MUSCLE SHOALS THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1930 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Harry C. Ransley presiding. Mr. RANSLEY. Members of the committee, to-day Mr. Charles J. Brand, executive secretary and treasurer of the National Fertilizer Association, is here and will address the committee. You may proceed, Mr. Brand, with any statement you have to make. STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. BRAND, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER THE NATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION Mr. BRAND. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in asking for an opportunity to be heard was to present the present picture in the fertilizer industry as it is affected by your consideration of the problem of disposing of the Muscle Shoals plant. It is two years since I appeared before your committee and, in the interim, there have been many changes in the situation and I wanted, if agreeable to the committee, to develop that in an oral statement, to be supplemented with a typewritten statement which, I regret to say, we did not quite complete and which we will complete and furnish to each member of the committee. We worked late at it last night and did not get it done. We are using about 7,900,000 tons of fertilizer a year at the present time. We estimate, roughly, that fertilizer contains about 4 per cent of nitrogen, about 10 per cent of phosphoric acid, and about 3 per cent of potash-4-10-3; in other words, roughly an average plant-food content of about 17 per cent. Mr. MCSWAIN. That is a little high, is it not? Mr. BRAND. It is a little high for your section, Mr. McSwain, but it is very low for a section like Indiana and a section like Ohio. Mr. SPEAKS. About what proportion of all fertilizer manufactured and sold would be of that character? Mr. BRAND. That is the average analysis I was speaking of and my statement will show, by tons, the number of tons that contain each of these ingredients and the sources of the ingredients, the material used in making the potash salts of our nitrogen carriers, whether it comes from sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, cyanamid, or what not. I am preparing that more for a reference that I hope will be useful to you. The figures also, include, of course, a considerable quantity of nitrate of soda, sulphate of ammonia, and a few other materials that are used as top and side dressing, unmixed with any other material. The 4-10-13 constituents of fertilizers of course represent the per cent in terms of actual plant food. Four per cent means 80 pounds per ton of nitrogen; 10 per cent of phosphoric acid means 200 pounds of phosphoric acid; 3 per cent of potash means 60 pounds of potash, or K2O as such-not of the carrier, but of the potash itself. Now there is so much misrepresentation, Mr. Chairman, regarding the rest of the ton that I want to discuss that. We are accused of selling millions of tons of filler, of shipping common dirt and sand around at the farmers' expense, and all that sort of thing. Of course every manufacturer minimizes that as far as he can in his power. Natural superphosphate is not pure phoshoric acid and can not be and if it were, it could not be used. It must be in a carrier that it is practical to apply to the soil, and the remainder of the material above this content is very, very largely material that is a concomitant of the natural materials that are used. It is no different from the situation with milk: You do not have 100 per cent milk, because that would be about 13 per cent of dry matter, and nobody can drink dry matter. The water in there has to be considered and it is a natural concomitant of the milk. So it is with superphosphate. For instance, there is about a thousand pounds of gypsum and land plaster in every ton of phosphate. This occurs in the rock which is treated to make superphosphate. I mention that, because there has been so much misrepresentation of this matter of the filler. Mr. QUIN. However, that is not fertilizer, is it that filler? Mr. BRAND. Frequently it is ground limestone. They use the material that is most convenient to use and that can be had cheapest. Many of them use pure sand. Mr. QUIN. I do not want to have any misrepresentation; I want to be honest in everything I say about fertilizer, and I wish you would tell us the actual truth about that stuff. Mr. BRAND. So far as I can tell the truth, this is the truth: It is economically necessary for make-weight and the conditioning that they use that substance which is suitable for the purpose, that they can secure most cheaply, because it is put in purely to condition or make weight in order to bring the ton up to 2,000 pounds. What is paid for is units of plant food, and you can not sell 5-8-7 at the price you can sell 8-3-3, because there are more units and the greater the number of units have to be paid for. With the growth of concentrated fertilizer, it is going to be necessary in many cases to put in even more filler, because there are less concomitants of weightmaking material in the actual products. Mr. WURZBACH. In the 4-10-3 fertilizer—that is, 17 per cent— what does the other 83 per cent consist of; that is, the average fertilizer? Mr. BRAND. In that case, for instance, the largest single constituent in addition will be the gypsum contained in the superphosphate. Mr. WURZBACH. How much, about? Mr. BRAND. A thousand pounds out of every ton of superphosphate, roughly, is gypsum. Mr. WURZBACH. That would take up 50 per cent of the 83 per cent. Mr. BRAND. Roughly that. Mr. WURZBACH. Of course, you can only approximate this. many Mr. WURZBACH. Now, has that any value as plant food? Mr. BRAND. Oh, yes; it has a good, useful calcium content in respects. In fact, in some soils, it is very definitely useful. It is not as useful as lime, but in some soils it serves a similar purpose. Mr. WURZBACH. What is the remainder? Mr. BRAND. If I may, I will take a broad illustration, in order to make the point clear. If I may, I will take 5-8-7, which is a very widely used fertilizer, rather than the average. 