A 95 % Volume Swing from Peak to Trough (Dec 2024 – Nov 2025): Navigating Supply Shocks and Pricing Compression in the Global Ammonium Sulfate Trade

Global ammonium sulfate trade experienced extreme fluctuations between December 2024 and November 2025, with monthly shipment weight falling by 95.7% from its October peak to the November trough.

According to ECHEMI trade data, the market recorded 3,819 transactions, covering approximately 1.67 billion kg of ammonium sulfate, 428.59 million reported units and USD 437.24 million in transaction value during the 12-month period.

The data points to a market defined by concentrated supply releases, substantial price volatility and significant differences between bulk and packaged trade flows. October, February and January together represented more than half of the total traded weight, while November contributed less than 1%.

For buyers, the findings highlight the importance of identifying low-price procurement windows, securing logistics capacity ahead of shipment surges and avoiding excessive dependence on a single sourcing period. For suppliers, periods of restricted availability may provide stronger pricing opportunities, although product grade, destination, packaging and freight conditions must also be considered.

Key Findings

Several major patterns emerged from the trade data:

Supply was highly concentrated. October 2025 recorded the largest monthly weight at 308.19 million kg, followed by February at 269.40 million kg and January at 262.31 million kg. These three months accounted for 50.31% of total traded weight.

The market experienced a sharp month-to-month contraction. After reaching its annual high in October, shipment weight dropped to only 13.17 million kg in November, representing a 95.7% decline from the previous month’s peak.

Weight-based prices generally weakened during high-volume periods. The lowest monthly price, approximately USD 0.10/kg, was recorded in March 2025. By comparison, December 2024 recorded an unusually high average of USD 1.82/kg.

Transaction value was not determined by volume alone. December generated the highest monthly value despite representing only 3.22% of total weight. Its higher unit price pushed monthly transaction value to USD 97.68 million.

Trade frequency was more stable than shipment volume. The number of monthly transactions fluctuated less dramatically than weight, value or price, suggesting that underlying buying and selling activity continued even when shipment sizes changed substantially.

Weight and reported quantity did not move in parallel. This divergence indicates that package sizes, shipment structures, grades and reporting units differed considerably between transactions.

Market Overview

Ammonium sulfate is widely used as a nitrogen and sulfur fertilizer, particularly for crops that benefit from sulfur supplementation. It is also used in industrial applications, including chemical processing, fermentation, water treatment and certain pharmaceutical or food-processing operations.

Because ammonium sulfate is primarily traded as a bulk commodity, market performance is affected by several interconnected factors:

• Agricultural planting and fertilizer application cycles
• Availability of caprolactam and other industrial by-product supply
• Operating rates at production facilities
• Export controls and customs policies
• Regional inventory levels
• Port and vessel availability
• Energy, ammonia and sulfur-related production costs
• Product grade and particle specification
• Packaging and delivery format

During the period from December 2024 to November 2025, ECHEMI trade data recorded the following totals:

Overall Trade Data

The weighted average of approximately USD 0.26/kg reflects the commodity nature of the market. However, monthly averages varied dramatically, showing that the overall figure should not be treated as a universal market benchmark.

Product grade, origin, destination, shipment size, packaging, payment terms and freight allocation can all create substantial differences between individual transactions.

Monthly Trade Weight: Supply Peaks and Sudden Contractions

Monthly weight provides the clearest indication of changes in physical trade flow.

January and February Created the First Major Supply Wave

Trade weight rose from 53.77 million kg in December 2024 to 262.31 million kg in January 2025, an increase of nearly four times within one month.

The expansion continued in February, when volume reached 269.40 million kg. January and February together represented 31.85% of total weight for the entire period.

This early-year concentration may be associated with fertilizer procurement cycles, inventory replenishment and the scheduling of bulk export cargoes. It also indicates that buyers relying heavily on early-year supply may face significant exposure to freight congestion and supplier allocation.

March and April Marked a Lower-Price Plateau

Following the February peak, trade weight fell to 112.59 million kg in March and 110.63 million kg in April.

Although volumes were considerably lower than in January and February, they remained sufficient to support active trade. More importantly for procurement teams, March and April were accompanied by some of the lowest weight-based prices in the dataset.

The combination of moderate availability and compressed prices made this period one of the more attractive purchasing windows.

May and June Showed Relative Stability

Trade weight stabilized at approximately 139 million kg in both May and June.

