should not be harvested until
they are well matured, the sugar developed and there are
no transition products that are liable to cause digestive
disturbances. These transition products also occur in
imlnaure grapefruit, but disappear earlier than from the
orange.
In 1911 the Florida legislature enacted a law prohibit-
ing the sale and shipment for consumption of immature
citrus fruit, but failed to define mature and immature
citrus fruit. This action of the Legislature was taken
at the request of the organized citrus growers of the
State, particularly the Horticultural Society of Florida,
to protect their fruit from the speculator and green fruit
shipper.
After the passage of the Immature Citrus Fruit Law
in 1911, the citrus growers convention, held in Gaines-
ville, Florida, appointed a commission, consisting of the
Director and the Chemist of the Florida Experiment Sta-









tion, the President of the Florida Horticultural Society,
the Chemist of the Florida University and the State
Chemist, to devise a standard for mature fruit to report
to a subsequent convention their findings. Subsequently
this Commission reported to the Convention of Florida
Orange Growers convened by authority of the Florida
Agricultural Department at the State University at
Gainesville, August 15, 1912. This convention unani-
mously adopted the standard for oranges recommended
by the Commission, as follows: "If this chemical analy-
sis shows the percentage of weight of total sugar as in-
vert sugar to be seven times or more than the weight of
the total acid, as citric acid, the fruit shall be deemed
mature." This standard, now generally known as the
Florida standard, was adopted by the National Bureau
of Chemistry and by the National Association of Dairy,
Food and Drug Officials, slightly modified as to terms in
order that the test, or analysis can be readily and quickly
applied in the field or in the laboratory. The standard
now adopted by the National Food and Drug authorities,
and by many of the Food Officials and Health Officers of
the Nation, is that:
"All mature oranges shall contain not less than eight
parts of total solids to one part of total acid, calculated
as citric acid without water of crystallization" and that:
"All mature grapefruit shall contain not less than
seven parts of total solids to one part of acid, calculated
as citric acid, without water of crystallization." This
standard was adopted September 23, 1915, by the Nat-
ional authorities.
The standard adopted by the Legislature in 1913 pro-
vided as follows:
"Provided, that oranges or grapefruit showing an av-
erage ON THE TREES of one-half color, indicating ripeness,
shall be deemed to be mature, and fit for consumption,
and may be shipped or sold, without first being sub-
mitted to the acid test provided for in this Act."
This provision of the Law necessarily led to'confusion
and stultified the Law, it being physically impossible for
Inspectors to examine each tree in a grove and determine
if each fruit or a majority of the fruit on the trees was
or was not "one-half colored, indicating ripeness;" in-
jecting into the problem the personal opinion of the In-
spector or the grower.









The object of the Immature Citrus Fruit Law of 1911
was to prevent "the shipment or offering for shipment of
immature citrus fruit," and specifically provided that the
gale of fruit UPON THE TREES was not prohibited by law;
hence an inspection was not necessary until the fruit was
gathered and "offered for sale, shipped, or delivered for
shipment. The proviso of the Citrus Fruit Standard
Law of 1913, therefore, absolutely destroyed the chemi-
cal standard provided by the Law, making the test the
color of the fruit while still "upon the tree," with no
standard as to what constituted "one-half color indicat-
ing ripeness," and with no means of accurately determin-
ing the percentage of such color.
The Legislature of 1913 also adopted the Rules and
Regulations and Standards of the National Food and
Drug Act.
A construction of these two Acts was requested of the
Attorney General, who held that the execution and en-
forcement of this Law (Chapter 6515, Laws of Florida)
and the Immature Citrus Fruit Law (Chapter 6236, Laws
of Florida) shall be under the' general provisions, Rules
and Regulations of the Pure Food and Drugs Law, Chap-
ter 6122, Laws of Florida and amendments thereto.
"In view of these Statutes and without undertaking to
compare and analyse the various statutes on this subject,
I beg to advise that in my opinion the standard for imma-
ture citrus fruit promulgated by the U. S. Department of
Agriculture, September 23, 1915, may be adopted as the
standard of citrus fruit which go into interstate ship-
ment from this State.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) T. F. WEST,
Attorney General.
Under this opinion, the execution of the Law was at-
tempted, with the result that frequent replevins were ob-
tained and immature fruit shipped from the State.
A subsequent opinion, by the Attorney General was
obtained August 12, 1918, as follows:
"Replying to your communication, I beg to advise that
I concur in the communication from this office to you and
Hon. R. E. Rose, State Chemist, under date of September
28, 1915, upon the subject of your inquiry. This Com-
munication is found on page 5 of pamphlet "The Imma-
ture Citrus Fruits, etc."









"By Section 15 of Chapter 6541, Laws of Florida, Acts
of 1913, the standard for immature citrus fruit promul-
gated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture was
adopted as the standards for such fruit in this State.
"Yours very truly,
"(Signed) VAN C. SWEARINGEN,
"Attorney General."
Inspectors for the season of 1918, September 1st to No-
vember 5th, met with the usual difficulties of their prede-
cessors, caused by the proviso injected into the Law by
the Legislative Committee, in reference to "one-half color
on the trees.' While the Clerks of the Court under in-
structions from the Attorney General, generally declined
to allow the the replevin of attached immature citrus
fruit as had been the usual practice in prior years; and
while Circuit Courts on divers occasions vacated the writ
of replevin, their invariable ruling has been that the fact
that the fruit was not shown to be less than "one-half
color indicating ripeness upon the tree" (irrespective of
its color or appearance in the field boxes or in the pack-
ing house, shipped or offered for shipment) entitled the
shipper to an injunction against the State from interfer-
ing with the fruit, and have permitted the same to be
shipped.
In order to determine if the color could be accepted as
an indication of maturity, each sample tested or analysed
this season, 1918, had also been noted for its percentage
of color, indicating ripeness, tho in many instances it had
been plucked from the tree sometime previous to the in-
spection. It will be noted that in many instances, well
colored fruit were found immature. At the same time,
fruit green in color, or with but slight tinge of yellow,
were found to be fully mature, hence the utter worthless-
ness and impracticability of a color test in the packing
house, or field box, to say nothing of its impracticability
when applier to each orange, on each tree, in the grove,
a condition not contemplated by the Immature Citrus
Fruit Law.









DISPOSITION OF IMMATURE CITRUS FRUIT
FOUND BY INSPECTORS BEING PREPARED
FOR SHIPMENT.

Sept. 19, 1918. Five hundred ninety-six boxes of im-
mature grapefruit in the possession of Charles LeJune,
Cocoanut Grove, attached by Inspector. Writ of replevin,
issued by Clerk of Circuit Court, was on motion of States
Attorney denied by the Circuit Court. However, the Cir-
cuit Court granted an injunction, giving the owner the
possession of the fruit, which was shipped out of the
State.
Sept. 28, 1918. Seven hundred twenty boxes of imma-
ture grapefruit in the possession of Jaudon Brothers,
Miami, claimed to be intended for shipment to Canada.
On advice of the Circuit Court no action was taken by
Inspector, the fruit was shipped out of the State by the
owner.
Oct. 1, 1918. Three hundred sixty boxes of immature
grapefruit in the possession of Jlaudon Brothers. Miami,
attached by inspector. Circuit Court granted an injunc-
tion, giving to the owner the possession of the fruit, which
was then shipped out of the State.
Oct. 3, 1918. Three hundred sixty boxes of immature
grapefruit in the possession of Standard Growers Ex-
change, Naranja, attached by Inspector. Circuit Court
granted an injunction, giving to the owner the possession
of the fruit, which was shipped out of the State.
Oct. 3, 1918. Fifty boxes of immature grapefruit in the
possession of P. J. Langford, Frostproof, attached by In-
spector. Fruit destroyed by sheriff of Polk County.
Oct. 3, 1918. Fifty-six boxes of immature grapefruit
in the possession of Standard Growers Exchange, Frost-
proof, attached by Inspector. Fruit destroyed by Sheriff
of Polk County.
Oct. 5, 1918. Two hundred fifty boxes of windfallen
grapefruit in the possession of T. B. Ray, Sutherland.
Fruit blown of by hurricane and allowed to be shipped
after being labeled, "WINDFALLEN," on authority of
Attorney-General.
Oct. 7, 1918. Fifteen boxes of immature grapefruit in
the possession of F. C. Gillford, Vero. Fruit destroyed
by owner on learning that it was immature without any
action on part of Inspector.
Oct. 7, 1918. One hundred sixty-three boxes of imma-









ture grapefruit in the possession of Dr. P. Philips, Vero,
attached by Inspector. Circuit Court granted an injunc-
tion, giving to the owner the possession of the fruit,
which was shipped out of the State.
Oct. 7, 1918. One hundred thirty boxes of immature
grapefruit in the possession of S. M. Stephens, Lakeland,
attached by Inspector. Fruit destroyed by Sheriff of Polk
County.
Oct. 22, 1918. Three hundred fifty-seven boxes of im
mature grapefruit in the possession of G. B. Cooker,
Cocoa, attached by inspector. Writ of replevin issued by
Clerk of Circuit Court, giving the owner the possession
of the fruit, which was shipped out of the State.
Oct. 22, 1918. Thirty-six boxes of immature grapefruit
in the possession of S. J. Sligh, Orlando. This lot repre-
sents the immature fruit selected from a car of fruit.
The immature fruit was destroyed by the owner without
any action on part of Inspector.
Oct. 25, 1918. One hundred sixty boxes of immature
grapefruit in the possession of J. A. Betts, Bradentown,
attached by Inspector. Fruit released by Department on
condition that it be used in the manufacture of marma-
lade.
Oct. 26, 1918. Three hundred sixty boxes of immature
grapefruit in the possession of K. S. Parish, Parish. Im-
mature fruit selected out and destroyed by owner with-
out any action on part of Inspector.
Oct. 30, 1918. Two hundred fifty-five boxes of imma-
ture grapefruit in the possession of I. A. Stewart, De-
Land, attached by Inspector. Circuit Court granted an
injunction, giving to the owner the possession of the
fruit, which was shipped out of the State.
November 1, 1918, three hundred sixty boxes of imma-
ture grapefruit in the possession of the Sawyer-Godfrey
Co., DeLand, attached by Inspector. Circuit Court
granted an injunction, giving to the owner the possession
of the fruit, which was shipped out of the State.









SUMMARY OF IMMATURE FRUIT ATTACHED
BY INSPECTORS.

| Lots. | Boxes.

Released on injunction of Circuit Court 6 2094

Released on writ of replevin.......... 1 357

Released for manufacturing purposes. 1 160

Passed on advice of Circuit Court.... 1 720

Passed on advice of Attorney-General.. 1 250

Destroyed by owners ................ 3 411

Destroyed by Sheriff................. 3 236


Total .......................... 16 4228


During the inspection season, the record of "one-half
color indicating ripeness," shows that:

20 samples of grapefruit, 29% of grapefruit less
than half colored, were mature.
48 samples of grapefruit, 71% of grapefruit less
than half colored, were immature.
126 samples of grapefruit, 53% of grapefruit
half colored or more, were mature.
112 samples of grapefruit, 47% of grapefruit
half colored or more, were immature.
49 samples of oranges, 75% of oranges less than
half colored, were mature.
16 samples of oranges, 25% of oranges less than
half colored, were immature.
53 samples of oranges, 74% of oranges half col-
ored or more, were mature.
19 samples of oranges, 26% of oranges half col-
ored or more, were immature.







