Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think some of the simple souls on this committee ought to have that very definitely and clearly stated. General WILLIAMS. That has been stated. Mr. MCSWAIN. Do you think General Williams is qualified to interpret that contract, merely as an Army officer? Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Oh, no; I say we ought to have some legal opinion on the exact legal effect of this contract. General WILLIAMS. Colonel Wainwright, I am quoting from a letter which I know was written in which these views were expressed in a letter from the Secretary of War. Mr. WAINWRIGHT. On this particular bill? General WILLIAMS. On this particular bill. General WILLIAMS. This session, I think, to this committee one to this committee and one to the Senate committee. Mr. WAINWRIGHT. I suggest that that letter be inserted in the record. Mr. STAFFORD. I suggest, further, that we ought to call before the committee the representative of the department who gave that opinion, so that we may have an opportunity to question him. (After informal discussion, the committee went into executive session, at the conclusion of which further hearing was adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.) 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., How. 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. 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 an oral statement, to be supplemented with a typeand which we will complete and furnish to each member of the committee. W 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 We estimate, roughly, that fertilizer contains about 4 per f nitrogen, about 10 per cent of phosphoric acid, and about 3 plangent of potash-4-10-3; in other words, roughly an average Mt-food content of about 17 per cent. written which, I regret to say, we did not quite complete time. cent per Mr. MCSWAIN. That is a little high, is it not? it Ir. BRAND. It is a little high for your section, Mr. McSwain, but s very low for a section like Indiana and a section like Ohio. and Ir. SPEAKS. About what proportion of all fertilizer manufactured sold would be of that character? my Ir. BRAND. That is the average analysis I was speaking of and each statement will show, by tons, the number of tons that contain math of these ingredients and the sources of the ingredients, the wheerial used in making the potash salts of our nitrogen carriers, ther it comes from sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, cyanahope di or what not. I am preparing that more for a reference that I will be useful to you. The figures also, include, of course, a lerable quantity of nitrate of soda, sulphate of ammonia, and mid. consiat a few other materials that are used as top and side dressing, unmixed with any other material. per The 4-10-13 constituents of fertilizers of course represent the 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 superphos phate. 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, hat they can secure most cheaply, because it is put in purely to condtion 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 the price you can sell 8-3-3, because there are more units and the greter the number of units have to be paid for. With the growth of centrated fertilizer, it is going to be necessary in many cases to t in even more filler, because there are less concomitants of weig making material in the actual products. a Mr. WURZBACH. In the 4-10-3 fertilizer-that is, 17 per cen what does the other 83 per cent consist of; that is, the average f tilizer? Mr. BRAND. In that case, for instance, the largest single const ent 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 superhos phate, roughly, is gypsum. Mr. WURZBACH. That would take up 50 per cent of the 83 perce Mr. BRAND. Roughly that. Mr. WURZBACH. Of course, you can only approximate this. Mr. WURZBACH. Now, has that any value as plant food? Mr. BRAND. Oh, yes; it has a good, useful calcium content in many 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 A good fertilizer, we will say, 240 pounds of sulphate of ammonia. a 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 parf icular chemical. The nitrogen content is 20.5 per cent: we will say to 10 pounds of nitrate of soda, because we have to get to this 5 per eigent 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 ens sodium and what not-some impurities. Even chemically pure e fitrate of soda has only about 16 per cent of nitrogen in it. Then, ecause many users find it advantageous to have an organic, we put stin, say 250 pounds of tankage. As you know, that is the natural horganic material that is a by-product of the packing industry. That gives us, when you take that poundage and add it together, our neeessary 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 |