Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	12. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016, except as described below. Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al During January 2017, the Company was served with two Statements of Claim that had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case numbers 160600211 and 160600237) in which plaintiffs Harold Reed (“Reed,”), an applicator, and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (“Jem”), an application equipment rental company, allege physical injury and damage to equipment, respectively, arising from a fire that occurred during an application of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta, on April 2, 2014. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Amvac was negligent and failed to warn them of the risks of such application. Reed seeks damages of $250 for pain and suffering, while Jem seeks $60 in lost equipment; both plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages as well. Also during January 2017, counsel for Reed requested that counsel for the Company accept service of four related actions relating to the same incident and pending with the same court: (i) Van Giessen Growers, Inc. v Harold Reed et al (No. 160303906)(in which grower seeks $400 for loss of potatoes); (ii) James Houweling et al. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 160104421)(in which equipment owner seeks damages for lost equipment); (iii) Chin Coulee Farms, etc. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 150600545)(in which owner of potatoes and truck seeks $530 for loss thereof); and (iv) Houweling Farms v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 15060881)(in which owner of several Quonset huts seeks damages for lost improvements, equipment and business income equal to $4,300). The Company was subsequently served with complaints in these four actions during the first quarter of 2017. The Company was not named in the original complaints in these four actions but has since been added in cross-claims by defendant Reed. In his cross claims, Reed also alleges that other cross-defendants were negligent for using highly flammable insulation and failing to maintain electrical fixtures in the storage units affected by the fire. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ and cross-plaintiffs’ claims against it are without merit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, however, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency. Walker v. AMVAC On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. Amvac Chemical Corporation (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.

12. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016, except as described below.

Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al During January 2017, the Company was served with two Statements of Claim that had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case numbers 160600211 and 160600237) in which plaintiffs Harold Reed (“Reed,”), an applicator, and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (“Jem”), an application equipment rental company, allege physical injury and damage to equipment, respectively, arising from a fire that occurred during an application of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta, on April 2, 2014. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Amvac was negligent and failed to warn them of the risks of such application. Reed seeks damages of $250 for pain and suffering, while Jem seeks $60 in lost equipment; both plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages as well. Also during January 2017, counsel for Reed requested that counsel for the Company accept service of four related actions relating to the same incident and pending with the same court: (i) Van Giessen Growers, Inc. v Harold Reed et al (No. 160303906)(in which grower seeks $400 for loss of potatoes); (ii) James Houweling et al. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 160104421)(in which equipment owner seeks damages for lost equipment); (iii) Chin Coulee Farms, etc. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 150600545)(in which owner of potatoes and truck seeks $530 for loss thereof); and (iv) Houweling Farms v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 15060881)(in which owner of several Quonset huts seeks damages for lost improvements, equipment and business income equal to $4,300). The Company was subsequently served with complaints in these four actions during the first quarter of 2017. The Company was not named in the original complaints in these four actions but has since been added in cross-claims by defendant Reed. In his cross claims, Reed also alleges that other cross-defendants were negligent for using highly flammable insulation and failing to maintain electrical fixtures in the storage units affected by the fire. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ and cross-plaintiffs’ claims against it are without merit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, however, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.

Walker v. AMVAC On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. Amvac Chemical Corporation (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.