[sneeky]

pioneer, viterra, and cps are upwards of 45 - 60 mins away making it more than inconvenient at seeding. maybe time to get better on farm storage.

Sorry, not having a dig here, but this sort of thing always makes me have a little giggle. Our fert comes from about 400kms away (minimum),

 

[Big Cob]

We weigh our fertilizer in and out on our truck scale,
I looked back in the records and we run 0.697% loss on urea and 0.536% loss on MAP and .394% loss on UAN. This would be stored anywhere from 2 months to 10 months.

We store our UAN in old SS highway tankers and some plastic tanks.
Our dry is now in a comodity shed , but used to be in bins, the shed lets us deal with the hard chunks caused by the humidity a lot easier.

There is some shrink for sure , I presume the dry shrink is from dust blowing off when handling , and the liquid shrink being evapouration. I know we have a little loss from handleing but we try to keep the spills to a minimum.
I would imagine the deallers have just added the shrink behind the scenes and didn't let you know about it before now or they just finished a coffee and realized that they are delivering slightly less product than what they brought in and are calling it shrink.

Not defending them in anyway but the thread got me thinking about our fertilizer losses "SHRINK" so I looked up our #'s

 

[Alberta Pioneer]

We weigh our fertilizer in and out on our truck scale,
I looked back in the records and we run 0.697% loss on urea and 0.536% loss on MAP and .394% loss on UAN. This would be stored anywhere from 2 months to 10 months.

We store our UAN in old SS highway tankers and some plastic tanks.
Our dry is now in a comodity shed , but used to be in bins, the shed lets us deal with the hard chunks caused by the humidity a lot easier.

There is some shrink for sure , I presume the dry shrink is from dust blowing off when handling , and the liquid shrink being evapouration. I know we have a little loss from handleing but we try to keep the spills to a minimum.
I would imagine the deallers have just added the shrink behind the scenes and didn't let you know about it before now or they just finished a coffee and realized that they are delivering slightly less product than what they brought in and are calling it shrink.

Not defending them in anyway but the thread got me thinking about our fertilizer losses "SHRINK" so I looked up our #'s

Not to be a smart ass, but was that considering the fuel in the tanks too? Good to see that you're keeping track, just one more thing we can do to make sure we're actually gaining from storing and such.

Bruce

 

[andy8570]

Isn't the real point here that dealers are starting to charge for shrinkage. I don't think that there was no shrinkage 2 years ago. If they want to prevent shrinkage, maybe the should store the product better to prevent shrinkage.

 

[Don Boles]

We weigh our fertilizer in and out on our truck scale, I looked back in the records and we run 0.697% loss on urea and 0.536% loss on MAP and .394% loss on UAN. This would be stored anywhere from 2 months to 10 months.

Wonder how many here could or would measure shrink?
I'd say less than the % shrink Cob got.

Don

 

[andy8570]

To accurately measure it, you would have to weigh the tank/bin when filled and again before you start pumping anything out of it. Otherwise there is too many variables and errors in weighing

 

[Big Cob]

Bruce
Fuel can definitely change your net weight on a truck scale.
Our fertilizer is usally brought in by commercial truckers direct from a Port or Manufacturer.
Going out it is into our spreader or tender.
Incoming fuel would be about 15-20 mins of idleing and out going would be 10-15 min of idleing between the gross and tare weighs.
Our scale is Canadian Weights and Measures Certified.
I would think it's fairly close because I went back to year 2000.

But it does go to show that if buying ahead of time a person should add a little to their cost to cover "shrink".

 

[Alberta Pioneer]

Bruce
Fuel can definitely change your net weight on a truck scale.
Our fertilizer is usally brought in by commercial truckers direct from a Port or Manufacturer.
Going out it is into our spreader or tender.
Incoming fuel would be about 15-20 mins of idleing and out going would be 10-15 min of idleing between the gross and tare weighs.
Our scale is Canadian Weights and Measures Certified.
I would think it's fairly close because I went back to year 2000.

But it does go to show that if buying ahead of time a person should add a little to their cost to cover "shrink".

Are you moving enough that changes in fuel weight would have been negibible? I thought you were truck in, weigh, into bin, the truck out in the spring - thinking if there was half a tank difference or whatnot, it might have an effect.

