• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Main














Group Title: Department of Soils mimeographed report
Title: Sieve analysis of some experimental fertilizer mixtures and materials
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091547/00001
 Material Information
Title: Sieve analysis of some experimental fertilizer mixtures and materials
Series Title: Department of Soils mimeographed report
Physical Description: 5, 13 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Fiskell, John G. A
Gammon, Nathan
Potato Investigations Laboratory
University of Florida -- Dept. of Soils
Publisher: University of Florida, Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1955
 Subjects
Subject: Fertilizers -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Fertilizers -- Analysis -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by John G.A. Fiskel.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "February, 1955."
General Note: "Fertilizer Control Research Project cooperative with: Florida Agricultural Research Institute, Florida State Chemist, Commissioner of Agriculture, Thornton Laboratories ; Assistance: Mr. Tom Cox sieved most of the no-phosphate mixtures. Criticism and advice are acknowledged from the Technical Sub-Committee for this project."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091547
Volume ID: VID00001
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 - 311593126

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        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
Full Text








February, 1959


ANALYSIS OF SOME E


MENTAL


,TILIZER


:TURES


AND MATERIALS


rJjr.lllj r uOniiri.L
PI ^*^*1 n A -.^


February 1955


















entering the mix. This can be done if random distribution of the

one and all materials is achieved. Distortion of the mix by such

segregation of one range of particle sizes or by improper mixing can

y sieve analysis if the sampling procedure were adequate. The

Sis reported below on a number of mixes made October 6, 195h for

r Control Research Committee and sponsored by the Florida Agricul-

h Institute.

sieve analysis of fertilizers does not appear in the literature

intended in these studies. Certain assumptions in devising the


V 4.~ ~UVLIW J .4CL~(








on #60 sieve ,0098 to .0165 inch; on #80 sieve .0070 to .0098 inch; on #100

sieve .0059 to .0070 inch; on #140 sieve .0041 to .0059 inch; and passing #140

mesh sieve less than .0041 inch. The machine was connected to an automatic

timing device so that each sample received equal shaking.

3. Primary Particle Size By visual and low-power lens, the fertilizer

aggregates were found to break down to the primary particle sizes found in the

materials used. This may not be true for the finer particles, but in any event

the samples remained quite reproducible in distribution after three minutes of

shaking. Longer shaking up to 12 minutes had little effect on some materials

and mixes, but not where large amount of N. S. base or muriate of potash was in

the formulation. This is shown in Table 5 (a).

4. Sub-sampling Various ways were tried to obtain reproducible sub-samples
of the main sample. Because scoops either rolled away the large particles or

left behind the fines they were found to be inadequate. The procedure settled

upon was to remove the sample into an aluminum tray. Spread it out, lightly

crushing large lumps. Riffle through the aluminum sample riffler. Riffle again

and obtain three sub-samples representing two 1/4 riffles and a 1/2 riffle split.

Each sample was sieved. Reproducibility involved is given in Table 5 (b). The

mean of these samples was taken as the sieve analysis of the whole sample. Results

were calculated from the variable sample weight used to the basis of weight percent.

The samples were found to pass the sieves readily if not overheated by the

infra-red, hence the distance from the lamp. Oven heating promoted chemical

reactions. Relative humidity in the room where the work was done ranged from

50 to 68 percent with temperatures 70 to 85 degrees.

RESULTS
Proceeding with the sieve analysis in the above manner for the materials

used in the formula, the theoretical contribution of each material to the sieve

fraction to be expected in the mix was calculated as well as the weight percent









~rr urru rrv--yrrvuyrra u~


;ood screen analysis only when dried. Obviously in the mixes then

light stick to other ingredients. In Table 2 is shown what material

each sieve fraction. Unfortunately from the theoretical application

actual mix analysis, the cage-mill intercedes between goods in

change in primary particle size was to be expected from the cage-

ly and perhaps in the process of the elevators, screen and mixer



series of data for the phosphate-containing mixtures are given in









particle size of materials being used or the sampling tube used diagonally retains

less of these size particles. The surface sample of bulk goods was obtained by

a scoop, so this may account for the larger amount of material on the #10 sieve.