This was one of the least volatile periods in the dataset. However, the reported number of units was particularly high in June, suggesting that transaction structures or package sizes differed from those seen in bulk-dominated months such as February and October.

For suppliers, this period may represent a more diversified market involving a wider range of shipment formats. For buyers, it underlines the need to compare offers on a consistent delivered-weight basis.

July Experienced the First Major Contraction

July volume dropped to 30.64 million kg, representing only 1.84% of total traded weight.

The contraction was substantial compared with May and June, but it was not accompanied by a complete collapse in transaction activity. A total of 296 trades were still recorded in July.

This suggests that the market remained active, but individual transactions were considerably smaller. The average weight per trade fell to approximately 103,510 kg, the lowest level of the period.

September and October Produced the Largest Supply Surge

Trade weight recovered to 159.40 million kg in September before reaching a period high of 308.19 million kg in October.

October alone accounted for 18.46% of total weight, making it the most important shipment month in the dataset.

The average weight per transaction also exceeded 1.04 million kg, indicating that October was dominated by significantly larger cargoes rather than a sharp increase in transaction frequency.

This type of supply pulse can create favorable conditions for high-volume buyers seeking price concessions. However, it can also generate operational pressure across ports, warehouses, inland transport networks and storage facilities.

November Recorded a 95.7% Peak-to-Trough Decline

Immediately after the October high, trade weight fell to 13.17 million kg in November.

November represented only 0.79% of the total traded weight and recorded just 123 transactions, the lowest monthly trade count in the dataset.

The timing of the decline suggests an abrupt interruption rather than a gradual seasonal slowdown. Possible explanations may include the completion of large October cargoes, lower reported activity, production maintenance, inventory exhaustion or changes in export availability.

Without more detailed origin, destination and producer-level data, the exact driver cannot be confirmed. Nevertheless, the scale of the contraction demonstrates the inventory risk faced by buyers who depend on spot purchasing.

Weight Concentration Ranking

The ranking of monthly trade weight further illustrates how strongly the market was concentrated.

The top three months accounted for 50.31% of total weight, while the bottom three contributed only 5.85%.

For logistics providers and bulk terminal operators, this concentration means that annual capacity planning cannot be based on average monthly volume. Infrastructure must be capable of handling short periods of exceptionally high throughput.

Quantity Analysis: Packaging and Shipment Structure Matter

Reported quantity reached 428.59 million units during the period. However, quantity did not follow the same pattern as physical weight.

June recorded the largest quantity at 62.49 million units, even though it ranked only sixth by weight. By comparison, February carried the second-largest weight but represented only 4.05% of total quantity.

This difference indicates that the definition or physical size of a reported unit varied substantially across transactions.

February’s ratio of weight to reported quantity was considerably higher than in June, meaning each reported unit represented more physical material on average. Consequently, February’s high quantity-based price should not automatically be interpreted as a premium for smaller packages.

The reported quantity metric may reflect bags, lots, packages, shipment units or other commercial units depending on the original declaration. It should therefore be evaluated together with weight rather than used as an independent pricing benchmark.

Weight and Quantity Correlation Was Only Moderate

The correlation between weight and reported quantity was approximately 0.46.

This means that months with greater weight generally recorded more units, but the relationship was far from proportional.

The divergence may be influenced by:

• Bulk versus packaged shipments
• Differences in bag size
• Containerized versus break-bulk cargoes
• Variation in product grade
• Differences in customs reporting practices
• Consolidation of multiple packages into a single commercial unit

For procurement teams, this reinforces the importance of standardizing supplier quotations. Offers should be compared using price per metric tonne, delivered cost, specification, packaging and payment terms rather than package count alone.

Transaction Value: Price Mix Outweighed Volume in Key Months

Total transaction value reached USD 437.24 million.

December Generated the Highest Value Despite Limited Weight

December 2024 accounted for only 3.22% of total weight, but generated 22.35% of total transaction value.

The imbalance resulted from an unusually high monthly average price of approximately USD 1.82/kg, compared with the 12-month weighted average of USD 0.26/kg.

December’s price was also far above the levels recorded in most other months. This suggests that the month may have contained a different combination of grades, origins, destinations, freight terms or high-value transactions.

The December figure should therefore not automatically be treated as a benchmark for standard fertilizer-grade ammonium sulfate.

October’s Value Share Lagged Behind Its Weight Share

October represented 18.46% of total weight, but only 12.36% of total value.

This gap illustrates the effect of price compression during a large supply release. The monthly weight-based price averaged approximately USD 0.18/kg, below the overall weighted average.