60

The record further shows that of nine samples of fully
colored grapefruit, only three were mature while the
other six-two-thirds of the fully colored grapefruit-
were immature; that grapefruit showing even less than
one-quarter color were fully mature; and that mature
and immature oranges both showed color from a trace to
three-quarters color.
This study emphasizes the fact that color bears no re-
lation to maturity.
Respectfully submitted,
A. M. HENRY,
Food and Drug Analyst.











DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY.
CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.
Special Samples of Grapefruit.
Submitted by the Owner or His Agent.
Immature Fruit Are Distinguished by Blackface Type.


Date INSPECTOR GROVE OWNER


LOCATION
OF GROVE


VA


Johnston .... 1. A. Stewart........ DeLand ................
Johnston ... J. E. Andrews........ Ft. Pierce ...... Florida
Johnston ...IC. Robbins .......... Ft. Pierce ...... Florida
Johnston ... C. Edwards .......... Ft. Pierce ...... Florida
Johnston ... A. F. Helm........... Cocoanut Grove. Florida
Johnston ... A. L. Herndon ........ Homestead ..... Florida
Johnston ... - Schul't ....... Gomez .......... Florida
Johnston .,. C. A. Magnuson...... Homestead ..... Florida
Johnston ... B. B. Fry ..............:Homestead ..... Florida
Johnston ... IC. H. Woodberry...... Homestead ..... Florida
Johnston ... C. O. Wood............ Naranja ........ Florida
Johnston ... E. E. Vrana........... Miami .......... Florida
Johnston ... S. G. Merrick......... Miami .......... Florida
Johnston ... J. L. Leedem......... Homestead .... Florida
Johnston ... H. L. Cook........... Homestead ..... Florida
Robson ..... C. M. Hart........... Ft. Meade ...... Florida


1 ro'

RIETY 9


......... .. 10 9.611 1.871
Common:.... 751 8.671 1.611
Common... 801 9.61 1.61i
Common... 100! 9.54 1.49!
Common... 80 9.541 1.30'
Common... 1001 9.681 1.76
Common... 100 8.60 1.26
Common... 601 8.53 1.071
Common... 60| 9.54 1.491
Common... 75 9.541 1.57!
Common... 60 9.54 1.38
Common... 70 8.67 1.26
Common... 60 8.67 1.411
Common... 60 8.81 1.341
Common... 75 8.671 1.031
Common....l 50[ 8.531 1.381


9- 5
9-12
9-12
9-13
9-14
9-14
9-14
9-16
9-16
9-16
9-16
9-16
9-16
9-16
9-16
9-16


5.39
5.97
6.47
7.33
5.50
6.82
7.97
6.40
6.08
6.91
6.88
6.15
6.43
8.43
6.18







9-17 Johnston ... W. H. List........... Miami ......... Florida Common...1 60 8.67 1.261 6.88
9-17 Johnston ... John Frohock ........Miami .......... Florida Common... 60 9.68 1.221 7.93
9-17 Johnston ... W, H. List........... Miami .......... Florida Common... 7 9.68 1.381 7.01
9-17 Johnston ... R. P. McAdams ....... Cocoanut Grove. Florida Common... 90 8.741 1.381 6.33
9-18 Johnston ... H. L. Geiger......... Miami .......... Florida Common... 601 1.30U t..
9-18 Johnston ... B. H. Biars........... IMiami ....... Florida Common... 6 9.471 1.53 6.19
9-18 Johnston ... H. L. Geiger......... Miami ......... Florida Common... 9.47 1.38 6.86
9-18 Johnston ... \V. J. Mathison.... Cocoanut Grove. Florida Common... 6 8.67 1.22[ 7.11
9-18 Johnston ... -Reynold........ Cocoanut Grove. Florida Common... 6 9.68 1.411 6.87
9-18 Lewis ...... - Hubble......... Palmetto ...... Florida Common... 3 1. i ..
9-18 Lewis ...... J. C. Rowe........... Terra Ceia...... Florida Common... 3 8.81 1.07 8.23
9-18 Lewis ...... J. C. Rowe .......... Terra Ceia...... Florida Common... 40 8.88 0.96 9.25
9-18 Robson ..... Sauey Brothers ...... Ft. Myers ..... Silver Cluster...... 45 9.89 1.26 7.85
9-19 Robson ..... Standard Growers' Ex. Frostproof ...... ... .. .. 5 8.58 1.341 6.40
9-19 Robson .....Gentillie & Co. ....... Frostproof .......... ... .......... .. 50 8.58 1.30 6.60
9-19 Robson ..... L. Maxey ............. Frostproof ...... ... ... ....5...... 50 8.74 1.381 6.33
9-20 Robson ..... Dock Pearce ......... Sebring ........ Seedling .......... 50 9.54 1.64 5.82
9-20 Robson ..... Carter Brothers ...... Captiva ........ ........... .... .. 50 9.611 1.341 7.17
9-20 Wilder ..... J. M. Lee............. iKissimmee ..... ... ............ 75 10.611 1.531 6.92
9-21 Johnston ... B. E. Hearn.... ..... Homestead ..... Florida Common... 40 9.68 1.80 5.38
9-24 Johnston ... - Jimison ........ Wabasso ....... Florida Common... 75 10.47! 1.38 7.59
9-24 Johnston ...- -Jones.......... Wabasso ........Florida Common... 70 9.47 1.451 6.53
9-24 Johnston ...- Davis ......... Vero .......... Florida Common... 60 10.47 1.68 6.23
9-24 Johnston .. Charles Harris .......Vero ............ Florida Common... 75J 9.47 1.491 6.36
9-24 Lewis ...... John Fletcher ........ Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 35| 8.531 1.30 6.56
9-24 Lewis ..... John Balis ........... Bradentown .... Royal .............I 301 9.54 1.07 8.92
9-24 1 Lewis ....... E. Stephens.....Venice ........ Florida Common..., 35 9.68 1.49 6.50
9-24 1 Lewis .....George Higel ....... Venice ...... Florida Common... 30 9.61 1.49 6.45









CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.-(Continued).
Special Samples of Grapefruit.-(Continued).


LOCATION
Date INSPECTOR GROVE OWNER OF GROVE VARIETY .


9-24 Lewis ...... Sarasota-Venice Co.... Venice ......... Florida Common...| 35 8.67[ 1.30 6.68
9-24 Lewis ....... A.. Albritton........ Bee Ridge ...... Florida Common... 25 8.601 1.34 6.42
9-24 Robson .... IE. A. Hilliard...... .... Frostproof .......................... 501 8.531 1.451 5.88
9-24 Robson .. .. A. B. Godwin.... F... rostproof ........................ 1 501 9.54 1.491 6.43
9-24 Robson .... M. Sullivan .......... Frostproof ..... ........... ....... .1 401 8.461 1.26 6.71
9-24 Robson .... .L. Maxey ............ IFrostproof ........... ............. 501 8.46| 1.38 6.13
9-24 Robson ..... L. Maxey ............ IFrostproof ................ ........ 50 8.53i 1.381 6.18
9-24 Robson ..... 1entillie & Co ......... Frostproof ..... ............. ....... 50 8.531 1.381 6.18
9-24 Wilder ..... E. H. Frederick...... Fruitland Park.. Walters ........... 50 10.321 1.381 7.52
9-25 Lewis ......W. H. Snow .......... Palmetto ....... Florida Common... 45 10.41 1.801 5.78
9-25 Lewis ...... iohn Anderson ....... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 403 8.46 1.30, 6.51
9-25 Lewis ...... 3. H. Williams....... Terra Ceia ..... lorida Common... 35 8.46 1.19 7.11
9-25 Lewis o.....Dolph Bevil .......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 30 8.46i 1.26 6.71
99-2 Lewis ...... J. L. Sales ........... .ITerra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 40[ 8.40 1.301 6.46
9-25 Lewis ..... Clyatt ......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common...[ 401 8.401 1.26[ 6.67
9-25 Lewis ......- Clyatt ......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 401 9.471 1.191 7.96
9-25 Lewis ...... H. E Maury.......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common...1 551 8.40| 1.111 7.57
9-25 Lewis .....H. E. Maury......... Palmetto ........ Florida Common... 50[ 10.41[ 1.611 6.47







9-25 Lewis ...... H. S. Pollard......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 40 8.461 1.191 7.11
C' 9-25 Lewis ......Justice Young ....... Palmetto ...... Florida Common... 40 8.961 1.34 6.69
S 9-25 Lewis ...... M. W. Turner......... Rubonia ...... Florida Common... 40 8.46 1.301 6.51
9-25 Lewis ...... W. A. Halsey......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 40 9.47 1.22 7.76
P 9-25 Lewis ...... H. S. Pollard......... Terra Ceia F... Florida Common.... 45 9.471 1.53 6.19
9-25 Lewis ...... H. F. Lewis......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 40[ 9.47 1.491 6.36
9-25 Lewis ...... W. A. Halsey......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 401 8.46 1.34 6.36
9-25 Lewis ......John Fletcher......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 50 9.82 1.381 7.12
9-25 Lewis ...... John Custer.......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 558.81 1.07j 8.23
9-25 Lewis ...... D. Williams............ Parish ........ Florida Common... 40 8.67 1.411 6.15
9-25 Lewis ...... K. S. Parish........... Parish ......... Florida Common... 40 8.67 1.491 5.86
9-25 Lewis ...... E. Lindemyer......... Parish ....... Florida Common... 1001 8.741 1.411 6.20
9-25 Lewis ...... J. H. Rivere.......... Palmetto ........ Royal .............I 451 8.741 1.301 6.72
9-25 Lewis ...... Thomas ...... Palmetto ....... Florida Common... 401 8.74 1.151 7.60
9-25 Lewis ...... W. C. McLaughlin.... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 45f 8.60 1.26 6.83
9-25 Lewis ...... J. E. Jones............ Terra Ceia...... Florida Common... 45 8.67 1.11 7.81 C
9-25 Lewis ...... J. W. Tillett.......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 4 8.67 1.30 6.67
9-25 Lewis ......H. E. Boyd............ Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 40 8.67 1.341 6.47
9-25 Lewis ...... J. W. Tillett.......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 40 8.16 1.261 6.48
9-25 W ilder ..... J. M. Lee.............. Southport ....... ...... .... ...... 50 10.72 1.57 6.83
9-25 Wilder ..... H. Parton ............ Kissimmee ....................... 50 10.61' 1.41 7.52
9-26 Johnston ... Fred Fee ............. Okeechobee .... Florida Common... .60 9.47 2.03 4.67
9-26 Johnston ... Fred Fee ............. Okeechobee .... Florida Common... 60 9.47 1.57 6.03
9-26 Johnston ... D. L. Sheffield........ Vero ........... Florida Common... 100 10.54 1.68 6.27
9-26 W ilder ...... E. B. Laite...... .... Weirsdale ..... ........ ......... 50 10.61 1.64 6.47
9-26 W ilder ..... J. C. Mastick.......... Okahumpka I ..... ......... 50 10.61 1.61 6.65
9-26 Wilder ..... Grassmere Grove ..... South Lake Weir.............. .... 50 10.68 1.45 7.36
9-26 Wilder ...... John Baisden ........ Kissimmee .....( ... ... ......... 50 .10.29 1.641 6.27










CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.-(Continued).
Special Samples of Grapefruit.-(Continued).


Date INSPECTOR


9-27
9-27
9-27
9-28
9-28
9-28
9-28
9-28
9-30
9-30
9-30
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1


Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Johnston .
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Robson ...
Robson .....
Henry ......
Robson .....
Robson .....
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Robson .....
Robson .....