Otherwise, all the analysis are rather uniform.

Table 7 shows the results of sieve analysis of the 8-0-12 mixes. Remarks

applied to Table 6 would appear to hold for these data. The reaction of calcium

nitrate with the damp dolomite might account for larger sieve fractions on the

#40, #60, #80, and #140 sieves than the theoretical or calculated value as given

in Table 2.

In Table 8, the sieve analysis of the 10-0-10 mix shows that shipment of the

bagged goods may have resulted in some change in the particle distribution as

weight per cent on the #10 and #20 screen are lower for bottom, center and top

samples drawn, But the bulk goods do not show this trend. Within plant samples

for this mix are lower for #10 and #20 sieve fractions than the official samples.

These changes may be the result of inconsistencies in the materials. The

theoretical sieve analysis of the mix, Table 2 approaches closest to that of

samples drawn from the bagged goods at the plant.

In Table 9, sieve analysis of samples of 12-0-10 before and after shipment

are alike so far as the method can detect. Here again the bulk goods are lower

in the #10 and #20 sieve fractions than the bagged goods or samples taken within

the plant. This might have been either materials being different in particle

size or an imperfection in sampling technique. The theoretical value, Table 2,

is higher for the #10 and #20 sieve fractions than these corresponding weight

percent found in any of the mixes. Possible explanation is the cage-mill broke

down the larger particles of the ammonium nitrate or Sul-Po-Mag.

Phosphate Containing Mixtures In Table 10, the sieve analysis of the

4-7-5 mixes are given, Chief differences are in the #10 and #20 sieve fractions*





5


within plant" samples approach the theoretical values given in Table 4.

>se samples the bagged goods after destination analyzed slightly different

#10, #20 and #40 sieve fractions than before shipment. This might be an

.tion of a sampling problem with this mixture.

:n Table 11, the sieve analysis of 4-8-8 mixes again show higher values for

-ithin plant" and theoretical weight percent on the #10 screen than for

Goods. Bottom, center and top tiers of bags compare closely before and

shipment except in the #10 and #20 fractions. These latter differences

n excess of the variation from the method.

n Table 12, the data for the 4-10-7 mixes are given. Variability is

st for weight percent of particles on the #10 and #20 sieves. Again within

and theoretical value are higher for the #10 sieve fraction. Variation


asou tsao-e on Tne FLu sieve. rart~cle size changes i
e likely to occur in the cage-mill and mixing process

cal correlation between N/P205 ratio and sieve analysis


CONCLUSIONS

zer mixtures can be made with high
l . .. .. . .i * .1 + i /'


of sampling which likewise could











TABLE l.--Sieve Analysis of Fertilizer Materials Used in the No-Phosphate Mixtures
(Weight Percent)


Fertilizer Materials


Calcium nitrate

Ammonium nitrate

Nitrate of soda

Sulfate of potash
Magnesia (Sul-Po-Mag)

Sulfate of ammonia

Muriate of potash

Vermiculite fines

Dolomite


On #10

6$.77

7.55

16.60


16.00

0.86

0.00

0.00

5.06


On #20

29.72

88.22

61.65


39.21

29.38

2.51

4.63

9.82


On #4C

1.27

3.25

15.65


22,16

41.28

19.92

30.27

9.56


Sieve Fractions
) On #60

0.70

0.55

2.69


10.14

18.57

28.07

25.35

7.79


On #80

0.77

0.17

0.98


3.84

3.86

14.94

12.66

5.08


On #140

1,11

0.16

1.06


4.17

2.12

20.27

18.24

9.77


Passes #140

0,66

0.10

1.37


4.48

0.93

14.29

8,85

$2.92


Soils 100 Copies JGAF


---






TABLE 2.-Calculated Sieve Analysis of No-Phosphate Mixtures (Weight Percent)


