DennisLinkletter Posted July 1, 2019 Report Share Posted July 1, 2019 I'm looking for a way to increase the volume of my lump containers and reduce the price.. Those 10kg/22 LB boxes take up too much room in the containers. If I were to ship in commercial volume polypropylene bags, how heavy could they be? 20kg/44 Lbs or 30kg/ 66Lbs? This could bring the cost down. Maybe drop the PP bags into a paper bag to keep the dust in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckreef Posted July 1, 2019 Report Share Posted July 1, 2019 Most of the large lump bags are around 35 lbs. 44 lbs would be doable. 66 lbs is to heavy to be reasonably managed by the end user 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Pescador Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 Agree with @ckreef - 66lbs is too big/heavy for most folks. 44 is about the limit, I would think. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldsman Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 20 Kg I think would be perfect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucker Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 I also think the 44# bag would be ok. Fogo is 35#; it is packaged in what appears to be a cross breed of poly/paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonj Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 I agree with the others: 20 Kg is large enough. It's not just the weight in itself, it is trying to keep a grip on the weight in a paper or poly bag. When large (80-100 pounds) animal feed sacks were made with jute or hemp, they were much easier to handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M Posted July 2, 2019 Report Share Posted July 2, 2019 44 pounders would be great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tania Posted August 23, 2019 Report Share Posted August 23, 2019 No more than 44 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennisLinkletter Posted August 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2019 Is as 44 lbs box better/easier? Would protect the charcoal a bit better and can have some punch in holes for handles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgrant3406 Posted August 23, 2019 Report Share Posted August 23, 2019 I prefer the boxes as it is easier to store bulk amounts in the garage. I was wondering how I would be able to stack the bags easily as compared to the boxes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pequod Posted August 23, 2019 Report Share Posted August 23, 2019 Agree with @bgrant3406. Prefer boxes for stacking in the garage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony b Posted August 23, 2019 Report Share Posted August 23, 2019 I like the idea of handle/holes in the sides, too, for easier lifting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemisfits Posted August 25, 2019 Report Share Posted August 25, 2019 Agreed with the box Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckreef Posted August 25, 2019 Report Share Posted August 25, 2019 Boxes stack/store better but bags are easier to manage out at the kamado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony b Posted August 25, 2019 Report Share Posted August 25, 2019 While likely cost-prohibitive, I'm envisioning 22# bags, 2 per 44# box - best of both worlds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckreef Posted August 26, 2019 Report Share Posted August 26, 2019 23 hours ago, tony b said: While likely cost-prohibitive, I'm envisioning 22# bags, 2 per 44# box - best of both worlds! That would be the best scenario. I just received Eucalyptus lump like that. 2 bags in a box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