5-8-7 is the customary way of designating a particular analysis of fertilizer. The 5 means 5 per cent of nitrogen, as ammonia; the 8 means 8 per cent of phosphoric acid, almost universally secured from superphosphate; the 7 refers to the potash content, K,O. That may be obtained by muriate of potash, calcium fluoride, kainit or manure salts, or any potash carrier, and it is always customary, except in certain tradenamed or branded fertilizers, to purchase and describe fertilizer by these numerals. For instance, in Mr. Hill's country, they will use 2-12-2 or 12-2-2. In the South, in the past-they are changing that custom now-they named the phosphoric acid first and then the nitrogen and the potash; they have changed over to naming the nitrogen, then the phosphoric acid, and then the potash, and that is the way the fertilizer analysis is described. That is what you buy, and the higher these numerals are, all three of them, the more valuable the fertilizer. And those numerals are not just chance numerals; they are definite proportional relations-what we call ratios; 3-9-3, for instance, is a 1-3-1 ratio. So there is a definite ratio that has been worked out that gives better results on certain soils and in certain crops. Just to answer Mr. Wurzbach, if I may. He wanted to know what is contained in it; what is the rest of this stuff; how it is made up; what is it. I took a 5-8-7, because that is so widely used. It is the fertilizer used to make the big potato crops; it is what gives the Maine farmer an average of something like 267 bushels to the acre; whereas the Michigan farmer gets 103 to 105 bushels to the acre. That would be made up and need to contain, in order to be a very good fertilizer, we will say, 240 pounds of sulphate of ammonia. The nitrogen content of the sulphate of ammonia, is 20.5 per cent roughly. The rest of it is sulphur and the concomitants of that particular chemical. The nitrogen content is 20.5 per cent; we will say 110 pounds of nitrate of soda, because we have to get to this 5 per cent in this 2,000-pound mixture; that is what we are trying to do. The nitrate of soda is about 15.66 per cent of nitrogen and the rest is sodium and what not-some impurities. Even chemically pure nitrate of soda has only about 16 per cent of nitrogen in it. Then, because many users find it advantageous to have an organic, we put in, say 250 pounds of tankage. As you know, that is the natural organic material that is a by-product of the packing industry. That gives us, when you take that poundage and add it together, our necessary 5 per cent of nitrogen. Now, we get our superphosphate by adding 1,000 pounds of 16 per cent superphosphate; 500 pounds of that is gypsum and I might say that the rest is silica, iron, aluminum, and other substances that occur in the phosphate rocks in the natural beds. Then we get our potash; we will say 280 pounds of 50 per cent muriate. Then we still lack 120 pounds of having our 2,000 pounds, and we put in 120 pounds of filler, or makeweight, or conditioner, according to what we can put in at the lowest cost. Mr. SPEAKS. You are speaking now of 5-8-7? Mr. BRAND. I am speaking now of 5-8-7, General. Mr. SPEAKS. Now, after all that description, when you ship a ton of fertilizer, what proportion of that ton is filler, so-called-gypsum or whatever it may be? Mr. BRAND. Well, the only proportion of it that is filler is 120 pounds. Mr. SPEAKS. You have indicated how much is of this substance and how much of that. Now, finally, there is added what is commonly known as filler, which you described in this instance as gypsum. It might be common sand, it might be clay, it might be anything. Mr. BRAND. That is right. Mr. SPEAKS. Now, what proportion of that ton is of that nature? Mr. BRAND. Well, 120/2000 is your fraction. You figure the percentage Mr. SPEAKS. We have 2,000 pounds of fertilizer that has been shipped. Mr. BRAND. Yes. Mr. SPEAKS. What proportion of that 2,000 pounds is filler, gypsum, or whatever you use, is in that ton? Mr. BRAND. I think I get your point. You want to know how much of the total ton is genuine plant food? Mr. SPEAKS. Absolutely. Mr. BRAND. An average of 500 pounds in that case. Mr. SPEAKS. So that 1,500 pounds Mr. BRAND. Is of this concomitant material. Mr. SPEAKS. Is put in there for convenience? Mr. BRAND. Oh, no; it is in there because nature makes it that wav. Mr. SPEAKS. I understand. It is necessary to utilize sand, gypsum, or other substance to carry the plant food. Mr. BRAND. Yes, as a carrier; that is quite correct. Mr. WURZBACH. Is it not a fact, Mr. Brand-I think what General Speaks has in mind is, taking your percentage of 5-8-7, that makes 20 per cent of strictly plant food. Mr. BRAND. That is right. Mr. WURZBACH. Exclusive of the gypsum or other content? Mr. WURZBACH. You really only have 400 pounds out of the 2,000 pounds that is strictly plant food, and 1,600 pounds is filler in a strict sense; but still it has something over and above 20 per cent plant food, as you designate? Mr. BRAND. Exactly so. |