Fertilizer Mixtures On #10 On #20 On #40 On #60 On #80 On #140 Passes #140 Total


from
from
from
from
from
from


Ammonium Nitrate
Calcium Nitrate
Sul-Po-Mag
Muriate of Potash
Vermiculite Fines
Dolomite
Total


from Ammonium Nitrate
from Ammonium Sulfate
from Sul-Po-Mag
from Muriate of Potash
from Vermiculite Fines
from Dolomite
Total


from
from
from
from
from
from


Ammonium Nitrate
Ammonium Sulfate
Sul-Po-Mag
Muriate of Potash
Vermiculite Fines
Dolomite
Total


from Ammonium Nitrate
from Nitrate of Soda
from Sul-Po-Mag
from Muriate of Potash
from Vermiculite Fines
from Dolomite
Total


0.94
17.82
5.28
0.00
0.00
0.85



1.42
0.17
5.28
0.00
0.00
1.08
7.95

1.89
0.16
5.28
0.00
0.00
0.78


0.94
4.36
5.28
0.00
0.00
1.21
11.79


11.03
8.05
12.94
0.21
0.11
1.64
33.98


16.59
5.73
12.94
0.12
0.11
2,09
37.-58

22.14
5.58
12.94
0.13
0.11
1.51
42 -ai

11.03
16.21
12.94

0.11
2.36
T2-79


8-0-12-6 MgO
o0.1 0.07
0.35 0.19
7.31 3.34
1.64 2.31
0.76 0.64
1.60 1.30
12.07 7.5

10-0-10-6 MgO
0.61 0.10
8.64 3.62
7.31 3.34
0.98 1.38
0.76 0.64
2.04 1.66
20.3T 10.74
12-0-10-6 MgO
0.12 0.14
8.43 3.52
7.31 3.34
1.00 1.40
0.76 0.64
1.47 1.20
19.79 10 2
8-0-8-6 MgO
O.1. 0.07
4.12 0.71
7.31 3.34
0.34 0.48
0.76 0.64
2.29 1.87
15.23 7.11


Soils 100 copies JGAF


0.02
0.21
1.27
1.23
0.31
0.85
3 F9


0.03
0.75
1.27
0.73
0.31
1.08


0.04
0.73
1.27
0.75
0.31
0.78


0.02
0.26
1.27
0.25
0.31
1.22
3.33


0.02
0.30
1.38
1.66
0.46
1.63



0.03
0.41
1.38
0.99
0.46
2.08


0.04
0.40
1.38
1.01
0.46
1.50
1.79

0.02
0.28
1.38
0.35
0.46
2.34
4IES


0.01
0.18
1.48
1.15
0.22
8.83



0.02
0.18
1.48
0,70
0.22
11.27
13-8

0.03
0.18
1.48
0.71
0.22
8.16
10.78

0.01
0.36
1.48
0.24
0.22
12,71
1 .02


12.50
27.10
33.00
8.20
2.50
16.70
100.00


18.80
19.50
33.00
.490
2.50
21.30
100.00

25.10
19.00
33.00
5,00
2.50
15,40
100.00

12.50
26.30
33,00
-i.70
2..0
24,00
100.00


100.00


i
Soils I00 copies JGAF










TABLE 3--Sieve Analysis of Fertilizer Materials Used in the Mixes Conta


Fertilizer Sieve Fractions
Materials On #10 On #20 On #40 On #60 On #

N.S. Base 16.07 18.68 20.21 15.20 8.7

Superphosphate 9.96 12,80 14.72 14,92 9.4

Muriata-of Potash 2.46 2,05 20.24 28.51 17.5

Castor Pomace 0.94 41.83 35.68 12.30 3.8

Peanut Hulls 3.17 31.18 35.04 12.40 5.1

Dolomite 3.79 12.03 12 10 8.49 4.8






Soils 100 copies JGAF








TABLE 4.--Calculated Sieve Analysis of the Mixes Containing Phosphate (Weight Percent)


