27 replies to this topic

[AtomicDancer]

Scampi - that's really interesting to know about the scales used for batching up because they make up about 50% of our scales, so if then are not required to be certified annually that would definitely save us some money. 

Our SQF Auditor this year was all about informing us if we sent the NIST weights used for daily verification out for calibration, we don't need to do an annual Scale Calibration.  

 

Seems like this is what others are finding as well. 

 

I agree with Minighi. we have a lot of small scales that if we don't need to annually calibrate, that could save us a fair bit of money (even though the NIST weights we need to purchase are pricey up front). 

[TimG]

Our SQF Auditor this year was all about informing us if we sent the NIST weights used for daily verification out for calibration, we don't need to do an annual Scale Calibration.  

 

Seems like this is what others are finding as well. 

 

I agree with Minighi. we have a lot of small scales that if we don't need to annually calibrate, that could save us a fair bit of money (even though the NIST weights we need to purchase are pricey up front). 

Interesting. This is considerably cheaper than the scale company coming in and doing annual calibrations?

[GMO]

I think most standards require the method of calibration to be traceable to national standards.  Also the weights used should span the weights you are measuring with a suitable level of accuracy for the weights you use.

 

So whether you calibrate the weights or the scale, yeah, that's probably still valid.  You may find though that buying new weights is cheaper than calibrating old ones.  I've certainly found that in the past.  I'd also be surprised if calibrating a scale costs you more but then if you have A LOT it might be.  The only thing is if the scale company are doing more (checking set up etc, cleanliness, that they're level) but it's not really rocket science if you're just doing that.  It probably is money for old rope.