GROVE OWNER


A. B. Curry............
A. N. Sample.........
Chas. LeJune ........
H.: R. Ross............
H. R. Ross............
H.I R. Ross............
Alexander, Baird & Co.
lamie Knight.........
M. L. Varn. ..........
J. B. Speth............
J. B. Speth............
H. S. Pollard..........
C. A., Boyett .........
C. L. Armstrong ......
W. C. McLaughlin....
S. D. Butterfield......
0. E. Loadhalt.......
D. D. McLain..........


; 0


LOCATION
OF GROVE VARIETY


Naranja ........ Florida Common...
Pompano ....... Florida Common...
Cocoanut Grove. Florida Common...
Goulds ......... Florida Common...
Goulds ......... Florida Common...
Goulds ........ Florida Common...I
Wauchula ....... ...... ...........
Lakeland ...... Silver Cluster......
Eagle Lake..... ..................
Lakeland ....... ...... .............
Lakeland ....... ........ ...........
Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common...
Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common...
Terra Ceia...... Florida Common...,.
Terra Ceia...... Florida Common....
Bradentown .... Florida Common...
Frostproof .... ......... ..........
Palm etto ....... ..... ..............


9.681
9.61
8.53
8.67
7.59
8.67
10.54
9.41
7.90
9.47
9.61
9.41
8.46
8.46
7.45
8.53
9.411
9.411


6.68
6.96
7.17
8.42
7.37
8.76
5.99
8.18
6.53
7.28
7.88
8.19
7.11
5.53
6.11
4.96
6.49
6.67


1.45
1.38
1.19
1.031
1.03
0.99
1.76
1.15
1.211
1.301
1.22
1.15
1.191
1.53
1.22
1.721
1.45
1.41







10- 1 Robson .....J. E. W ilson.......... Ft. Meade ...... .......... ......... 550 9.41 1.34 7.02
10- 1 W ilder ..... J. W Oliver.. .......... Kissimmee ......... .......... 90 10.54 1.80 5.86
10- 1 Wilder ..... Edgewater Farm Co... Kissimmsee ................. 90 10.54! 1.57 6.71
10- 2 Lewis ...... B. Kilgore ........... Clearwater ..... Florida Common... 65 9.611 1.721 5.59
10- 2 Lewis ...... B, Kilgore ........... Palmetto ....... Florida Common... 45 9.541 1.571 6.08
10- 2 Robson ..... E. Emerson .......... Lakeland ...... ... ............ 50 8.601 1.451 5.93
10- 2 W ilder ..... T. B. Snooks ......... W eirsdale ...... .................. 7 10.41 1.451 7.18
10- 3 Johnston ... S. A. King............ Homestead ..... Florida Common... 75 9.751 1.61 6.06
10- 3 Lewis .... -- Fotay. .... Venie ......... VenicFlorida Common... 40 9.68 1.30 7.45
10- 3 Robson ..... R. W. Duncan... .... Frostproof ..... Excelsior .......... 50 8.53 1.34 6.37
10- 4 Lewis...... Lake Region Pack'g Co. Tavares ......... Florida Common... 95 9.61 1.531 6.28
10- 4 Lewis ......-- Lytle .......... Marion County.. Florida Common... 60 9.54 1.451 6.58
10- 4 Lewis ...... S. J. McKinney....... Astatula ........ Florida Common... 50 9.54 1.38 6.91
10- 4 Lewis ....... S J. McKinney. ...... Astatula ....... Florida Common... 35 8.53 1.68 5.08
10- 4 Lewis ...... L. B. Skinner ........ Dunedin ........ Florida Common.... 25 9.681 1.841 5.28
10- 4 Lewis ...... J. S. Taylor........... Clearwater ...... Florida Common,.:. 45 8.74 1.38 6.33
10- 4 Robson .... H. Griffin......... Frostproof ..... I.................. 50 8.60 1.38 6.23
10- 4 Robson ..... L. Maxey ............ Frostproof ..... Marsh Seedless.... 50 7.52 1.451 5.19
10- 4 Robson ..... Harp & Hardee Co... Wauchula ...... Florida Common... 50 10.54 1.91 5.52
10- 7 Greene ..... C. I., Covington...... Eagle Lake .... ... ............ 251 8.60 1.07 8.04
10- 7 Johnston ... N. 0. Penny.......... Vero ...... ..Florida Common... 75 11.181 1.721 5.80
10- 7 Johnston ... 0. R. Prang.......... Vero .......Florida Common... 75 10.25 1.38 7.43
10- 7 Johnston ... E. C. Walker......... Vero ............ Florida Common... 80 9.07 1.301 6.98
10- 7 Johnston ... G. S., Tucker......... Ft. Pierce ..... Florida Common... 75 9.17 1.19 7.70
10- 8 Robson .... Lake Alfred Fruit Co. Winter Haven... Silver Cluster..... 50 8.60 1.26 6.83
10- 8 Robson ... . Kilpatrick...... Agricola ....... .......... ........ 50 9.891 1.34j 7.38
10- 8 Robson ....IC. H. Durrance.......Bowling Green .. ................. 50 9.821 1.381 7.12










CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.-(Continued).
Special Samples of Grapefruit.-(Continued).


LOCATION
INSPECTORR GROVE OWNER OF GROVE VARIETY


W ilder ..... Heath Brothers ...... DeLand ........ ...................
W ilder ..... A. Stewart.......... DeLand ......... .......... ... ....
Wilder ..... Esperanza Fruit Co... East Palatka.......................
W ilder ..... B. W Natton......... Shiloh ............... .......
W ilder ..... IL. L. Price............ .Mims .......... .. ...............
W ilder ..... Charles Carlile ....... Titusville ...... ... ...... ........ I
W ilder ..... Jerry Griffis ......... Shiloh ......... ....... I
Wilder ..... A. C. Terwilligar.... jTitusville ...... ... ....... .
Lewis ...... Corrigan........ San Antonio .... Marsh Seedless....
Lewis ...... West Coast Fruit Co .iClearwater ..... ......... ....
Robson .... John Wilson ......... Frostproof .......................
Robson .... L. Mpxey ............ Frostproof ........ ............... I
Robson .... John Wilson ......... Frostproof .....I ..................
Robson .... - McClain......... Frostproof ..... .... ...............
Wilder ..... J. L Dillard ......... Winter Garden....................
Wilder ...- -- Vault.......... ..Umatilla ...... ..................
Wilder ... -- Mink........... Winter Garden .................
Wilder ..... Fred Roberson ....... Narcoosee...... ...................
W ilder ..... Frank Jaco .......... Kissimmee ........................
Wilder ..... Schmidt........ Kissimmee ........................


-'

2 ^ 00
0 S *3 a

751 11.54| 1.64- 7.04
75 11.54) 1.681 6.87
50 10.471 1.491 7.03
90 10.54j 1.531 6.89
901 10.041 1.411 7.12
90 10.971 1.61 6.81
9010.61 1.72 6.17
901 9.61 1.341 7.17
651 9.47 1.381 6.86
60 9.821 1.341 7.33
50 9.541 1.221 7.59
50 9.61 1.261 7.63
50 9.68 1.261 7.68
50 9.54 1.301 7.33
75 9.41 1.301 7.24
75 10.47 1.76 5.99
75 10.47 1.57 6.67
75 10.541 1.451 7.27
751 8.531 1.071 7.97
75[ 10.541 1.41( 7.48


Date


10- 8
10- 8
10- 8
10- 9
10- 9
10- 9
10- 9
10- 9
10-10
10-10
- 10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10







10-10 Wilder ..... I.-- Anderson........ Kissimmee ..... ..................... 751 9.54] 1.261 7.57
10-11 Robson .... Roberts Brothers ... Wauchula ......)..... ........ 601 9.681 1.388 7.01
10-11 Robson .... Roberts Brothers .... Avon Park ............ .. ...... 40 9.541 0.801 11.92
10-11 Robson ..... - Hide .......... Avon Park .. ....... ........ 50 8.531 1.301 6.56
10-11 Robson .... J. E. Bateman. .......Ft. Ogden ...... Seedling ..........I 501 10.54 1.451 7.27
10-11 Robson .... C. Carlton ............. .Cleveland ...... .... .... 50 9.54 1.411 6.77
10-12 Lewis ...... Weis Higer .......... Venice ......... Florida Common... 951 9.75 1.491 6.54
10-12 Lewis ......W. L. Dunn.......... Nokomis .......Florida Common... 7 8.67 1.34 6.47
10-12 Lewis ...... - Williams....... Parish .........) Florida Common... 65 9.54 1.38 6.91
10-12 Lewis .......- Giles............ Manatee ....... Florida Common... 50 9.68 1.641 5.90
10-12 Lewis .....- McPherson..... Manatee .......Florida Common:... 65 9.75 1.531 6.37
10-12 Lewis ...... W. E. Stevens........ Venice .........Florida Common... 65.10.18 1.49 6.83
10-12 Lewis ...... W. E. Stevens........ Venice .........Florida Common... 65 9.68 1.41 6.87
10-12 Lewis ..... T. A. Albritton....... Bee Ridge ..... Florida Common... 701 8.601 1.15 7.48
10-12 Lewis ...... G, W. Tyler ......... Bradentown .... Florida Common... 501 9.68 1.38 7.01
10-12 Lewis ...... S. V. Harris.......... Bradentown ..... Florida Common... 65[ 10.68 1.721 6.21
10-12 Lewis ..... J. S. Butterfield ...... Bradentown .... ....... ......... 451 8.671 1.611 5.39
10-12 Lewis ...... J. S. Butterfield...... Bradentown ..... Pernambuco .... 40 9.61 1.761 5.46
10-12 Robson .... D. L. McQueen.......Arcadia ..................... ..... 9.54] 1.341 7.12
10-12 Robson .... - W hitten...Iia .. a ........ ................... 50 9.54 1.34 7.12
10-14 Johnston ... G. S. Tucker........ Ft. Pierce ...... Florida Common... 60 9.131 1.341 6.81
10-14 Lewis ....Jassamine Groves ....IThonotosassa ... ................. 35 9.54 1.531 6.24
10-15 Johnston ... E. L. Leslie......... Okeechobee .... Florida Common... 90 9.47 1.381 6.86
10-15 Robson .... Emmerson...... Lakeland .. .. .... .......... 50 8.53 1.26 6.77
10-16 Henry .....- Stinger......... 3artow ... ............... ....... 50 8.76 1.22 7.18
10-16 Lewis .......- Clayton........ Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common... 50 9.54 1.38 6.91
10-16 Lewis ...... C. A. Boyett......... Terra Ceia ..... Marsh Seedless.... 50 8.60 1.07[ 8.04
10-16 Lewis ...... C. A. Boyett......... Terra Ceia ..... Florida Common...1 501 8.601 1.111 7.75










CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.-(Continued).
Special Samples of Grapefruit.-(Continued).


INSPECTOR


GROVE OWNER


LOCATION
OF GROVE


Lewis ...... J. A. Ezell........... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... J. G. Boyett......... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... - Doe.............Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... J. E. Anderson....... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... El. S. Hubbard........ Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ..... J. H. Britt ........... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... J. E. Taylor......... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... R. R. Bevil........... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... A. B. W illiams....... Terra Ceia ......
Lewis ...... Geo. Booth ..........Safety Harbor....
Lewis ...... -- Constantine.... Clearwater ....
Lewis ...... - Cobb.......... Largo ..........
Lewis ...... W. B. Harris........ St. Petersburg..
Robson .... IE. DeVane ........... Bartow ..........
Robson .... J. J. Rhodes......... Lakeland .......
Lewis ...... L. S. Day ............ Bradentown ....
Lewis ...... M. W. Turner........ Terra Ceia......
Lewis ...... S. V. Harris .......... Bradentown ....
Lewis ...... Mana'e Ham. Fruit Co. Manatee ........


VARIETY


Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida


Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...
Common...