Sieve Fractions
Material On #10 On #20 On #h0 On #60 On #50 On #100 Passes #100 Total

4-7-5 Mixture (25% organic)

N.S. Base 7.18 8.34 9.02 6.79 3.88 2.38 7.06 44.65
Muriate of Potash 0.19 0.16 1.59 2.24 1.38 0.78 1.51 7.85
Castor Pomace 0.16 7.35 6.26 2.16 0.67 0.32 0.63 17.55
Dolomite 1.13 3.60 3.62 2.54 1.44 1.32 16.30 29.95
Total 566 1945 -20.9 13.73 737 4T0 25 .50 100.00
4-8-8 Mixture (20% organic)

N.S. Base 7.53 8.75 9.47 7.12 4.08 2.49 7.l1 46.85
Muriate of Potash 0.32 0.27 2.61 3.69 2.28 1.29 2.49 12.95
Superphosphate 0.34 0o44 0.50 .0.50 0.32 0.22 1.08 3.40
Castor Pomace 0.13 5.88 5.01 1.73 0.54 0.26 0.50 14.05
Dolomite 0.86 2.74 2.75 1.93 1.10 1.00 12.37 22.75
Total 97i5 -1758 20 1497 7922 6' 23 85 100.00
4-10-7 Mixture

N.S. Base 9.36 10.89 11.78 8,86 5.07 3.10 9.24 58,30
Muriate of Potash 0.28 0.24 2.35 3.31 2.04 1.15 2.23 11.60
Superphosphate 0.44 0.57 0.66 0.66 0.42 0.29 1.41 4.45
Peanut Hulls 0.16 1.56 1.75 0.62 0.26 0.14 0.51 5.00
Dolomite 0.78 2.48 2.50 1.75 1.00 0.91 11,23 20.65
Total 11.02 15.74 19.0 15.20 8.79 5-9 2 ,62 100,00


Soils 100 copies JGAF












TABLE 5.--Factors Involved in Sieve Analysis and Other Data


(a) Effect of Shaking Twice Initial Time on Sieve Fractions (Gain or Loss as Weight Percent)
Material #10 #20 #40 #60 #80 #100 #140 Remainder

-7-5 -0.32 -0.;6 0.00 +0.20 +0.07 -0.01 +o.51
4-8-8 -0.13 -0.52 -0.32 +0.26 +0,23 +0.32 +0.38
4-10-7 -0.49 -0.74 -0.06 +0.26 +0.20 +0.03 +0.81
10-0-10 -0.22 +0.01 -0,07 0.00 +0.15 +0,34 +0.03
12-0-10 -0.15 -0.07 -0.22 +0.22 -0.02 +0,03 +0.12
t-8-0-12 -0.21 +0.16 +0.05 +0.02 +0.12 +0.14 -0.30
8-0-8 -0.41 +0.63 -0.45 -0.02 +0.02 +0.39 -0.08
Muriate of Potash (P) -0.58 +0.41 -0.61 -1.28 +0,22 -0.62 +2.48
N. S. Base (P) -0.67 -0.16 +0.17 +0.12 -0.43 -1.16 +2,11

Ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, dry dolomite, vermiculite, Sul-Po-Mag,
superphosphate, peanut hulls and castor pomace changed less than 0.10 gm. on any of the
screens.