For buyers, October provided access to substantial volume and potentially greater negotiating leverage. For suppliers, the same conditions may have weakened margins unless lower pricing was offset by larger cargo sizes and reduced handling costs.

March Recorded the Lowest Weight-Based Price

March generated only USD 11.09 million in value despite more than 112 million kg of trade weight.

The average price fell to approximately USD 0.10/kg, the lowest level in the dataset.

This made March a potentially attractive procurement window for buyers able to secure storage capacity and manage the risk of further price weakness.

Trade Count and Transaction Efficiency

Trade count helps distinguish changes in market participation from changes in cargo size.

Transaction Frequency Remained Comparatively Resilient

Monthly trade counts ranged from 123 to 468, a much narrower fluctuation than the movement in weight or value.

February recorded the highest trade count at 468, while November recorded the lowest at 123.

The data suggests that market participation remained active during most of the year, even when total shipment weight declined. Changes in physical volume were therefore driven partly by differences in average cargo size rather than only by the number of transactions.

October Was Dominated by Large Cargoes

October recorded 296 trades, the same number as July. However, October’s average weight per transaction exceeded 1.04 million kg, compared with only 103,510 kg in July.

This tenfold difference shows how misleading trade count can be when viewed without cargo size.

October was characterized by fewer but substantially larger cargoes, increasing the importance of vessel scheduling, terminal handling, storage and working-capital management.

December Produced the Highest Value per Trade

December’s average transaction value reached approximately USD 215,646, the highest of the period.

However, average weight per transaction was relatively low at approximately 118,687 kg. The result again reflects December’s exceptional price level rather than unusually large shipments.

Unit Price Analysis

Weight-based and quantity-based price indicators displayed substantial volatility.

Weight-Based Prices Fell Sharply After December

The weight-based price declined from USD 1.82/kg in December 2024 to USD 0.30/kg in January 2025, before falling further to USD 0.10/kg in March.

Prices subsequently stabilized within a narrower range of approximately USD 0.17–0.20/kg between April and June.

July recorded a temporary increase to USD 0.29/kg, followed by another period near USD 0.20/kg from August through October.

November’s price rose to USD 0.37/kg as shipment weight collapsed.

The overall pattern supports a moderate inverse relationship between trade weight and price. The correlation between weight and weight-based unit price was approximately -0.31.

However, volume was not the only pricing factor. December’s exceptional price indicates that product mix, geography, specification and trade terms also had a major influence.

Quantity-Based Prices Reflected Changes in Reported Unit Structure

The quantity-based price peaked at USD 3.72 per reported unit in February, followed by December at USD 2.41 and July at USD 1.55.

November recorded the lowest quantity-based price at USD 0.27 per unit, even though its weight-based price was relatively high.

This apparent contradiction results from differences in the relationship between weight and reported quantity. It demonstrates why quantity-based price should not be interpreted without knowing the physical definition of each unit.

For reliable purchasing comparisons, weight-based delivered cost remains the more consistent benchmark.

Volatility Analysis

The coefficient of variation measures the size of fluctuations relative to the average. A higher coefficient indicates greater volatility.

The weight-based price was the most volatile metric, with a coefficient of variation of approximately 1.32. Its standard deviation exceeded its mean, largely because of the December price anomaly.

Transaction value and quantity-based price also showed high volatility, with coefficients of approximately 0.83 and 0.85, respectively.

Trade count was the most stable metric, with a coefficient of approximately 0.30. This indicates that transaction frequency changed less dramatically than cargo size or transaction value.

The results suggest that the greatest commercial risks were linked to:

• Price exposure
• Cargo-size variation
• Timing of large supply releases
• Product and destination mix
• Inventory valuation

Correlation Analysis

The relationship among weight, quantity, value, trade count and unit price provides additional insight into how the market operated.

Value Had a Strong Relationship with Trade Count

Transaction value and trade count recorded a correlation of approximately 0.79.

Months with more trades generally produced greater value, although December demonstrates that a high average price can generate exceptional value even when physical weight is limited.

Value Was Positively Correlated with Both Price Measures

The correlation between value and each unit-price measure was approximately 0.64.

This indicates that price mix played an important role in determining total market value. Suppliers selling higher-value grades or serving premium destinations could generate substantial revenue without leading the market in physical volume.

Higher Weight Tended to Pressure Weight-Based Prices

Weight and weight-based price recorded a negative correlation of approximately -0.31.