Date


10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-17
10-17
10-17
10-17


^u 3
aS.S
0 EM
0


65
60
60
100
750

75
504
75




50
35
401
75|
100

..501
35
75
100
40


Silver Cluster...... .
Florida Common...
Florida Common...

Florida Common....


o 3
a


0.991 8.62
1.071 7.50
1.15 7.48
1.111 7.75
1.22 7.41
1.07 8.10
1.15 7.10
1.071 8.17
1.26 6.83
1.45 6.63
1.301 6.62
1.45 6.63
1.30 7.39
1.64 5.82
1.22 7.82
1.341 7.17
1.221 7.30
1.87 5.90
1.57 6.03


8.53
8.03
8.601
8.60
9.04
8.67
8.17.
8.74
8.60
9.611
8.60
9.61
9.61
9.54
9.54
9.61
8.90
11.04
9.47


~...


I







10-17
10-17
10-18
10-18
10-18
10-19
10-19
10-19
10-19
10-19
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-24
10-25
10-25
10-26
10-26
10-26
10-26


Lewis ......W. R. Whitaker....... Manatee .......Florida Common...
Lewis ......C. C. Giles........... Manatee ...... Florida Common...
Johnston ....ITom Jones ........... Wabasso ..... Florida Common...
Robson .... W. Haven Pack'ng Co. Winter Haven.. ...................
Robson .... W. Haven Pack'ng Co.lWinter Haven....................
Johnston ... W H. Cresson........ City Point ...... ..................
Johnston ... R. L. Ollif ........... Shares ........ Florida Common...
Johnston ... J. W. Pinkerton...... City Point ...... Florida Common...
Johnston ... W. B. Hentz.......... City Point ..... Florida Common...
Robson .... iLeon Prine .......... Eloise ......... ....... ........ ...
Johnston ... J. N. Chalker.......... Rockledge ...... Florida Common...
Johnston ... R. L. Geiger.......... Rockledge ...... Florida Common...
Johnston ... E. E. Shoemacher.... Sharpes ........ Florida Common...
Johnston ... Hill & Nesbit........ Indianola ................ .. ....
Johnston ...IW. A. Spiller......... Sharpes ........ Florida Common...
Johnston ... P. C. Watkins .......Sharpes......Florida Common...
Johnston .. J. R. Pierson ......... Sharpes ......I Florida Common...)
Robson .... A. J, Morgan......... Lakeland ....... Seedling ..........
Lewis ....... R. W Hunt........... Tangerine ...... Prolific ........ .
Robson .... H. Smith ............ Wauchula ...... Seedling .........I
Robson .... G. S. Carlton ........ Wauchula ...... Seedling .......... I
Robson .... Nocatee Fruit Co. .... Nocatee ..... ...................
W ilder ..... A. A. Fussell........ Plant City .. .... .............
Johnston ...F. W. LaRoche.......Courtney ...... Florida Common...
Johnston ... F. W. LaRoche.......Courtney ...... Florida Common...
Johnston ... E. Day Co. .......... Rockledge ..... Florida Common...
Johnston .. J. Paxton ............ Rockledge ..... Florida Common....
Lewis .... S. V. Harris........ Bradentown .... Florida Common...
Lewis ...... S. Day ............ Bradentown .... Florida Common .


25 9.47 1.72 5.51
35 10.61 1.84 5.77
85 9.61 1.38 6.96
501 9.47j 1.30 7.28
50 9.54 1.53 6.24
80 10.04 1.53 6.56
90 10.11 1.30 7.78
65 9.271 1.491 6.22
60 9.611 1.221 7.88
50 9.54 1.22 7.82
80 10.41 1.64 6.35
80 10.81 1.64 6.59
751 9.47 1.341 7.07
60 10.04 1.68 5.98
60 9.54 1.45 6.57
60 9.97 1.38 7.22
85) 9.47 1.34 7.07
50 10.61 1.61 6.59
45 9.47 1.49 6.36
50 9.54 1.30 7.33
50 9.54 1.30 7.33
501 9.54 1.30 7.33
75 10.97 1.68 6.53
70 10.54 1.41 7.48
75 9.81 1.45 6.77
75 11.01 1.84 5.98
95 11.41 1.66 6.87
601 10.54 1.49 7.07
...60T 10.54 1.531 6.89










CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.-(Continued).
Special Samples of Grapefruit.-(Continued).


INSPECTOR I GROVE OWNER


LOCATION
OF GROVE


VARIETY


I C c~c ,o ...~
C.)0 C:3 Q


10-26 Lewis ...... W. R. Whittaker...... Manatee ...... Florida Common... 40| 9.61] 1.571 6.12
10-26 Lewis ..... J. Varn .............. [Manatee ....... Florida Common.... 501 8.60 1.111 7.75
10-31 Johnston ... J. W. Perkins....... DeLand ........ Florida Common... 70] 11.11 1.641 6.77
11- 1 Lewis .....- Corrigan........ San Antonio ... Mash Seedless ..... 60] 10.15 1.30 7.81
11- 1 Lewis ......- Constantine..... Clearwater ..... Florida Common... 60 9.15 1.49 6.14
11- 1 Lewis ......- Constantine.... Clearwater ..... Florida Common... 60 9.15 1.11 8.24
11- 1 Lewis ...... Constantine.... Clearwater ..... Flroida Common... 60 8.15 1.11 7.34
11- 4 Johnston ... J. W. Perkins. ........ DeLand ........ Florida Common... 75 10.38 1.61 6.45


Date


I








CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.
Special Samples of Oranges.
Submitted by the Owner or His Agent.
Immature Fruit Are Distinguished by Black Face Type.


Date


9-18
9-20
9-23
9-23
9-24
9-25
9-25
9-26
9-26
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 2


LOCATION
INSPECTOR GROVE OWNER I OF GROVE VARIETY


Wilder 3.... W. Starke......... Beresford ...... Enterprise Seedless.
Robson .... W. W illiams .......... Sebring ........ Seedling ..........
W ilder ..... C. C. Boyd ........... Leesburg ....... Seedling ...........
Wilder ..... C. C. Boyd ........... | eesburg ....... IMediterranean Sweetl
Robson I... A. B. Goodwin........ Irostproof ..... Navel ............
Lewis ...... J. W Custu.......... Terra Ceia ..... ..................
Wilder ..... W. M. Coble........... Winter Garden...Parson Brown ....
Wilder .... Grassmere Grove .... South Lake WeirjPineapple .........
Wilder ..... Grassmere Grove..... South Lake WeirlParson Brown.....
Wilder .... L. W. Tilden......... Tildenville ..... Parson Brown ....
Wilder ....A. J. Willis.......... Oakland ........ Parson Brown ....
Wilder .... Myers.......... Mascotte ....... Parson Brown ....
Wilder ..... H. Beckermyer ...... Winter Garden. I.arson Brown ....
Wilder ..... Gibbons........ Center Hill ..... Parson Brown ....
W ilder ..... N W Hart ........... 1Mascotte ....... Seedling ...........
Wilder ..... G. G, Millhouse....... Center Hill..... Parson Brown ....
Wilder ..... S. Hunt .............Okahumpka .... Parson Brown ....
Wilder ..... T. B. Snooks.......... Weirsdale ....... Parson Brown ....


00
01 0
~c -,a '0
ri.rrj2


251 10.611 1.261
501 10.541 1.721
10 10.65 1.511
10 10.61 1.15
30 8.46 1.11
10 7.661 0.421
b0o 10.75 0.921
25 10.68 1.261
50 9.751 1.111
10 7.521 0.691
10 10.541 0.80!
25 9.541 0.731
101 10.541 1.491
251 10.681 1.491
501 9.47 1.151
50 9.681 1.49
50 10.54 1.34
50 10.41 1.34


8.42
6.13
7.16
9.23
7.62
18.24
11.68
8.48
8.78
10.90
13.17
13.07
7.07
7.17
8.23
6.53
7.87
7.77


I










CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSIS, 1918.-(Continued.)
Special Samples of Oranges-Continued).


Date INSPECTOR


10- 3
10- 3
10- 3
10- 3
10- 4
10- 4
10- 4
10- 7
10- 7
10- 7
10- 7
10- 7
10- 8
10- 8
10- 8
10- 9
10- 9
10- 9
10-10


Lewis ......
Wilder .....
Wilder .....
W ilder .....
Lewis .....
Wilder .....
Wilder ......
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Wilder .....
Wilder .....
Wilder .....
Robson ....
Robson ....
Wilder .....
Wilder .....
Wilder .....
Wilder .....
Henry ......


GROVE OWNER


LOCATION
OF GROVE


VARIETY 0
1


- Fotay.......... Venice ......... Parson Brown ....
J. V. Oberholtzer..... Emeralda ...... Parson Brown ....
-- Womble.......... Emeralda ...... St. Michael ........
-- Alsobrook ...... Emeralda ...... Parson Brown ....
Carney Investment Co. Lake Weir ..... Parson Brown ....
Central Fruit Co .... Weirsdale ...... Parson Borwn ....
F. k'. Cross............ Oakland ........ Parson Brown ....
E. C. W alker......... Vero ........... Seedling ..........
G. S. Tucker........ t. Pierce ...... Seedling ...........
R. H. Harper ......... Monteverde .... Parson Brown ....
R. H. Harper......... Monteverde .... Parson Brown...
R. H. Harper......... Monteverde .... Parson Brown ....
H.i A. Durrance...... Bowling Green.. Seedling ..........
EI. A. Kilpatrick...... Agricola ........ Seedling ..........
Esperanza Fruit Co... East Palatka ... Parson Brown ....
A. C. Terwilligar...... Titusville ...... Seedling ..........
C. W Carlile.......... Titusville ...... Seedling ..........
E. L. Brady.......... .Titusville ...... Seedling ...........
C. A. Magnusson...... Homestead ..... Parson Brown ....


7.59
9.611
10.681
9.61j
9.541
9.541
8.74
10.11
9.61
9.68
9.681
9.681
10.90
10.90
10.47
10.18
10.47
10.47
9.611


- '0


0
.a


12.44
11.44
5.93
5.72
10.84
8.59
17.48
8.02
6.28
9.78
8.72
12.10
8.65
10.58
9.79
6.65
6.67
6.23
64.07








10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-10
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-12
10-12
10-12
10-14
10-15
10-15
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-17


Lewis ...... Miller,Hancock &Hines Pasco County........ .. ..
Robson ... L. Maxey ............ Frostproof .... ........ .... ..
Robson .... John W ilson ........ .Frostproof ...... I ..... ............
Wilder ..... Day ............]Grand Island.... St. Michael ........
Wilder ..... - Day ........... Grand Island.... St. Michael ........
Wilder ..... Dauzer ...........Weirsdale ...... Parson Brown .....
Wilder ..... -- Fairbanks ....... Island Grove.... St. Michael ........
Wilder ..... B. Hull............ Oakland ....... Parson Brown .....
Wilder ..... B. Hull........... Oakland .......[Parson Brown .....
Robson ... .- Hide............ Avon Park .....(...................
Robson .... W M. Crews...... .... ISebring ........ Seedling ...........
Robson .... J. E. Bateman........ Ft. Ogden ......... ........
Robson .... -- Collins........... gricola ........ Seedling ..........
Robson .....- Church.......... gricola ........Seedling ..........
Robson .... - Rhyner......... Agricola ........ Seedling ..........
Robson .... - Perry............ Agricola ........ Seedling ..........
Robson .... G. A. Mann........... Arcadia ........ Parson Brown .....
W ilder .....- Gibbons......... Center Hill ... ....................
W ilder ...... Bevil............. Center Hill ... .. ............... ..
W ilder ..... Legette......... Center Hill ..... ...................
Lewis ..... J. H. Talivast....... Bradentown .... Seedling ..........
Lewis ...... McPherson..... anatee ........ ........... ....
Robson .... D. L. -McQueen. ....... Arcadia ........ ......... ..
Lewis ...... Jassamine Gardens .. Thonotosassa ... Parson Brown .....
Johnston ... E. L. Leslie .......... Okeechobee .... Parson Brown .....
Lewis ...... C. Hitchcock...... Plant City ...... Parson Brown .....
Henry .. H. C. Conner ......... Bartow ......... ...................
Henry ..... H. C. Conner ........ Bartow ......... Boone .............
Robson .... A. O. Graddy......... Bartow ......... Parson Brown .....
Lewis ...... S. V. Harris......... IBradentown .... .Seedling ..........