Soils 100 copies JGAF










TABLE 5.--Factors Involved in Sieve Analysis and Other Data (Continued)


(b) Deviation,


Including Sampling Error by Riffle, Yleights


100-400 Grams Per Sample


(Expressed as Percent of the Actual Uleight Percent)
Material #10 #20 #40 #60 #80 #100 #10O Remainder


4-8-8

10-0-10
12-0-10
8-0-12
8-0-8
Muriate of Potash (P)
Muriate of Potash (S)
Sulfate of Ammonia
Sul-Po-Mag
Nitrate of Soda
Calcium Nitrate
Ammonium Nitrate
Vermiculite
Dolomite
Castor Pomace
Peanut Hulls
N, S. Base
Superphosphate


8-10
7-12
5-8
5-7
4-8
2-5
10-20
(28.0)

10
3.5
3.2
1.5
7.2

23
11
8.9
6.2
8,2


2-3
to 1
to 1
2-4
2-4
2-5
1-4
12
12
0.5
1.2
0,5
1.8
0.6
4.8
8.2
3.1
2,7
1.8
2.7


1-2
to 1
to 1
to 1
to 1
2-3
2-4
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.0
6.2

3.1
0.5
4.1
1'5
1.4
1.8
7.0


2-4
to 1
to 1
to 4
to 2
2-4
2-5
0.4
0.9
3,0
0.5



0.8
4.6
4.0
5,2
3.5
2.1


2-4
to 1
to 1
to 4
to 3
2-4
2-5
2.8
1.2
3.2
2.0



1.0
3.9
7.6
6'5
2.5
3.1


2-4
to 1
to 1











4.5
8.3
3.0
4.0
4.4


to 4
to 4
to 4
4-8
1.8
1.2
7.2
2.0



1.2


2-3
to 1
to 2
2-4
1-4
4-9
4-8
3,2
3.4
5.1
4.3



1.5
0,8
11.0
9.0
3.5
3.2


Soils 100 copies JGAF


-~-~-








TABLE 6.--Sieve Analysis of fertilizer o-u-o-o Iagu, bag

Sieve Fractions (We
Sample #10 #20 #40 #60

Within Plant #1 11.10 43.75 15.55 7.83 3.
#2 10.20 41.85 16.46 8.49 4.
#3 11.89 40.45 16.12 8.48 4.
Mean 0 202 16-.04 8.27 T
Bagged Goods Bottom 11.79 41.91 15.29 7.95 3,
Center 11.22 42.35 15.51 8.02 3.
Top 11.52 41.94 15.28 7.82 3,
Mean 111 42.07 1-536 7.93 3
Bagged Goods Bottom 11.45 42.21 15.15 7.74 4.
Destination Center 11,03 40.95 15.95 8.28 4.
Top 11.17 41.41 15.80 8.09 3,
Mean 41 52 15.63 T.04 i
Bulk Goods #1 9.89 40.62 17.03 8.87 4,
Plant #2 9.80 40.50 17.11 8.81 4.
#3 10.14 40.68 17.78 7.72 4,
Mean 9.98 40 .6 17.31 .17 Z
Bulk Goods #1 10.31 41.76 14,90 8.81 5.
Dest, #2 10.51 40.55 16.83 9.06 4.
#3 10.31 41.21 17.42 5.83 4.
Mean 1037 41.17 17.3 7.90 "
Surface Bulk
Dest. 11.23 40.62 16.11 9.12 3.



100 copies Soils JGAF






TABLE 7,--Sieve Analysis of 8-0-12-6 MgO Mix, Bag and Bulk Goods


Sieve Fractions (Weight Percent)
Sample #0 0 #10 Passes ,140


Within Plant




Bagged Goods
Plant



Bagged Goods
Dest.



Bulk Goods
Plant


Bulk Goods
Dest.


Bilk Goods
Surface Dest.


#1
#2
#3
Mean

Bottom
Center
Top
Mean.

Bottom
Center
Top
Mean

#1
#2
#3
Mean


#1
#2
#3
Mean


25.25

28.35
26.32

27.06
26.09
26,61


27.03
23 f13
26.59


22.18
254 49
25.43


27.55
24.26
22,47


24.83


29.83
29,07
28.85
29.25

31.66
31.57
29.34


31.76
31,3h
29.31
30.80

29,82
28.56
28.72
29.03

27.91
29.24
30.31


27.99


16 ,10
15.57
15 .$7
1L.o93


13.81
13.99
14.58
13413

13.58
14.94
144.32

16,51
15,77
15041
1.,90

1548
15.88
16.27
T15T88


10.50
114 43
10.95


9.91
10.35
10.60
10.29

9.94
10.95
10.67


12 12
11.31
11.18


11.52
11.91
12. 41
11.995


15.86 11.89


Soils 100 copies JGAF


5.60
5.98
6444


5.42
5.75
5.58


5.46
6.02
5.67
T.72

6.62
6.14
6,06


6.23
5.85
6.71
6.25

6.25


6.86
7.48
6 68
7*01

6,77
7.06
7.71
7 IB7

6,98
7.83
7.64

7.i3
7.11
7 72
7.32


6747
7.332
7 *33


7.02


5.86
5.12
3.80
4s92

5.37
5.19
5.58
7.38

5.25
5.79
5.69


5.36
5.62
5.48
STE#


4.84
5.74
4.50
7703

6.16









TABLE 8.-Sieve Analysis of 10-0-10-6 MgO Mix, Bag and Bulk Goods


Sieve Fractions (Weight Percent)
Sample #10 #20 #40 #60 #80 #140 Passes #140


Within Plant




Bagged Goods
Plant



Bagged Goods
Dest.



Bulk Goods
Plant



Bulk Goods
Dest.


Bulk Goods
Surface Dest.


#1
#2
#3
Mean

Bottom
Center
Top
Mean

Bottom
Center
Top
Mean

#1
#2
#3
Mean

#1
#2
#3
Mean


6.21
6.05
5.95
7.07

7.01
7.92
7.64
77-2

6.83
7.18
7.09
7.03

5.61
5.69
5.01


5.71
5.29
5.70


5.60


31.94
32.86
34.32
33*04

36.76
36.98
37.09


34.86
36.14
35.83


33.09
32.78
31.48


33.00
33.82
33.16


33,92


22.62
22.h4
22.39
22.5e

21.27
20.97
21.20
21,15

20.77
21.35
21.20
21.11

22.77
22.52
23.23
22.8T

22.63
23.47
23.89
23.33

22.33


13.27
13.11
12.93
13.10

12.15
11.80
11.94
11.96

12.47
12.10
12.17
12.25

13.52
13.26
1-.17
13.656

13.46
13.61
12.59
13.22

12.91


5.45
5.40
5.40
5.42

5,00
4.82
4.78


5.21
4.94

532

5.85
5.51
6.00
5.79

5.68
5.62
5.84
5,71

5,53


6.43
6.76
6.39


5.78
5.60
5.54
$.364

6.31
5.79
5.42


6.73
6.77
6.99


6.75
6.08
6.51


6.72


14.08
13.38
12.58
13.37

12.03
11.91
11.81
11.92

13.55
12.50
12.75
12.93

12.43
13.47
13.02
12.97

12,77
12.11
12.31
12.40

12.99


Soils 100 copies JGAF








TABLE 9.--Sieve Analysis of 12-0-10-6 Mg0 Mix, Bag and Bulk Goods


Sieve Fractions f(Weight Percent)
Sample #10 #20 #h0 #60 #b0 #140 Passes #140


Within Plant




Bagged Goods
Plant



Bagged Goods
Destination



Bulk Goods
Plant


Bulk Goods
Dest.


Bulk Goods
Surface Dest.