In hindsight, it wouldn't matter - you have to tare each load anyways.

Bruce

 

[4777aggi]

Jackaroo:

I have been in the fertilizer industry for many years and we do use shrink as a part of our cost, no different than demurrage, storage cost, or freight. Billing as a line item however, is a different approach. The rediculously high cost of fertilizer is probably tempting your local retailer to try and recapture some of that cost. The standard Industry shrink percents are as follows:
46-0-0 = 1.5%
21-0-0 = 1%
32-0-0 = .5%
10-34-0 = 1.5%
DAP/MAP = 1%
0-0-60 = 1%
Nh3 = 2%
The location in the U.S. will allow some adjustments to those numbers, but if your dealer is handling fertilizer in a humid climate and storing for many months, the losses will occurr.
The high prices are not good for growers or retailers. We have lower natural gas and the monopolies are putting it to everyone while pushing their stock prices in orbit. UAN has a cost of $80 bucks and urea $140. We need production owned and controled by farmers - once Farmland sold all their assets, the prices have ended higher almost every year. I believe in making a fair profit, but not raping my customer - in the end, my survival is based on his success and if you forget that in this industry.....your toast!

Best of luck!

 

[bud]

Its called marketing. Your dealer is trying to offer you a lower up front cost than the competition and then adding back the shrink cost, instead of offering you a higher up front cost and no shrink.

Just a different way to market the same thing. For most stores, we are attracted to the lower initial price in the advertising or sign than we would be to the higher all in price.

 

[Don Boles]

Are your dealers doing that bud?
They're not up here, not to me anyway, I'd never heard of it until here.

Don

SP

 

[matt2]

Having blended thousands of tonnes of fert previously working at a retailer, shrinkage is a reality for all retails. Shrink will obviously vary between different plants depending on handling techniques. Condition of fertilizer from the manufacturer will also affect shrinkage (dust content.)

2% is probably a realistic estimation. In some cases it will be lower and in some cases it may be higher. The retailer will need to take it into consideration. 5000 tonnes throughput @ 2% loss, 100tonnes is a large loss. Whether you see the charge or not it has been looked at. It's just not smart business sense to ignore a large number like that, whether they show you or not. They are just showing you their cards and breaking the price down, like Bud said showing an attractive price but showing the additional costs. Don't take it as a sign of gouging, shrink is a loss they face.

 

[Don Boles]

Well yeah Matt, but it's the equivalent of a farmer charging more for his canola because it may have shattered a bit in the field.
No can do, it's just a cost of doing business.
I also don't think most farmers appreciate being nickle and dimed when they're buying a product that's 3+ times over priced as pointed out by 4777aggi.
Not shooting the messenger here, I realize it's not the front line guys fault.

Don

 

[matt2]

Yes, it's the cost of doing business I agree Don. Is it overpriced? Absolutely. I'm a beginning farmer and agree with you and share your thoughts. But I don't see it as being nickle and dimed. If the retailer is not charging for storage, what incentive do they have to offer storage rather than just sent the product to your bins right from the plant. They need recover the cost for them to store it somewhere, whether you see the cost of shrink or not.

I put a value on being able to pre-buy my fertilizer, while being allowed to pick it up in the spring allowing for field specific blends. If the cheapest price is the priority than on-farm storage is there and you wouldn't deal with the charges jakaroo is talking about anyways.

 

[stubblejumper]

If it's stored in your bins then you won't see the charges but you'll still see the effects. It'll just be happening in your storage rather than the dealers storage. So, I suppose I see your point but it still burns. The farmer get's all of the extra expenses passed on to them but has no means of passing any back. As you said Don, charging the grain companies for any shrink we may incur between the field and the scale will never happen. I suppose that's just how it is when you're the producer of a raw commodity.

The acronym BOHICA comes to mind.

 

[garyfunk]

"I put a value on being able to pre-buy my fertilizer, while being allowed to pick it up in the spring allowing for field specific blends. If the cheapest price is the priority than on-farm storage is there"
You're right Matt. My retailer gives me X price for stored fertilizer and Y price for picked up. The difference, I presume, is for their storage facility and any other costs incurred with storage(including shrink). Then I have to weigh the pros and cons to each and decide for myself. But if he came up with an add on fee for shrink after the fact (my retailer wouldn't) I would not like it one bit.