20 9.47[ 1.721 5.51
50 9.541 1.111 8.59
50 9.611 0.991 9.71
35 10.47 1.15 9.10
50 10.47 1.26 8.31
201 7.45 0.65 11.46
501 11.41 0.84 13.58
501 9.41 1.03 9.14
601 10.47 1.22[ 8.58
40 8.53 0.88 9.69
40 10.54 1.72 6.13
50 9.54 1.22 7.82
50 10.54 1.15 9.17
50 10.541 1.26 8.37
50 9.54 1.22 7.82
50 9.54 1.22 7.82
50 9.47 0.69 13.72
35! 9.541 1.45 6.58
35 8.531 1.111 7.69
35 10.61 1.22 8.70
30 9.68 0.96 10.08
40 9.82 1.19 8.25
50 10.54 1.45 7.27
50 9.54 0.96 9.94
60 9.91 0.921 10.77
25 9.35 1.49 6.28
75 9.97 0.88 11.33
50 10.17 0.96 10.59
50 10.54 0.80 13.17
65 10.54 1.30 8.11













i`


Date


10-17
10-17
10-18
10-19
10-19
10-19
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-21
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-22
10-24
10-25
10-25
10-25
10-25


INSPECTOR


Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Robson ..
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Robson ....
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Robson ....
Robson ....
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Robson ....
Robson ....
Robson ....
Robson ....
Lewis ......
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Johnston ...


CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.-Continued.
Special Samples of Oranges.-Continued.



LOCATION a
GROVE OWNER OF GROVE VARIETY


L. S. Day............. IEllenton ........ Seedling .......... 25
Liberty Farms ........Parish ..... ................. 10
W. Haven Pack'ng Co. Winter Haven... ................... 50
H. N. Barnes ......... City Point ...... Jaffa .............. 451
W., B. Hentz.......... City Point ...... Parson Brown ..... 45
Leon Prine .......... Eloise .......... ................... 50
LaRoche Brothers .... Courtney .......................... 40
W. A. Spiller......... Shares ........ .................. 50
A. Conibear .......... Lakeland ........ Seedling .......... 40
P. Cockran ........... Lakeland ........ Seedling ........... 50
R. W. Hunt........... Tangerine ...... Parson Brown ..... 10
R. W. Hunt............ Tangerine ...... Seedless .......... 10
W. R. Singletary...... Ft. 'Ogden ..... Seedling .......... 50
J. E. Bartlette ....... Ft. Ogden ...... Seedling .......... 50
J. E. Bartlette......... Ft. Ogden ......................... 50
Nocatee Fruit Co .... Nocatee ....... ................. 50
J. W Miller. .........Plant City ............. ........... 35
J. W. Pinkerton...... Cocoa ... 55
R. B. Stewart........ Banyan ........................... 50
R. S. S. Grant......... [ndianola .... .... ........ 551
J. A. Haistin.......... Cocoa .......... Jaffa ............. 60|


8.60
11.54
9.541
10.81
9.74
9.61
10.41
10.61
10.68
10.61
9.47
8.341
10.541
10.611
10.471
10.54
10.54
11.54
10.61
10.81
11.471




1.19
1.68
1.30
1.45
0.44
0.99
1.03
1.38
1.61
1.38
0.611
0.99
1.19
1.15
1.07
1.19
1.03
1.34
1.19
1.111
1.30


Uo

g 0
7.23
6.87
7.33
7.46
22.14
9.71
10.11
7.69
6.63
7.69
15.52
8.42
8.86
9.23
9.79
8.86
10.23
8.61
8.91
9.74
8.82







10-25 Lewis ...... W H. Mahoney....... Plant City ..... .................. | 10| 10.041 0.99 10.14
10-25 Lewis ...... J. L. Stallings........ Plant City ..... ................. 501 10.541 0.69 15.28
10-25 Lewis ...... - Glazier.......... Manatee ....... Seedling .......... 10| 10.18[ 1.38 7.38
10-26 Lewis ...... E. Lyndimer ......... Parish ......... Parson Brown ..... 30' 10.11j 0.991 10.21
10-26 Lewis ...... [. S. Day............Bradentown ....... ......... 10 9.971 0.921 10.84
10-26 Robson .... ]M. Prichett .......... Lakeland .......ISeedling .......... 50 10.54 1.19 8.86
10-26 Robson .... IS M. Stephens...... Lakeland ....... Parson Brown ..... 50 9.61 0.99 9.71
10-26 Robson .... R. O. Cresup......... akeland ....... Parson Brown ..... 50 10.47 1.07 9.79
10-26 W ilder ..... H. Bohman ............ Dade City ...... Seedling .......... 50 11.04 1.41 7.83
10-26 Wilder .... H. Bohman ............ Dade City ...... Seedling ......... 50 10.61 1.49 7.12
10-26 Wilder ..... H. Bohman .......... Dade City ...... Seedling .......... 50 11.47 1.30 8.82
10-26 W ilder ..... S. C. Wells............ Plant City ..... Seedling .......... 75 10.681 1.34 7.97
10-26 Wilder ..... G. B. Chapman........ Knights ........ Seedling .......... 75 10.61[ 1.22 8.70
10-26 Wilder ....- Haywood....... Knights ........ Seedling .......... 75 10.61 1.26 8.42
10-26 Wilder ..... M. Roggy......... Dade City ...... Seedling .......... 50 11.11 1.26 8.82
10-28 Greene ..... E. B. Peter.......... Leesburg ....... ................. 75 10.47 0.76 13.78
10-29 W ilder ..... - West ......... Ocoee ......... ................... 25 9.97 0.96 10.39
11- 1 Johnston ... John Culp ...........DeLand ............................ 70 11.32 1.53 7.40
11- 1 Lewis ...... - Corrigan........ San Antonio ... Pineapple ......... 10 9.15 1.07 8.55
11- 2 Johnston ... Pat Sams ............ New Smyrna ....................... 70 10.79 1.34 8.05
11- 4 Johnston ... Theo. Strauss ....... DeLand ........ ................... 60 10.72 9.88 12.18
11- 4 Johnston ... Park Co. ............ DeLand ........................... 65 10.92 1.26 8.67
11- 4 Lewis ......i. P. Donelly......... IMt. Dora ...... ... ........ 75 10.47 1.11 9.43
11- 4 Lewis ...... J. P. Donelly......... Mt. Dora ...... .............. 75 10.47 0.69 15.17











DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY.
CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.
Official Samples of Grapefruit.
Drawn by Inspectors from Fruit Intended for Shipment.
Immature Fruit are Distinguished by Blackface Type.


INSPECTOR


SHIPPER
SHIPPER

I


PACKED AT


Johnston ... R. H. Hull ............ Cocoanut Grove.
Johnston ... P. Philips ............ Cocoanut Grove.
Johnston ... P. Philips ............ Homestead ....
Johnston ... P. Philips ............ Cocoanut Grove.
Johnston ... MI A. Kainnitzer & Co. Cocoanut Grove.
Johnston ... 1M A. Kainnitzer & Co.jCocoanut Grove.
Johnston ... R. H. Hull..... ... Cocoanut Grove.
Johnston ... Chase & Co. ........ Miami .........
Johnston ... R. H. Hull............ Cocoanut Grove.


Johnston ... Charles LeJune ...... Cocoanut Grove.


Lewis ...... Chase & Co. ........ Manatee .......


I

VARIETY o

| U E.
IC ^ ^0


Florida Common.
Florida Common.
Florida Common.
Florida Common.
Florida Common.
Florida Common.
Florida Common.
Florida Common.


Florida Common.


Florida Common.


a
U U2
cU2
o e
d o
t4E


9.471 1.15 8.23
9.54 1.34 7.11
8.67 1.23 7.05
9.75 1.15 8.48
9.75 1.26 7.74
9.68 1.11 8.72
9.75 1.26 7.74
8.67 1.19 7.29
8.67 1.22 7.11
r9.751 1.531 6.37
9.541 1.411 6.77
9.851 1.531 6.44
9.921 1.481 6.70
9.681 1.641 5.90J
8.601 0.921 9.35


Date


9-14
9-14
9-16
9-16
9-16
9-17
9-17
9-18
9-18


9-19


9-24


700
360
360
1188
1140
720
720
360
756


596


400


I


--


I I


" '


'








9-28
9-28
10- 1
10- 1

10- 1

10- 1
10- 1
10- 1
10- 3
10- 3

10- 3

10- 3
10- 3
10- 3
10- 3
10- 3
10- 5
10- 5
10- 7
10- 7
10- 7
10- 7


Johnston ... Jaudon Brothers ......IMiamI ......... Florida Common
Johnston ... J. W. Anderson....... Miami ......... Florida Common.
Johnston ... F. G. Curtis......... Miami ......... Florida Common.
Johnston ... Jaudon Brothers ..... Miami ......... Royal ..........

Johnston ... Jaudon Brothers ..... Miami .......... Florida Common.

Johnston ...S G. Merrick........ Miami ......... Florida Common.
Lewis ...... E. C. McLean ........ 'Terra Ceia .... Florida Common.
Robson .... Standard Growers' Ex.jFrostproof ..... Excelsior .......
Johnston ... Chase & Co. ......... Homestead ..... Florida Common.
Johnston ... F. E. C. Growers' Asso.Homestead ..... Isle of Pines....

Johnston ... Standard Growers' Ex.INaranja ....... Florida Common.

Lewis ...... HA W. Peterson & Co.. Palmetto ....... Florida Common.
Lewis ...... H, W. Peterson & Co.. Palmetto ....... Florida Common.
Robson .... P. J. Langford........ Frostproof ..... ..... ........
Robson .... Standard Growers' Ex-Frostproof ..... ......... .....
Wilder ..... E. B. Peter...........Leesburg ...... Walters ........
Henry ..... W. C. Braddock...... Sebastian ...... Florida Common.
Lewis ...... T. B. Ray ........... Sutherland ..... ................
Henry ...... P, Philips ........... Wabasso ....... Florida Common.
Johnston ... F. C. Gifford .......... Vero ........... Florida Common
Johnston ... P. Philips ............Ft. Pierce .......Florida Common
Robson .... IS. M. Stephens...... .iLakeland ....... ................


S3.531 1.34[ 6.36)
3.531 1.381 6.18J
8.601 1.03 8.35
8.53 1.15 7.40
9.68 0.88 11.00
8.46 1.19 5.95-
S8.60 1.30 6.62
S10.47 1.76 5.95
9.57 1.351 7.09
9.47 1.151 8.23
9.54 1.15 8.30
t.07 1.22 7.43
10.68 1.07 9.98
8.741 1.38 6.331
9.071 1.45 6.25J
8.60[ 1.15 7.48
8.53 1.07 7.97
8.60 1.41 .610
8.60 1.38 6.42
9.35 1.32 7.08
8.73 1.22 7.15
8.81 1.41 6.25
9.94 1.40 7.10
11.34 1.91 5.94
o10.28 1.661 6.19
10.35 1.53 6.76
10.541 1.641 6.43 1


720
360
360
360

360

360
360
360
360
360

360
-ci
360
400
50
56
150
400
250
450
15
163
130











CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.-Continued.
Official Samples of Grapefruit.-Continued.