#1
#2
#3
Mean

Bottom
Center
Top
Mean

Bottom
Center
Top
Mean

#1
#2
#3
Mean


#1
#2
#3
Mean


7.27
7.10
6.47
6.95

6.44
6.19
6.44
6.36

6.36
6.01
6.36
6.27

5.64
6.27
5.55


5.88
5.79
5.97


6.49


40.04
38.64
38.37
39.02

39.52
38,50
39.33
39.12

40.28
39.13
14.30
40*2)4

36.93
37.21
37.11


36.79
38.09
36.47
37,12

36.89


20.73
20.15
20.64
20-51

20.32
21.63
21.38
21.11

20.60
22.16
21.09
21.28

21.94
21.85
22,08
21,96

21.97
21.56
21.81
21,52
21,52


11.41
11.75
12.22
11.79

11.95
12.34
12.02
12.10

11.91
11.74
11.45
11.70

13.32
12.88
12,94
13.05

13.43
12.39
13.04
127 95


4.69
5.09
5.17


4.95
4.91
4.81


4.74
5.18
4.56


5.57
5.46

5.750
5,47


5.16
5.24
5532


12.48 5.28


5.59
6.17
6.17


5,88
5.70
5.62


5.57
5.62
5.39


6.29
6.12
6.21
7.21

6.45
6.14
6.28
6729


10.27
11.10
10.96
10.78

10.94
10.73
10.40
10.69

10.54
10.16
9.85
10.18

10.31
10.21
10.64
10.39

10.32
10.79
10.88
10.66


6.43 10.91


Soils 100 copies JGAF









TABLE 10,-Sieve Analysis of 4-7-5 (25 Percent Organ:


Sieve Fractions (Teight B
Sample #10 #20 #40 #60

Within Plant #1 9.34 22.42 22.36 12.94
#2 8.34 20.59 22.28 13.12
#3 8.50 21.87 21,71 12.64
Mean 83 2T. 2 2.9

Bagged Goods Bottom 5.64 20.42 22.32 13.24
Plant Center 6.42 21.47 21.96 12.85
Top 6.97 22.15 22.62 12.95
Mean 6 .31T.3 22.30 13.01

V-Bagged Goods Bottom 7.74 22,38 21.89 12.68
Dest. Center 6.72 22.19 21.96 12.60
Top 7.21 22.35 21.91 12.67
Mean 7.22 22.31 21.92 12.




Soils 100 copies JGAF










TABLE ll,--Sieve Analysis of 4-8-8 (20 Percent Organic)


Sieve Fractions (Weight Per
Sample #10 #20 #0 #00 #6

Within Plant #1 7.91 22.22 24.22 14.72 6.
#2 7.50 19.43 24.36 16.19 7.
#3 7.45 20.49 24.15 15.88 7.
Mean 62 20.71 2~47 1T5

Bagged Goods Bottom 5.69 20.27 24.62 15.61 7 .
Plant Center 6,62 21.70 20.4 14.81 6.
Top 7.14 21.67 21.22 15,09 7.0
Mean 21.21 2~.29 1517 7

Bagged Goods Bottom 6.94 20.64 2L,02 15.78 7.
Dest. Center 6.31 20.88 24,30 15 03 6.
Top 6.85 20.79 24.05 15.39 7.
Mean 6.70 20.77 412 1540 7.




Soils 100 copies JGAF










TABLE 12.-Sieve Analysis of 4-10-7 Mixes


Sieve Fractions (Weight Percent)
Sample #lt3 #20 #40 #60 #80 #100 Passes #100

Within Plant #1 8,65 18.01 22.73 15,00 7.49 5.10 23.02
#2 10.26 17,93 21.64 14.30 7.22 4.96 23.69
#3 9.09 18.62 22.82 14.81 7.45 4.99 22.22
Mean 9.33 18.19 22.70 14.70 7.39 5.02 22.-98
Bagged Goods Bottom 7.28 16.90 22.64 15.20 7.99 5.19 24.80
Plant Center 7.78 18.96 23.37 15.02 8.05 4.81 22.01
Top 8.10 17.91 22.97 15.11 7.70 4.87 23.34
Mean 7.72 17.92 22,99 15,11 7.91 1 97 23.38
Bagged Goods Bottom 8.99 18.51 21.64 14.63 7.56 4.98 23.69
Dest. Center 7.09 17.39 22.94 15.62 7.96 4.90 24.10
Top 8.15 17.77 23.26 15.36 7.76 4.72 22.98
Mean 88 17.89 221 15.20 7.76 T487 23.59


Soils 100 copies JGAF




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