The relationship was not strong enough to imply that volume alone determined price, but it supports the general pattern of price compression during periods of greater availability.

Weight and Quantity Were Not Interchangeable

The correlation of 0.46 between weight and quantity confirms that these indicators moved together only moderately.

Any comparison based on reported unit count must therefore account for differences in physical size, packaging and reporting method.

Seasonal Trade Pattern

The dataset reveals two major supply waves.

The first occurred in January and February, when trade weight rose above 260 million kg in each month.

The second began in September and peaked in October, when weight exceeded 308 million kg.

Between these periods, March through June formed a relatively stable mid-year trading range. July then recorded a sharp contraction, followed by recovery in August and September.

November’s collapse was more severe than the July decline and immediately followed the largest shipment month.

Early-Year Pattern

The January–February supply wave may reflect inventory restocking and fertilizer demand preparation ahead of major planting periods.

Prices were substantially lower than in December but remained above the March low.

For procurement teams, this period combined strong availability with moderate pricing, although the exact attractiveness of offers would depend on freight and destination.

Mid-Year Pattern

March through June presented lower and more stable weight-based prices.

March and April offered the lowest weight-based procurement costs in the dataset, while May and June recorded higher quantities and relatively stable physical weight.

This period may be suitable for staged purchasing, particularly for buyers with available storage capacity.

Autumn Pattern

Trade weight began to accelerate in September before reaching the October peak.

The autumn surge created the largest bulk purchasing window of the year, but price compression reduced suppliers’ value share relative to physical weight.

November then experienced an abrupt reduction in trade activity, demonstrating the risk of assuming that a high-volume month will be followed by continued availability.

Key Risks for Market Participants

1. Supply and Inventory Risk

The 95.7% peak-to-trough decline shows that supply availability can change dramatically within a short period.

Buyers operating with minimal inventories may be exposed to shortages, delayed shipments or stronger supplier pricing when trade flows contract.

Maintaining staggered procurement schedules and safety stocks can reduce dependence on individual supply windows.

2. Price Risk

Weight-based prices ranged from approximately USD 0.10/kg to USD 1.82/kg, while quantity-based prices ranged from USD 0.27 to USD 3.72 per reported unit.

Such variation complicates budgeting, inventory valuation and margin management.

Long-term agreements, formula-based pricing and diversified purchasing periods may provide more stability than exclusive reliance on spot transactions.

3. Product-Mix Risk

The exceptional December price suggests that monthly averages may be heavily influenced by changes in grade, specification, origin or destination.

A market participant comparing only monthly averages could mistakenly interpret product-mix changes as a movement in the benchmark fertilizer-grade market.

Transactions should be segmented by:

• Product grade
• Nitrogen content
• Crystal or granular form
• Moisture level
• Origin
• Destination
• Incoterm
• Shipment size
• Packaging
• Freight inclusion

4. Packaging and Reporting Risk

The weak alignment between weight and quantity indicates that a reported unit did not represent a consistent amount of product across the dataset.

Contracts and supplier comparisons should therefore specify both physical weight and packaging structure.

5. Logistics Risk

October’s average shipment weight exceeded one million kg per trade.

Large cargo periods can create pressure on vessel space, port handling, warehousing and inland distribution. Buyers should secure logistics capacity before high-volume windows rather than after cargoes have already been allocated.

6. Liquidity and Counterparty Risk

Trade counts remained comparatively stable for most of the period, but fell to only 123 in November.

Reduced participation may limit the number of available counterparties and make it more difficult to execute large spot purchases.

Supplier diversification and credit assessment remain important, particularly during low-liquidity periods.

7. Regulatory and Trade Policy Risk

Ammonium sulfate flows can be affected by fertilizer policy, environmental controls, customs classifications, antidumping measures and export administration.

Because the dataset does not identify the exact cause of the October–November contraction, market participants should monitor policy announcements alongside physical trade data.

Commercial Opportunity MappingLow-Cost Procurement in March and April

March recorded the lowest weight-based price at USD 0.10/kg, while April remained relatively low at USD 0.17/kg.

Buyers with sufficient storage capacity may use similar low-price periods to build inventory and reduce average procurement cost.

However, purchasing decisions should also consider storage expenses, financing costs, product stability and the possibility of further price declines.

Volume Negotiation During October-Type Supply Surges

October combined the largest physical volume with a relatively low weight-based price of approximately USD 0.18/kg.

