ComplaintsforAgriTec

• Initial Complaint

  07/06/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We purchased fertilizer products from Agritec International Inc. in March 2022. We applied the products to our crop and saw no results. After further research and discussion with our Extension Service, we found that Agritec's products are completely ineffective and is sold on a fraudulent basis. Agritec International Inc. is using fake research data and is misleading consumers about the capabilities of their products. During the sales process we were pointed to research by Michigan St., Mississippi St., Texas A&M, and the USDA. After contacting each organization, I found that Michigan St., Texas A&M, and the USDA did not complete any research on Agritech's products. Mississippi St. did complete research, but their research does not match the data published by Agritec. Actual research data shows Agritec's products to be ineffective. Agritec is also posting fake product reviews. Cities in some reviews do not exist. They sold me a fertilizer product called Nitromaxx Plus, claiming that it would provide 90 units of Nitrogen to my crop with 4 gallons per acre applied. They submitted no fertilizer label prior to the sale, and none was available on their website. When the product was received, it had a label showing XX-X-X-X, or 20% Nitrogen/4% Calcium. This product was tested for a fertilizer analysis, and it did match the product label. With a product weight of 11 lbs./gallon, there are 2.2 units of Nitrogen per gallon. At the suggest rate of 4 gallons per acre, the actual rate per acre was 8.8 units of Nitrogen, which is less than 10% of their claimed 90 units of Nitrogen. They claim that their fertilizers are the most cost effective on the market. To get the desired rate, their cost would be 600% - 1000% more costly than other fertilizer products. See the Facebook page below for more information. I also have information that I have not published yet. https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=beware%20of%20agritec%20international

  

  Business response

  09/23/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/07/20) */ In regards to Mr. *******' claim that he was told that 4 gallons of our NitroMaxx+ product would supply the equivalent of 90 units of nitrogen, attached is the phone call Mr. ******* is referring to. He was not told that it would equal 90 units of nitrogen but that each gallon has the equivalency of 15 units of nitrogen per gallon of product. This appears at time 3:00 into the call. I believe Mr. *******' confusion comes from his claim on 4/1 that he had applied 6.5 gallons of product per acre at which point I would have mentioned that it would be the equivalency of 90 units of nitrogen that was applied. However, on 4/15 when Mr. ******* was speaking with a soil advisor of ours, ******** *******, Mr. ******* then stated that he applied 8 gallons of NitroMaxx per acre. In regards to Mr. *******' claim of false advertising, we do not advertise that the universities mentioned have tested our products. We do however reference and cite several University studies on foliar applied fertilizer vs granular applied fertilizer. Nowhere in any advertisement does it mention that these foliar testings involve our products. Additionally, all reviews collected by AgriTec are from customers that have used our products. We do not publish the customer's city only the state, we can pull any customer and their information with the review provided and can produce all forms and documentation necessary to verify authenticity. AgriTec does not offer any warranties of any kind because we are not there to oversee the application of the product, which is stated on the receipt of Mr. ******* order. That being said, AgriTec has done everything in our power to help the ******* with the issues that they have encountered including offering a full refund of products ordered, plant testing, soil testing, and additional product at no cost to the *******. Mr. ******* refused our offer for a full refund totaling the products ordered of $8450. Due to the inconsistent claims from Mr. ******* in regards to the application, as well as the soil and plant testing that was done, there is no way to prove that Mr. ******* applied the products correctly, or applied them at all. At this time, our offer to Mr. ******* still stands for a full refund of the products ordered. Due to Mr. *******' rejection of the offer for a refund, as well as his claims that he would be going after us legally, we have copied our legal team on this correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions. Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2022/07/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) 90 units of Nitrogen equivalency from 4 gallons was mentioned multiples times in conversation and never disputed until this response. I have this in email and text messages. The varied rates that Agritec refers to is that initially some acres received 4 gallons per acre at their recommendation, and I applied an additional 2.5 gallons to some acres. There was no difference in the acres that received 4 gpa and those that received 6.5 gpa. Later, after contacting Agritec about the lack of results, I was asked to apply a product called BioAct at a rate of 20oz per acre. After no results, they asked for some test plots on the applied acreage, one with an additional 3 gallons Nitromaxx and one with 2 gallons of Pro Cal. I actually applied 4 gpa to the test plot (rather than 3) and this plot was on acreage that already received 4 gpa on the initial application. So the varied rates are due to the request of Agritec, and there is no skewing of facts by me. These varied application rates were made clear during previous conversations, and again some at the request of Agritec. In the response, they mention 15 units of N per gallon. As tested, Nitromaxx is XX-X-X-X, or 20% Nitrogen. With a product weight of 11 gallons, only 2.2 units of Nitrogen are available per gallon of product. Far too low to be effective as a fertilizer application on a hay or grain crop. Application methods are said to be questioned by Agritec, but applying 4 gallons per acre of Nitromaxx+ (8.8 gallons of Nitrogen) would never give the advertised results in any application manner. This can be backed up with data by Extension and actual university research data. I will attach a screen shot of an ad where Agritec focuses on a study of Agritec products by Dr. Dodd and Miss. St, and I'll also attach an email response from Dr. Dodd. I'll also attach another ad that references a research project with USDA. USDA doesnt research these types of products. The refund was not accepted due to the requirement to sign a NDS stating that I would not disparage Agritec. I find it a great moral burden to not inform friends and other farmers of these practices. If I was seeking legal action, I would have hired a lawyer rather than contacting BBB, Texas Consumer Protection Agency, SC Consumer Protection Agency, and the FBI Internet Crimes Unit. This is a case of very similar issues to other businesses the FBI has gotten involved with. Much like companies that have sold get healthy quick products with fake reviews and false or misleading research data. Notice in the Fake review screen shot, the location of Fruitvail, Alabama. There is no Fruitvail, Alabama. As mentioned in the Agritec response, most reviews do not have locations, but even with those, names often can't be found in that state. The following two links are referencing Agritec's ProCal product. https://sites.udel.edu/weeklycropupdate/?p=7792 https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fagfax.com%2F2015%2F04%2F09%2Fbuying-effective-liquid-lime-and-avoiding-snake-oil%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0DioZAUR01c3xJ312rx8fi4N91iIVfo3NXK0z98KufggKlkRJ1DzgWzl4&h=AT1YnjcJsQOXAGIIoi3lkNfAl6UhCpBYb3LTtSPEqMnqE2aCiL9ar_AImj8tML3ODRnSIV4CusjYarKKUK37qQfhKAMpiu5swZ2rRpQ8YLP1nfVFPLpC9MIpTJeDugpehfMi&__tn__=-UK-R&c0=AT3-zyyEd5l3m5Thy6uGThSXM4FVaOPN_UymF4FMlFcqKPjHiZ-P1Rz68HxCA-SZPBIQTTaiXJtat90lUYvvvoG5H6MvY3MQxaf3uDRdB8jCbQakA-V7fAkFbmBDIU9k4oIp0twPpYgRmQv0jzg8k7-LylZYgIPPsx4 Here's the emailed response from Professor Dodd when I asked him about the Agritec Craigslist Ad included in the attachments: Mr. *******, Thank you for the note and I apologize for taking so long to get back with you. It took me a minute to dig the data out from these trials. What an interesting use of numbers. First and foremost let me say this, we conducted 4 trials for this company in three different locations here in Mississippi in 2016. In none of those trials were there any significant yield differences due to any treatment. What they are showing are averages which does not take into account variability in yield from different areas of the field. Once this is accounted for, none of these products provided any yield advantage or disadvantage. In location 1 we collected 137 data points. In four of those data points, the untreated was statistically better than the product advertised and in two data points, the advertised product provided better results than the untreated area. All of these points were micronutrient concentrations from samples collected. No differences in yield were present. In location 2 we collected 138 data points. In four of those data points, the untreated was statistically better than the product advertised and in one data point, the advertised product provided better results than the untreated area. All of these points were micronutrient concentrations from samples collected. No differences in yield were present. In location 3 we collected 141 data points. In two of those data points, the untreated was statistically better than the product advertised and in two data points, the advertised product provided better results than the untreated area. All of these points were micronutrient concentrations from samples collected. No differences in yield were present. In location 4 we collected 141 data points. In three of those data points, the untreated was statistically better than the product advertised and in two data points, the advertised product provided better results than the untreated area. All of these points were micronutrient concentrations from samples collected. No differences in yield were present. In summary, we collected a total of 557 data points and in 20 of those data points (3.6% of the total data points) - we saw differences. However, 13 of the 20 data points, the untreated was better than the product applied. In no situation did we see any effect on yield from