Date INSPECTOR


10- 9
10-10
10-10
10-12
10-12
10-12
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-16
10-17
10-19
10-21


SHIPPER


PACKED AT


Henry ..... J. L. Ballard ........ Naranja .......
Robson .... J. IV. Langford....... Frostproof ......
Wilder ..... W. M. Coble.......... Orlando .......
Johnston ... W. C. Braddock...... Sebastian .....
Johnston ... F. C. Spadero ......... Vero ..........
Johnston ... F. C. Spadero ......... Vero .........
Henry ..... Fla. Citrus Packing Co. Frostproof .....
Henry ..... Standard Growers' Ex. Frostproof .....
Lewis ...... H. W. Peterson & Co../ Palmetto ......
Lewis ...... E. C. McLean......... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... 1H. S. Pollard......... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... 1.. T. Montgomery.... Terra Ceia .....
Lewis ...... Chase & Co. ......... Manatee .......
Johnston ... John Frohock ........ Cocoa ..........
Johnston ... E. R. Porcher......... Cocoa ..........


.
10
VARIETY 0 _:S

1U 03
CH^U


Florida Common. 50
... .. 501
...... .. ... 90
Florida Common. 50
Florida Common. 90
Florida Common. 90
Florida Common. 50
Excelsior ...... 65
Florida Common. 35
Florida Common. 40
Florida Common. 95
Florida Common. 75
Florida Common. 75
Florida Common. 609
Florida Common. 951


10-22 Johnston ...IG. B. Cooker..........j ocoa .......... Florida Common.d


9.41
9.75
10.54
8.83j
10.161
10.041
8.761
9.471
8.971
9.471
10.04
8.53
10.611
8.601
10.411

9.351
9.00o


1.031 9.14 360


1.031 9.14
1.19 8.19
1.49 7.07
1.261 7.01
1.45 7.01
1.38 7.28
1.22 7.18
1.22 7.76
1.15 7.80
1.30 7.28
1.26 7.97
1.03 8.28
1.22 8;70
1.22 7.05
1.41 7.38

1.38 6.78
1.45 6.21J


360
900
350
360
360
360
300
355
390
400
400
360
910
360
360

357


CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.--Continued.
Official Samples of Grapefruit.--Continued.








10-22

10-23
10-23
10-23


10-25


10-26

10-26

10-26
10-26
10-28
10-29
10-29

10-30

10-30
11- 1
11- 1
11- 2
11- 4


I I
Lewis ......3. J. Sligh............. Orlando ......... Florida Common. 9(

Johnston ... Parrish & Brocket.... Titusville ...... Florida Common. 7
Lewis ...... 3. J. Sligh............ .......... rla ...... Florida Common. 9(
Lewis ...... Standard Growers' Ex-|Orlando ........ Florida Common. 10(


Lewis ...... J. A. Betts ............ Bradentown .... Florida Common. 25


Lewis ...... Tyler........... radentown .... Florida Common. 5(

Lewis ...... K. S. Parish.......... Parish .......... Florida Common.| 3(
II
Lewis ...... J. N. Bloodgood...... [Parish ......... Florida Comrinn. 7
Lewis .. F. C. Armstrong...... Palmetto ..... Florida Commn,: S
W ilder .... Walker Brothers .... Orlando ........ ................ 7
Wilder .. Symonds & Sons ..... Orlando ........................ 9(
SWilder .....Standard Growers' Ex- Orlando ........ Silver Cluste: .. 7
I I I
Johnston ... I. A. Stewart......... DeLand ........ Florida Common. 2;

S W ilder ..... S. J. Sligh............ D rlando .......... ......... 90
Johnston ... Sawyer-Godfrey Co. .. DeLand ........ Florida Common. 5(
Lewis ...... J. S. Taylor & Co. .... Largo .......... Florida Common. 5(
Lewis ...... J. C. Lee............. Leesburg ...... Florida Common. 8;
Lewis ...... Citrus Growers' Assn. Mt. Dora ....... Connor Prolific.. 85
I... I __ __ __


r 9.47! 1.41 6.72-1
) 10.35J 1.871 5.53 36
10.411 1.49 6.99J
5 10.24, 1.45 7.06 375
) 10.355 1.451 7.14 360
S10.68i 1.381 7.74 400
10.611 1.611 6.59 )
9.54 1.53 6.24 (
9.61 1.571 6.12 160
S8.84f 1.341 6.45 |
8.46; 1.34; 6.31)
01 10.611 1.38' 7.69 60
S9.1- 1.33 6. 1
0 8.741 1.30 6.72 360
8.741 1.? 7.1 t'
S10.61[ 1.45! 7.32 220 0
0 9.47| 1.26 7.52 700
10.54 1.451 7.27 260
i 10.171 1.451 7.01 360
5 10.541 1.34 7.86 360
( 10.87 1.64 :.631
51 10.92 1.641 6.66 255
L11.15' 1.76[ 0.31J
i 10.61| 1.49| 7.13 3C0
)0 10.421 1.611 6.47 182
1 8.71[ 1.19| 7.32 360
5 10.151 1.381 7.36 90
S10.151 1.451 7.00 360
I ___



















Date [ INSPECTOR


9-23
10- 3
10-11
10-21
10-21
10-22
10-22
10-23
10-26
10-26
10-26
10-26
10-28
10-29
10-30
10-30
11- 1


Wilder .....
Wilder .....
Wilder .....
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Johnston ...
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ....
Johnston ...
Wilder ...
Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Johnston ...


CITRUS FRUIT ANALYSES, 1918.
Official Samples of Oranges
Drawn by Inspectors from Fruit Intended for Shipment.
Immature Fruit are Distinguished by Blackface Type.


I I I

SHIPPER PACKED AT I VARIETY o
00 0 B

E. B. Peter ........Leesburg ....... Parson Brown.... 101 10.541 0.97 10.871 375
E. B. Peter ....... Leesburg ....... ISatsuma ........ 101 9.671 0.92 10.51 25
Kimbrough Brothers.. Groveland ...... Parson Brown.... 25 9.41 0.741 12.72 360
E. B. Peter.......... Leesburg ....... Parson Brown... 10 10.47 0.92 11.38 400
F. A. Foster........ Leesburg ...... Parson Brown.... 50 10.681 1.191 8.99 360
E. P. Porcher........ Cocoa ......... ................. 60 10.75 0.42 25.60 237
P. Philips ........... Orlando ........ Parson Brown.... 10 9.47 0.69 13.72 360
Standard Growers' Ex. Orlando ........ Parson Brown.... 101 10.471 1.07 9.69 350
G. W Tyler.......... Bradentown .... ................. 35 10.681 1.22 8.751 300
Chase & Co. ..........Manatee ........................ i 501 10.68 1.0;i 10.?7 5")
J. N, Youngblood .... Parish ....... ................ 10 10.681 1.031 10.371 250
Lamb & Cain ........ Parish ......... Seedling ....... 10 9.681 0.69 14.03 360
P. Philips ........... IFt. Pierce ...... ................. 40 9.131 1.07 8.53 94
P. Philips ........... Orlando ........ Parson Brown.... 751 9.97 0.92 10.84 360
D. D. Dundere........ DeLand ........ .Seedless ........ 101 10.001 0.961 10.43 33
I. A. Stewart ......... DeLand ........................ I 20| 10.921 1.35 8.09 44
J. W. Wright ........IDeLand ..... ................. 75 11.33 1.15 9.85 336


00







11- 1
11- 2
11- 2
11- 2
11- 4
11- 4
11- 4
11- 4


Johnston ...
Johnston ...
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......
Lewis ......


Alexander & Baird... Beresford ............ .. ..... 75 11.151
G. W. Brown......... New Smyrna ... Parson Brown.... 75 10.47
E. B. Peter........... Leesburg ...... .I....... .. ..... 25 10.15
Fussell & Co. ....... Leesburg ....... ................. 25 10.15
Umatilla Fruit Co..... Eustis ......... ................. 50 10.22
Standard Growers' Ex-|Eustis ......... Parson Brown.... 20 10.79
B. H. Watts.......... Leesburg ....... ................. 20 10.03
E. B. Peter .......... Leesburg ....... ISeedling ....... 65 10.15


1.03 10.831
0.96 10.91
1.03 9.85
1.19 8.53
1.15 8.991
1.07 10.081
1.03i 9.74
0.96[ 10.57











SUMMARY OF ANALYSES BY INSPECTORS.

SPECIAL OFFICIAL


INSPECTORS 2 g
C) n a M E-
C C3 C3 Cd E-4
o 0 0


Greene, E. Peck, Tallahassee. 1 1 0 0 2

Henry, A. M., Tallahassee.... 2 3 5 0 10

Johnston, C. E., Daytona ...... 63 15 30 7 115

Lewis, J. T., Williston. ........ 97 22 21 14 154

Robson, Reid, Lakeland. ...... 49 27 5 0 81

Wilder, L. W., Knights....... 27 44 6 4 81

Total number of samples for
1918 ....................... 239 112 67 25 443
Total number of samples for
1917 ....................... 135 24 163 10 332
Total number cf samples for
1916 ....................... 238 87 199 25 549
To'al number of samples for
1915 ....................... ...... ...... ...... ...... 304

Total number of samples
since adoption of U. S.
Standard ............. ..... ... ....... ...... 1627


SUMMARY OF ANALYSES BY COLOR





Grapefruit samples showing less Mature .... 20 29
than 50% of color.............. mature 48 71
Grapefruit samples showing 50% rMature .... 126 53
or more of color ................ Immature 112 47

Orange samples showing less than ('Mature .... 49 75
50% of color................... mImmature 16 25
Orange samples showing 50% orr Mature .... 53 74
more of color ................. Immature .[ 19 26









85

COMPARISON OF 1916, 1917, AND 1918.


1916 1917 1918

Cars of grapefruit shipped to Nov. 5..... -705 492 1295

Cars of grapefruit sampled to Nov. 5.... 199 163 67

Per cent of cars of grapefruit sampled .28.22 33.13 5.17

Per cent of grapefruit sampled immature. 16.00 3.00 15.41

Cars of oranges shipped to Nov. 5........ 409 82 801

Cars of oranges sampled to Nov. 5....... 25 10 25

Per cent of cars of oranges sampled..... 6.11 12.20 3.12

Per cent of oranges sampled immature... 8.00 18.00 0.00

Cars of citrus fruit shipped to Nov. 5 ..... 1104 574 2036

Cars of citrus fruit sampled to Nov. 5.... 224 173 92

Per cent of c-rs of citrus fruit sampled... 20.11 |30.14 4.39

Per c nt cf citrus fruit sampled immature. 15.18 3.78 12.04










DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY.
FERTILIZER SECTION.
R. E. ROSE, State Chemist. SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES, 1918, FRANK T. WILSON, Asst. Chemist.
Samples Taken by Purchaser Under Section 9, Act Approved May 22, 1901.

Phosphoric Acid.

NAME, OR BRAND. FOR WHOM SENT.

*6 CS C< CS
9 i 4P < I


Blood and Bone No. 2............4374

Blood and Bone No. 2........... 4375

Tankage No. 2 .................. 4376

Tobacco Dust No. 1.............. 4377

Tobacco Dust No. 1.............. 4378

Tobacco Dust No. 1 ............ 4379

Nitrate of Soda No. 3............ 4380

Nitrate of Soda No. 3............ 4381


2.25 5.15 9.65 .....

