Fertiliser quality survey reveals wide variations
Independent analysis of 24 commercially available fertilizer blends has exposed sizeable inconsistencies in quality, spreadability and storeability. Of greatest concern was that 14 of them were found to have failed to meet the legal declaration, in accordance with the Fertilizer Regulations.
The survey, initiated and sponsored by Hydro Agri, also revealed that nearly half the bags sampled were underweight – by an average of 4 kgs and by as much as 13 kgs.
In addition, two products were sourced to investigate segregation in the hopper during the application process. Independent spreader specialists Spreader Calibration Services (SCS) were contracted to undertake the spreading work, using typical arable and grassland practices.
“We last carried out a similar survey five years ago,” explains Hydro Marketing Manager Rosie Carne, “and we were dismayed this time to find little change in the number of poor quality blends being sourced and supplied to farmers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
“With legislation and crop protocols increasingly looking for ‘crop need’ to justify some fertilizer applications, it is essential that farmers are able to rely on the stated analysis of the products purchased.”
The competitor blends were purchased in big bags – four of each, from six tonne minimum consignments. SGS United Kingdom Ltd were employed to oversee the sampling process and prepare samples for submission to a reputable Public Analyst for nutrient analysis. They were also asked to make comments based on a visual appraisal of the products under analysis
The headline results, published in more detail in the enclosed leaflet, were:-
• 58 per cent of the printed declarations were unreliable and failed to meet the legal declaration. One sample of 20-10-10, for example, was analysed to be 12-15-21.5 and another as 19.5-5.6-8.5 – which was also £8.90 over-priced!
• 63 per cent had lumps, some as large as footballs, severely compromising spreadability.
• 92 per cent were stored in bags with insufficient liner thickness for non-spherical blends, threatening storage problems.
• Several samples used DAP as the phosphate source, which has a high tendency to cake and is therefore not recommended by Hydro in blending.
• The spreading work found segregation to be responsible for losses of up £39/ha in sugar beet and as much as £19/ha in grass dry matter yield.
“Hydro formulates to the declaration and not the tolerances,” states Ms Carne, “which is why we declare our Hydro Specification Guarantee and say ‘with Hydro, what’s on the bag is in the bag.’ It would appear not to be the case with some manufacturers.”
Full details of survey are contained in the enclosed booklet, ‘Uniquely, Unequivocally, Unreservedly Guaranteed.’