product application. It is not uncommon for folks to do these kind of things with averages and downplay the role of statistics. However, this is a prime example of why statistics are important. If I can provide further information, please let me know. Darrin Dodds Professor and Head Mississippi State University Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences 32 Creelman Street; Box 9555 Mississippi State, MS XXXXX Office: XXX-XXX-XXXX Cell: XXX-XXX-XXXX Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2022/07/27) */ It appears there was confusion on the part of Darrin Dodds as mentioned in the email supplied by ***** *******. I reached out to Mr. Dodds and expressed that agritec had never worked with Mississippi State before and he let me know that it was a mistkae due to a similar business name. His reply is listed below: ****, Good to speak with you yesterday. Per our conversation, the company we conducted work for in 2016 was Concept AgriTek. Below is the screen shot that I was sent by Mr. *******. I stand by the comments sent to Mr. ******* regarding the Concept AgriTek data; however, based on our conversation this is not your company and we have not conducted any product testing for your company. Regarding product claims from your products, those would be beyond any research we conducted and we have no basis from which to speak. Also, you indicated you or someone from your company had been reaching out to the University of Mississippi regarding product testing for over a year and a half. The University of Mississippi is not the land grant institution and does not conduct agricultural research. Mississippi State University is a land grant institution in routinely conducts agricultural research. If you will let me know who you reached out to, I can discuss the lack of response to your interest in research. Please let me know if I can assist further. From: ***** ******* <*****@assuredag.com> Sent: Thursday, June 2, XXXX X:XX PM To: Dodds, Darrin <*****@msstate.edu> Subject: Liquid Calcium Products Mr. Dodd, Where can I find more information on the study mentioned in the attached picture? ***** ******* Crop Insurance Agent AssuredAg LLC Image removed by sender. XXX-XXX-XXXX Image removed by sender. *****@assuredag.com AssuredAg is an equal opportunity provider Darrin Dodds Professor and Head Mississippi State University Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 32 Creelman Street Box 9555 Mississippi State, MS XXXXX Office Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2022/07/28) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) It would appear that the confusion actually lies with Agritec. It was Agritec's use of what Agritec referred to as "research data" in an Craigslist advertisement that led me to contacting Darrin Dodds at Mississippi State. A screen shot of the Craigslist advertisement was attached to the compliant file. The advertisement showed a graph of data trying to prove an increase in cotton yield by using ProCal, which is a Agritec products and one of the products that I purchased and have a complaint with. In the Agritec advertisement, under the graph, it shows Waypoint Analytical Services Research Professor Darrin Dodd MS. State University. In the response by ****, it says "Also, you indicated you or someone from your company had been reaching out to the University of Mississippi regarding product testing for over a year and a half. The University of Mississippi is not the land grant institution and does not conduct agricultural research. Mississippi State University is a land grant institution in routinely conducts agricultural research. If you will let me know who you reached out to, I can discuss the lack of response to your interest in research." Mr. Dodds is a professor and Head of Mississippi State University Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences as indicated by his email signature. This was his response when asked about the research being Agritec initiated (copied from Outlook email with original question from me, can supply Outlook data file of entire conversation): Yes sir. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2022, at 1:04 PM, ***** ******* <*****@assuredag.com> wrote: Sorry, I forgot to ask. Was your study done at the request of the company? ***** ******* Crop Insurance Agent AssuredAg LLC XXX-XXX-XXXX *****@assuredag.com I will once again attach the Craigslist advertisement that brings this "research" into question. Again, this is a Agritec advertisement which shows that the research was foe Agritec's ProCal product. Not to sound condescending, but does Concept AgriTek also have a product labeled as ProCal and utilize Agritec's label in their advertisements? Or does Concept AgriTek submit advertisements on behalf of AgriTek? Or is Agritec use Concept Agritek's data in Agritec ProCal product advertisements? Something doesn't add up with the response and I will once again reach out to Professor Dodds with Miss. St. about the response. Even if there is confusion by Mr. Dodds, it doesn't explain Agritec's use of Darrin Dodds "research" data. I look forward to an explanation from **** with Agritec. Also, there are numerous other similar advertisements with "research" data from other universities. Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2022/07/29) */ I believe there is some confusion qith regards to the graph. The trial that Darren Dodds ran that had no success was not a trial with Agritec Internationals Products, rather with a company called Concept Agritek. That triel data shared in the email and the graph represented as best as I know are two separate topics. As can be seen in the graph published with permission by the researcher the product in question did show positive increase in yield. Secondarily the quoted text you refer to was written by Darren Dodds, not by myself. I think you are picking up on some email confusion regarding University of Mississippi and Mississippi State University, not a claim that Darren Dodds is not who he says he is. Mr. Dodds was simply clarify that any further research that Agritec plans to do, which we do continued research with many Universities and Mississippi State is one of those, should be conducted through Mississippi State not University of Mississippi. Thank you Consumer Response /* (4200, 20, 2022/08/01) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The response continues to get muddier. There is an Agritec advertisement with a graph referring to a Darrin Dodd research project on Agritec's ProCal. In the previous response by Agritec there was a claim to not have worked with Darrin Dodd for any research projects. Here's the quoted response from Agritec: " I reached out to Mr. Dodds and expressed that agritec had never worked with Mississippi State before and he let me know that it was a mistkae due to a similar business name. His reply is listed below:" The trial that Darren Dodds ran that had no success was not a trial with Agritec Internationals Products, rather with a company called Concept Agritek. That triel data shared in the email and the graph represented as best as I know are two separate topics. As can be seen in the graph published with permission by the researcher the product in question did show positive increase in yield." If Agritec is now claiming that the graph in their ad comes from a successful research trial by Darrin Dodd, then they would be aware that he works for Miss. St. and would not have claimed to never worked with him for past research. However, in this response, Agritec seems to claim to have worked with Darrin Dodd in a successful research project and not have worked with Darrin Dodd on a project. This comes despite the previous comment, quoted above and seen in the discussion below, to have never worked with Darrin Dodd. This also comes after a followup conversation between myself and Darrin Dodd, where Mr. Dodd admits to not have worked with Agritec. Just keep in mind the graph in the Agritec advertisement referencing the Darrin Dodd research on Agritec's ProCal. Now in two separate comments, Agritec claims to never have worked with Miss St and Darrin Dodd, and then follows it up saying that Agritec has had a successful project with Darrin Dodd/Miss. State, or to quote the response exactly, "As can be seen in the graph published with permission by the researcher the product in question did show positive increase in yield. Secondarily the quoted text you refer to was written by Darren Dodds, not by myself. I think you are picking up on some email confusion regarding University of Mississippi and Mississippi State University, not a claim that Darren Dodds is not who he says he is. Mr. Dodds was simply clarify that any further research that Agritec plans to do, which we do continued research with many Universities and Mississippi State is one of those, should be conducted through Mississippi State not University of Mississippi." These past responses have been quite confusing; however, they have led to a huge insight into the false and misleading claims by Agritec. Mr. Dodd has clarified for me that the research project was not with Concept Agritek. After conversations with myself and Mr. *******, Mr. Dodd was able to dig into his files from the 2016 (same year documented on the ProCal ad) research project and determined that the research was actually completed for another company, which I will not name at this time. Consumer Response /* (3000, 28, 2022/08/11) */ I have only been dealing with Samsung because not sure where my phone is. This is a picture of the mailing label Samsung gave UPS to ship, but sounds like my phone may actually be in Irving Texas at that place you referenced. I called Samsung yesterday the first person I talked to said their records show the payment for repair was made July 29. Call was then disconnected. When I called back the 2nd person said their records showed the payment for repair was made on July 13!!!! Two different stories in a matter of 5 min. Then I called my credit card and no payment was ever made to Samsung! I had had it with Samsung and I told them I want my phone back immediately, fixed or not, and that I wanted it shipped overnight just like it was shipped down there. I sent my phone down there for a simple software update under warranty 5 weeks ago and they wanted me to pay what I consider a bogus repair bill for $107 for liquid on the connectors. I feel that Samsung and their repair shops should really be criminally investigated for deceptive practices. I know I'm not the only one this has happened to.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