6.10111.45 9.90 .....

9.92 16.30 7.35 .....

..... ..... 2.331 6.77
I I
S..... . 2.23 6.56
. . . . 2.23 6.32

... ..... 17.55 .....

... .. .... 17.601 .....


L. G. Hunter, Sanford.

Dr. T. A. Neal, Sanford.

H. W. Chandler, Sanford.

C. J. Meriwether, Sanford.

L. G. Hunter, Sanford.

Dr. T. A. Neal, Sanford.

C. J. Meriwether, Sanford.

G. W. Spencer, Sanford.






Cotton Seed Meal No. 2 ........ 4382 ............... ... 7.651..... G. W. Spencer, Sanford.
Castor Pomace ................. 4383 ......... ...... ..... A. R. Mer:wether, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 .......... 4384 7.95 6.251 2.071 8.32 4.151 2.121C. J. Meriwether, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................4385 12.52 5.78 1.671 7.451 4.35 3.38 I. E. Esteridge, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 438611.981 4.50 3.051 7.55 4.40 3.23iF. N. Esteridge, Sanford.

I 1 4. 1.e
Mixed Fertilizer ................438712.11 5.95 1.60 7.55 4.33 3.35 C. L. Byrd, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4388 8.78 6.08 1.971 8.05 4.CL 1.9 Roy Symes, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4389 7.031 5.53 0.37 j.90 5.1 0.90 Carl Carlson, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1........... 4390 6.771 8.00 5.50 13.50 4.52 2.23 W. H. Peters, Sanford.
Sheep Manure No. 2 ............ 4391 3.321 0.45 0.05 0.50 3.85 0.30W. H. Peters, Sanford.
Goat Manure No. 3 .............14392117311 0.981 0.27 1.25 1.95 2.54W. H. Peters, Sanford .
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 439315.61 6.001 3.80 9.80 4.98 3.31 Brunley & Herby, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4394 5.88 5.90 0.45 6.35 4.03 0.98 Henry Nickel, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 ........... 439510.63 5.90 1.701 7.601 4.25 3.36 G. W. Spencer, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 .......... 4396 5.87 5.431 0.42 5.85 4.90 1.20jR. L. Greer, Sanford.
___ __ __ __ __ __ __I_ -_______ _I I










SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES, 1918-Continued.


NAME, OR BRAND.


ZI


Mixed Fertilizer No. 2........... 4397| 5.87

Sneep Manure and Blood No. 3.. 4398 11.9;ll

Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 .......... i-3:: 11.061

Mixed Fertilizer ................14400 10.77

Mixed Fertilizer ................ 44011 6.711

Fertilizer No. 1 ................ 4402 13.43

Fertilizer No. 2 ................. 4403 7.061

Fertilizer No. 3 ................. 4404 7.46

Fertilizer No. 4 ................. 4405 6.98

Fertilizer tankagee) ............ 14406 7.90J


0.151 9.10

0.621 1.201

2.451 1.

1.571 7.85

1.771 7.95

1.60 7.78

2.77! 5.80

1.60111.15

5.171 9.70

0.701 1.701


FOR WHOM SENT.


0.56R. L. Greer, Sanford.

1.38 R. L. Greer, Sanford

1.96 H. W. Chandler, Sanford.

3.90 L. W. Wallace, Sanford

0.58 R. Muirhead, Sanford.

2.80 A. J. Willis, Oakland.

0.47 A .J. Willis, Oakland.

0.48 J. E. Petris, Oakland

0.40 J. E. Petris, Oakland.

..... W. Tilden, Oakland.







Fertilizer (nitrate of soda and I 1 1
potash .................... .44071..... ..... ...... ...17.80115.41|Dr. N. de V. Howard, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 .......... 140Si 6.68 5.401 4.101 9.501 5.401 0.300. C. Bryant, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 .......... 4409 7.77 5.10; 3.90 9.00 4.70 1.09 0. C. Bryant, Sanford.
Tobacco Dust No. 3 ............. 410 ..... ..... ..... ..... 3.45 6.470. C. Bryant, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4111 6.64 5.53 0.32| 5.851 4.751 0.96 C. B. Miller, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ t412 7.50 6.75 0.55 7.30 5.10 1.47M Fleischer, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 44131 7.65 5.78 1.67[ 7.45 4.40 3.02 .1. S. W ilson. Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ |4414 6.90 6.63 0.47 7.101 5.65 2.86W S. Hand, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4415 8.73 7.95 1.85 9.80 4.50 1.73J. S. Wilson. Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 14416 11.40 6.13 1.671 7.8 4.95 3.171B.. E. Squires, Sanford
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4417 7.86 56.6 60 6 4.951 2.98 Sheridan Jewett, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 141811.96 S.03I 0.57; 8.60 5.10 0.48 John Bolly, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4419[ 6.65 4.75 3.55i 8. 30 4.50 3.491Louis Henderson, Sanford.
Blood and Bone No. 1 ........... 1420. 5.20 .90 3.0 7.10 10.70 ..... G. F. Smith, Sanford.
Dried Blood No. 2 ...... 4421|.. 1 0 ..... IG. F. Smith. Sanford.
Dried Blood No. 24121! ..... .......17.00!... C. F. Smith. Sanford.









SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSIS, 1918-Continued.


Phosphoric Acid.

NAME, OR BRAND. i j g FOR WHOM SENT.



[ I I I I I
Mixed Fertilizer .............. 442211.85 6.00 1.55 7.55 4.20 3.08. Brisson, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1......... 442310.98 7.25 1.801 9.05 4.10 4.23 W. Wallace, Sanford.

Mixed Fertilizer No. 2........... 442412.221 6.33] 1.42 7.75 4.55 2.9i L. W. Wallace, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4425 4.65 5.75 0.95 6.70 4.85 2.73 L. A. Brumley, Sanford.

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4426 7.95 5.90 1.55 7.45 4.20 3.05 S. Y. Arthur, Sanford.

Sheep Manure No. 1 ...........442712.40 1.75] 0.15 1.90 2.50 1.771E. M. Howard, Sanford.

Goat Manure No. 1 ............ 442824.28 1.10 0.30 i.40 2.05 2.82 Mrs. J. S, Moore, Sanford.

Tobacco Dust No. 2 ............ 4429 ..... ..... .... ..... 2.45 6.35 Mrs. J. S. Moore, Sanford.

Nitrate of Soda No. 1 .....4430 ..... .... ..... 19.40 ..... Rosetter & Son, Sanford.

Blood and Bone No. 2 ..........144311 6.33] 3.88 3.021 6.90110.25 ..... Rosetter & Son, Sanfcrd.







Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 .......... 4432 8.50 5.85 1.45 7.30 4.45

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 446312.14 7.43 1.22 8.651 5.60

Nitrate of Soda ..... ......... 4434 .. .... ..... 19.30.

Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4435 6.74 5.80 0.65 6.45 5.40

Mixed Fertilizer ................... 443 11.06 6.00 1.85 7.85 4.40

Mixed Fertilizer ................14437111.83 5.70 1.80 7.50 4.50

Mixed Fertilizer ................ 448 11.551 6.65 1.65 8.30 4.50

Fish Scrap No. 2 ............... 4439 7.81 4.58 4.07 8.65 7.00

Mixed Fertilizer ................ 444011.75 6.05 1.551 7.GO 4.35
I 1. I 8 .35
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4441110.231 6.50 1.85 8.35 4.60j

Tobacco Dust No. 1 ............ 4442 I ..... ... .. ... 2.50.

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 44431 8.52 8.00 1.801 9.80 4.45
I I
Mixed Fertilizer .............. [4444 8.08 8.35 2.00l0.35 5.00
i I I 1 1
Fertilizer No. 1 ................ 4445 9.57[ 7.73 2.9210.65 4.35

Fertilizer No. 2 ............... 4446[ 9.011 9.23 1.72 10.951 5.55
I I 1 1


2.75 Fish & Fish, Sanford.

1.32 C. I Flowers, Sanford.

.... M. Fleischer, Sanford.

2.67 F. L. Green, Sanford.

3.27 W. A. Raynor, Sanford.

3.17 W. W. Peavyhouse, Sanford.

3.09 A. Van Ness, Sanford.

.... Fish & Fish, Sanford.

3.02C. A. Betts, Sanford.

3.170. J. Pope, Sanford.

6.6210. J. Pope, Sanford.

1.87 Stone & Stewart, Sanford.

2.27jMrs. J. S. Moore, Sanford.

3.00 A. L. Culver, Boynton.

0.51 A. L. Culver, Boynton.
I


I








SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES, 1918-Continued.


Phosphoric

NAME, OR BRAND.
cd


I I I
Fertilizer No. 3 ............... 4447| 7.261 2.00 0.15
Fertilizer No. 4 ................ 44481 8.141 6.20 2.80
Fertilizer No. 5 ................ 4449] 5.38J 6.901 8.95
Fertilizer.No. 6 ............... 14450| 8.711 6.18 1.82
I I
Fertilizer ...................... 445111 .421 7.781 0.62
Fertilizer ..................... 144521 5.721 6.95 0.35
Fertilizer .......................445311.50 5.45 2.10
Fertilizer ...................... 44541 7.44[ 8.251 1.75
Fertilizer ..................... I4455 6.381 6.751 0.80
Fertilizer......................144561 7.90 2.60
Fertilizer .................... .|4456| 7.43 7.90| 2.60


FOR WHOM SENT.


2.15 2.651 2.85Carl Jensen, Boynton.
I 9.00 I 5
9.00 3.80 2.55 C. Ruehman, Boynton.
I
115.85 4.75 0.26 C. Ruehman, Boynton.
I R. 4.00O 2.80 Paul Groatman, Delray.
8.40 3.05 1.811A. J. Richardson, Taft.
7.30 5.50 0.74|H. H. Baily, Hastings.
7.55 5.25 1.63E. T. Heiter, Taft.
10.00 6.45 0.42Dr. S. R. Love, DeLand.

1 7.55 4.301 3.051R. P. McAdams. Miami.
110.50| 5.65| 1.52 Geo. Butler, Tavares.







Fertilizer ......................144571 8.001 6.851
Fertilizer No. 1 tankagee) ..... 4458 6.191 1.981
Fertilizer No. 2 ................ 14459 7.951 8.981
Fertilizer No. 3, (acid phosphate) 4460 ..... 16.95
Fertilizer No. 4 tankagee) ...... 4461 7.54 7.031
Fertilizer ......................4462 12.72 7.251
.. ................... I. i
Fertilizer ...................... 446310.15] 7.301
Fertilizer ...................... 1446411.61 8.00
I I I I
Fertilizer ......................14465 8.44 9.60
Fertilizer No. 1 ................ 44661 9.45 6.881
1 1 I 1
Fertilizer No. 2 ................ 4467 6.25 6.651
Fertilizer No. 3 ................ 14468110.52110.731
Fertilizer ...................... 14469119.39t 1.10i

I I I
Fertilizer .................... ..447010.331 3. 30
Fertilizer ......................... 447114.211 7.251


3.50110.351 5.201 2.851Geo. Butler, Tavares.
1.22 3.20 12.30 ..... L. W. Tilden, Oakland.
3.62112.60 5.45 0.51L. W. Tilden, Oakland.
1.05118.00 .... .....L. W. Tilden, Oakland.
9.82116.85 6.701..... L. W. Tilden, Oakland.
1.501 8.75 4.50 1.30KL. W. Tilden, Oakland.
1.90 9.20 5.10 2.121H. A. Connell, Winter Garden.
1.501 9.50 4.35 2.581A. P. De Wolf, Crescent City.
0.75o10.35 3.70 0.454J. B. Davis, Bonifay.
2.87 9.75 5.45 2.10|F. E. Encell, West Palm Beach.
11
1.451 8.10 2.35 2.171L. A. Freeland, Lake Worth.
1.97112.70 3.501 0.47lOscar Magnason, Boynton.
0.10 1.20 2.10 3.62L. W. Tilden, Oakland.
7.80111.10 3.751 1.80|A. H. Meacher, Miami.
5.75113.001 4.251 1.28|J. A. Scott, Lithia.
I I I I









SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES, 1918-Continued.