High-volume buyers may gain stronger bargaining power during comparable supply surges, particularly when suppliers need to clear inventory or complete large export programs.

The potential savings must be weighed against logistics congestion and storage requirements.

Premium Selling Opportunities During Restricted Supply

December generated the highest weight-based price, while November recorded a price increase as physical weight collapsed.

Suppliers holding available inventory may obtain stronger margins during periods of restricted supply.

Nevertheless, the exceptional December figure may also reflect higher-value grades or destinations. Suppliers should distinguish between a broad market increase and a change in transaction mix before setting sales targets.

Packaged and Smaller-Lot Opportunities

June recorded the highest reported quantity but only moderate weight, suggesting more fragmented shipment structures than in February or October.

Distributors serving smaller agricultural buyers, local dealers or industrial users may find stronger opportunities in periods when trade is spread across a larger number of reported units.

Value-Added Grade Strategy

The positive relationship between price and transaction value indicates that suppliers do not need to compete exclusively on tonnage.

Potential value-added strategies include:

• Granular or controlled-size products
• Low-moisture specifications
• Customized packaging
• Traceable origin
• Consistent industrial-grade quality
• Blended nutrient products
• Regional warehousing
• Shorter delivery times
• Technical and application support

Such differentiation may help preserve margins during periods of abundant bulk supply.

Strategic Implications for the Next Procurement Cycle

The historical pattern should not be treated as a guaranteed forecast. However, it provides several useful planning principles.

Avoid Concentrating Purchases in a Single Month

Because trade weight was heavily concentrated in a small number of months, procurement teams should divide requirements across multiple periods where possible.

A staged purchasing strategy can reduce the risk of buying entirely at a price peak or facing insufficient availability during a sudden contraction.

Monitor Price and Volume Together

A volume increase may create a purchasing opportunity, but it does not automatically guarantee the lowest delivered cost.

Freight rates, product grade and origin can offset a lower FOB or ex-works price. Buyers should monitor landed cost rather than physical availability alone.

Separate Bulk and Packaged Market Signals

The divergence between weight and quantity indicates that bulk and packaged trades should be analyzed separately.

A high quantity-based price may result from larger units, different grades or a different reporting structure rather than a direct market premium.

Prepare Logistics Before Supply Peaks

Periods resembling January–February or September–October may require advance planning for vessel space, container availability, port handling and warehousing.

Waiting until a supply surge becomes visible may result in higher freight costs or missed cargoes.

Treat Extreme Monthly Prices with Caution

December’s average of USD 1.82/kg was far outside the range recorded in other months.

Before using such a figure in negotiations, companies should determine whether it resulted from specialized products, unusual destinations, freight-inclusive transactions or limited data concentration.

Combine Historical Data with Real-Time Indicators

Historical trade data is most useful when combined with current information on:

• Producer operating rates
• Fertilizer demand
• Crop economics
• Chinese export availability
• Energy and ammonia costs
• Port inventories
• Freight rates
• Antidumping measures
• Regional purchasing tenders
• Weather and planting conditions

Conclusion

Global ammonium sulfate trade between December 2024 and November 2025 was characterized by concentrated supply, abrupt volume changes and substantial price dispersion.

Total trade reached 1.67 billion kg across 3,819 transactions, with a combined value of USD 437.24 million. However, the monthly distribution was highly uneven.

October, February and January accounted for 50.31% of total weight, while November represented less than 1%. The movement from 308.19 million kg in October to 13.17 million kg in November amounted to a 95.7% peak-to-trough decline.

Weight-based prices generally weakened during periods of greater availability, reaching a low of approximately USD 0.10/kg in March. December recorded an exceptional USD 1.82/kg and generated the highest monthly transaction value despite limited physical weight.

The data also demonstrates that shipment weight, reported quantity and transaction count measure different dimensions of the market. Trade frequency remained relatively stable, while average cargo size and unit value changed dramatically.

For buyers, the central lesson is to use low-price periods for staggered procurement, maintain sufficient inventory protection and secure logistics capacity ahead of supply surges. For suppliers, restricted-supply periods and value-added product strategies may offer stronger margins than competition based solely on tonnage.

Effective ammonium sulfate strategy therefore requires more than monitoring an average price. Market participants must evaluate physical volume, transaction size, product mix, packaging, freight and policy conditions together. By combining trade data with real-time market intelligence, companies can identify better purchasing windows, manage price exposure and respond more effectively to the market’s highly cyclical supply pattern.