Phosphoric Acid.

NAME, OR BRAND. a d v w FOR WHOM SENT.



I I 1 I t


Fertilizer ..................... 4472 8.381 7.50

Fertilizer No. 1 ................ 4473110.921 7.30!

Fertilizer No. 2 ................ 44741 8.401 4.881

Fertilizer ...................... 4475 8.721 3.981

Fertilizer ...................... 4476 7.35 9.50!

Tankage No. 1 ................. 14477 7.45 3.60[

Mixed Fertilizer ......... ....... 447812.73 1.681

Mixed Fertilizer .............. 14479 12.05 5.900

Mixed Fertilizer .............. .|4480 6.97| 6.501
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 448110.87 6.15
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4481 10.871 6.15'


1.401 8.90

6.65113.95

9.72114.60

7.97111.95

4.2513.75

3.85 7.45

0.32 2.00

1.801 7.70

0.70 7.201

1.85! 8.00


4.051

4.35

3.70

4.80

6.40

L0.30

9.15

4.45

4.55!

4.15


1.951E. H. Ray, Taft.

0.83 M. C. Bailey, Wauchuia.

0.671M. C. Bailey, Wauchlla.

1.631C. O. Roe, Clermont

0.25 H. A. Perry, Pomona.

..... Bledsoe & Hickson, Sanford.

1.101W. J. Thigpen, Sanford.

2.96 C. B. Bell, Sanford.

1.881M. Fleischer, Sanford.

3.161Fish & Fish, Sanford.






Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4482! 5.881 5.70 0.551 6.25 5.35 0.78T. W. Bryden, Sanford.
I I I I I I .
Tankage No. 1 ................. 4483 9.34 4.151 4.80 8.95 9.65... R. G. Hickson, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4484 6.481 5.851 0.801 6.65 5.30 0.89 Tony Tesenla, Sanford.
I.110.85 5 Russell,I
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 .......... 4485 11.891 7.651 3.2010.85 5.20 1.84 John Russell, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 .........144861 6.451 5.35110.60115.95 5.00 2.39|John Russell, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4487 8.50 8.10 3.0011.10 4.60 2.02|H. W. Chandler, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 ......... 4488112.46 5.331 9.8715.20 5.351 0.57Bledsoe & Hickson, Sanford.
Nitrate of Soda No. 1 .......... 4489 ..... ..... ...... .... 18.60 ..... Paul Jones, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............. 4490 10.40 5.851 2.00 7.85 6.00 3.08W. W. Miller, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4491 8.251 6.181 0.97| 7.15 4.50 2.98C. J. Meriwether, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No.2 ..........4492 8.47 7.63 3.77111.40 4.60 2.06R. G. Hickson, Sanford.
.ixed Fertilizer .471
Mixed Fertilizer .............. 449312.191 6.03 2.02' 8.05 4.40 3.05LouisKinard,Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4494 8.58! 6.601 2.40J 9.00 3.80 1.70|A. R. Meriwether, Sanford.
I I I I.
Cotton Seed Meal .............. 4495 ..... .... .. ... ..... 7.75 ... Paul Jones, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 144961 7.36| 5.451 2.05! 7.50 4.20 4.881W R. Pell, Sanford.
I I 1 I 1 1









SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES, 1918-Continued.

Phosphoric Acid.
-------- O
NAME, OR BRAND. FOR WHOM SENT.




Mixed Fertilizer ............... 44971 6.391 5.60 0.501 6.10 5.90 1.14R. B. Munroe, Sanford.

Mixed Feltilizer ............... .|4498 7.23 6.20| 2.40 8.60 4.S0 2.04 W J. Thigpen, Sanford.

Blood and Bone ................ 4499 5.52 5.40|14.25 19.65 6.90 ..... M. D. Jackson, Sanford.
5 .. 0 o








Nitrate of Soda .................. 4500 .. ... . .... 18. ..... M. Fleischer, Sanford.

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 14501 8.06 6.43| 1.721 7.15 4.151 3.141L. S. Robb, Sanford.
I I 4 I

Mixed Fertilizer .............. 4502 8.83 5.751 0.95 6.70i 4.50 3.441Mrs. J. S. Moore, Sanford.

Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 ......... 450311.18 7.73 4.02111.75 3.501 2.02C. M. Stowe, Sanford.
I I I[






Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 .......... j4504| 4.90| 6.251 1.251 7.501 4.55 0.491C. M. Stowe, Sanford.

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4505 7.121 5.581 0.421 6.00 5.57 1.02 A. P. Connelly, Sanford.

Ground Tankage No. 1 ......... 54506.14.161 3.50| 2.351 5.85110.30;..... H. HByers, Sanford.





Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 .......... 45071 7.18[ 5.051 0.401 5.451 5.251 1.09[W. H. Byers, Sanford.
I1 1 1
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 450811u.351 5.801 2.00] 7.80 4.201 3.061W. S. Cox, Sanford.
g Fertilizer ................. ... 4509 15.45i 7.251 1.90 9.15 5.251 1.231Harry Levine, Orlando.
Cotton Seed Meal .............. 145101 ..... .. .. ..... ..... 7.00 ..... IP. H. Sandlin, Jasper.
I I i[ .....W. A. Raynor, Sanford.
Nitrate of Soda No. 1 .......... 4511i ..... ..... .... ..1910 ..... A. aynor, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 ........ 4512 13.051 5.78] 1.92 7.80 4.40 3.121W. A. Raynor, Sanford.
S. e
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 45131 9.701 7.43 0.67 8.10 4.30 2.37. R. Meriwether, Sanford.
I I I
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4514111.68 5.75 1.85| 7.60 4.2 2.97L. W. Wallace, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 1451511.561 5.40 2.00 7.40 4.20 3.02B. E. Squires, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 ......... 45161 8.50 5.55' 0.50 6.05 5.10| 1.101A. K. Powers, Sanford.
I l i 1 I
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 ......... 4517112.54 1.351 0.25 1.60110.501 0.871A. K. Powers, Sanford.
I. f r I I I .
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 451810.05 6.23 0.22 6.45 5.10 3.70 C. J. Meriwether, Sanford.
Nitrate of Soda No. 1 .......... 14519 ..... ..... .....18.40 G. W. Spencer, Sanford.
Cotton Seed Meal No. 2 ........ 4520 ..... ..... .... 8.10 ..... G. W. Spencer, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4521113.56 5.45 2.15 760 4.30 3.591G. W. Spencer, Sanford.
II 1 I I 7.0 I.









SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES, 1918-Continued.

Phosphoric Acid.

NAME, OR BRAND. 0 FOR WHOM SENT.

Cd 1i -8 W 0 |


I I I 'I -
Fertilizer (hardwood ashes) .... 4522 .......... .
Tankage ...................... 4523 8.731 2.001
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 ......... 45241 9.031 6.281
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 .........14525112.74 5.501
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4526 7.901 5.301
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 145271 7.031 5.48
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4528 7.021 5.40
I I
Mixed Fertilizer ...............145291 5.57 6.15
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 4530 12.90 6.90
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 .........4531 6.00 4.50
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 ......... 145311 6.001 4.501


..... ........ 2.931J. R. Leatherman, Wabasso.
4.50i 6.50 8.50 ..... T. I. Hawkins, Sanford.
5.0211.30 6.10 0.49 C. F. Branan, Sanford.
1.951 7.45 4.45 3.10 C. F. Branan, Sanford.
0.351 5.65 4.90 1.16 Henry Nickel, Sanford.
0.421 5.90 4.901 0.821T. F. Adams, Sanford.
SI 1
0.35| 5.75 5.45 1.11Grover Spearing, Sanford.
0.551 6.70 4.501 0.871E. L. Brown, Sanford.
1.90 8.801 5.00 3.17!L. S. Robb, Sanford.
1.301 5.80 4.051 1.331J. J. Bolly, Sanford.






Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 ......... 14532 12.121 4.401 1.351 5.75 4.20 4.721J. J. Bolly, Sanford.
1 I I I
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4533 13.081 6.08 2.271 8.35 4.30 3.14C. L. Flowers, Sanford.
Blood and Bone ................ 45341 7.461 4.131 6.3510.48 10.40 ..... D. R. Brisson, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4535 8.861 8.75 0.55 9.30 3.35 2.89 H. B. Lewis, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer..............45361 7.4 5.40 0.50 5.90 5.20 1.18T. W. Bryden, Sanford.
I I I I
Guano ......................... 4537110.721 9.33 1.02i0.35 2.30 1.59W P. Brownell, W estville.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4538 8.231 5.451 0.35 5.80 5.25 0.99W. A. Knight, Sanford.
I I I 1 I I
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 14539 9.7 6.31 1.l 7.80 4.60 3.22Mahoney & Son, Sanford,
I I 1 I I I
Bone Meal .................... 45401 3.47 7.50 18.30 25.80 3 .... Carl Carlson, Sanford.
I I I I I I J
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 14541111.73| 5.971 2.38 8.35! 4.201 3.04tB. H. Squires, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer .............. 145421 7.68| 5.48 0.37 5.85' 5 251 1.01|Henry Witte, Sanford.
II I I I
Mixed Fertilizer ................ 45431 6.201 5.301 1.15 6.451 3.75 2.591L. S. Robb, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 14544117.821 1.501 0.301 1.80 9.70 1.11 Rex Packard, Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer ............... 45457.821 5.,37 0.38, 5.'7 5.05! 1.121Thrasher Bros., Sanford.
Mixed Fertilizer No. 1 .........14546 8.37| 6.10[ 2.751 8.87.' 5.10 4.24|S. Y. Arthur, Sanford.
I I I I I I I I










SPECIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES, 1918-Continued.

Phosphoric Acid.

NAME, OR BRAND. FOR WHOM SENT.
0 3
on 2? a
h cg

I I I
Mixed Fertilizer No. 2 ......... 14547 7.14

Mixed Fertilizer No. 3 ......... 45481 6.68S

Fertilizer ...................... 4549 9.41

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 45501 8.95

Tankage ...................... 14551 8.031

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4552 7.721

Mixed Fertilizer ............... 4553 5.881

Mixed Fertilizer ...............14554 9.88

Blood and Bone No. 1............45551 6.881


5.831 2.871 8.70' 5.401 3.401S. Y. Arthur, Sanford.

5.751 1.851 7.601 6.05J 0.54|S. Y. Arthur, Sanford.

7.60F 3.8011.401 5.15 3.16 W. Richards, Palmetto.
8.68 0.82 .501.40 2.69H. W. Lewis, Sanford.

3.401 4.35 7.751 9.801 ..... Mrs. J. S. Moore, Sanford.

5.251 0.35F 5.60 5.101 1.09,J. F. Hickson, Sanford.

4.981 0.32 5.30 5.05 1.11R. L. Greer, Sanford.

8.55! 0.75 9.30 4.15 2.38 Messrs. A. P. Connelly and R. L.
I Greer, Sanford.

3.921 6.3210.25 10.80 ..... A. H. Moses, Sanford.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs