Contingencies And Commitments	6 Months Ended
Contingencies And Commitments	Jan. 31, 2019
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Contingencies And Commitments	K. Contingencies and commitments Litigation Ferrellgas’ operations are subject to all operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing, transporting and otherwise providing for use by consumers of combustible liquids such as propane and, prior to the sales of midstream operations in fiscal 2018, crude oil. As a result, at any given time, Ferrellgas can be threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than as discussed below, Ferrellgas is not a party to any legal proceedings other than various claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. It is not possible to determine the ultimate disposition of these matters; however, management is of the opinion that there are no known claims or contingent claims that are reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Ferrellgas. Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one case by a multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a reversal of the district court’s dismissal. We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuit. Ferrellgas has been named, along with several former officers, in several class action lawsuits alleging violations of certain securities laws based on alleged materially false and misleading statements in certain of our public disclosures. The lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in the Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory damages. Derivative lawsuits with similar allegations have been filed naming Ferrellgas and several current and former officers and directors as defendants. On April 2, 2018, the securities class action lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. On April 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties have completed briefing and are preparing for oral argument. At this time the derivative lawsuits remain stayed by agreement. Ferrellgas believes that it has defenses and will vigorously defend these cases. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuits or the derivative actions. Ferrellgas and Bridger Logistics, LLC, have been named, along with two former officers, in a lawsuit filed by Eddystone Rail Company ("Eddystone") on February 2, 2017 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "EDPA Lawsuit"). Eddystone indicated that it has prevailed or settled an arbitration against Jamex Transfer Services (“JTS”), then named Bridger Transfer Services, a former subsidiary of Bridger Logistics, LLC (“Bridger”). The arbitration involved a claim against JTS for money due for deficiency payments under a contract for the use of an Eddystone facility used to offload crude from rail onto barges. Eddystone alleges that Ferrellgas transferred assets out of JTS prior to the sale of the membership interest in JTS to Jamex Transfer Holdings, and that those transfers should be avoided so that the assets can be used to satisfy the amount owed by JTS to Eddystone under the arbitration. Eddystone also alleges that JTS was an “alter ego” of Bridger and Ferrellgas. Ferrellgas believes that Ferrellgas and Bridger have valid defenses to these claims and to Eddystone’s primary claim against JTS on the contract claim. The lawsuit does not specify a specific amount of damages that Eddystone is seeking; however, Ferrellgas believes that the amount of such damage claims, if ultimately owed to Eddystone, could be material to Ferrellgas. Ferrellgas intends to vigorously defend this claim. The lawsuit is in its early stages; as such, management does not currently believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On August 24, 2017, Ferrellgas filed a third-party complaint against JTS, Jamex Transfer Holdings, and other related persons and entities (the "Third-Party Defendants"), asserting claims for breach of contract, indemnification of any losses in the EDPA Lawsuit, tortious interference with contract, and contribution. On June 25, 2018, Ferrellgas entered into an agreement with the Third-Party Defendants which, among other things, resulted in a dismissal of the claims against the Third-Party Defendants from the lawsuit. On January 25, 2019, Ferrellgas, Bridger Logistics, LLC and all other defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Contingencies And Commitments	B. Contingencies and commitments The Finance Corp. serves as co-issuer and co-obligor for debt securities of the Partnership. The indenture governing the senior unsecured notes contains various restrictive covenants applicable to the Partnership and its subsidiaries, the most restrictive relating to additional indebtedness and restricted payments. As of January 31, 2019, the Partnership is in compliance with all requirements, tests, limitations and covenants related to this debt agreement, except for the consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio. The indenture governing the outstanding notes of the Partnership includes a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio test for the incurrence of debt and the making of restricted payments. The restricted payments covenant requires that, for the Partnership to make a restricted payment, the ratio of trailing four quarters EBITDA to interest expense (both as adjusted for certain, specified items) of the Partnership be at least 1.75x on a pro forma basis giving effect to the restricted payment and, if applicable, certain other specified events, subject to its ability to make restricted payments under the limited exception described below. If this pro forma ratio is below 1.75x, the Partnership may make restricted payments of up to $50.0 million in total over a 16 quarter period. As of January 31, 2019, the ratio was 1.67x. As a result of distributions paid to common unitholders in September 2017, December 2017, March 2018, June 2018, and September 2018 while this ratio was less than 1.75x, the Partnership has used substantially all of its capacity under the limited exception and therefore is currently restricted by this covenant from making future restricted payments, including distributions to common unitholders. Accordingly, no distributions will be paid to common unitholders in December 2018 for the three and six months ended January 31, 2019. Unless this indenture is amended or replaced, or the Partnership’s consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio improves to at least 1.75x, this covenant will continue to restrict the Partnership from making common unit distributions.
Ferrellgas, L.P. [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Contingencies And Commitments	K. Contingencies and commitments Litigation Ferrellgas, L.P.’s operations are subject to all operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing, transporting and otherwise providing for use by consumers of combustible liquids such as propane and, prior to the sales of midstream operations in fiscal 2018, crude oil. As a result, at any given time, Ferrellgas, L.P. can be threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than as discussed below, Ferrellgas, L.P. is not a party to any legal proceedings other than various claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. It is not possible to determine the ultimate disposition of these matters; however, management is of the opinion that there are no known claims or contingent claims that are reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Ferrellgas, L.P. Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas, L.P. and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one case by a multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a reversal of the district court’s dismissal. We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Ferrellgas, L.P. believes it has strong defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case. Ferrellgas, L.P. does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuit. Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named, along with several former officers, in several class action lawsuits alleging violations of certain securities laws based on alleged materially false and misleading statements in certain of our public disclosures. The lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in the Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory damages. Derivative lawsuits with similar allegations have been filed naming Ferrellgas, L.P. and several current and former officers and directors as defendants. On April 2, 2018, the securities class action lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. On April 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties have completed briefing and are preparing for oral argument. At this time the derivative lawsuits remain stayed by agreement. Ferrellgas, L.P. believes that it has defenses and will vigorously defend these cases. Ferrellgas, L.P. does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuits or the derivative actions. Ferrellgas, L.P. and Bridger Logistics, LLC, have been named, along with two former officers, in a lawsuit filed by Eddystone Rail Company ("Eddystone") on February 2, 2017 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "EDPA Lawsuit"). Eddystone indicated that it has prevailed or settled an arbitration against Jamex Transfer Services (“JTS”), then named Bridger Transfer Services, a former subsidiary of Bridger Logistics, LLC (“Bridger”). The arbitration involved a claim against JTS for money due for deficiency payments under a contract for the use of an Eddystone facility used to offload crude from rail onto barges. Eddystone alleges that Ferrellgas, L.P. transferred assets out of JTS prior to the sale of the membership interest in JTS to Jamex Transfer Holdings, and that those transfers should be avoided so that the assets can be used to satisfy the amount owed by JTS to Eddystone under the arbitration. Eddystone also alleges that JTS was an “alter ego” of Bridger and Ferrellgas, L.P. Ferrellgas, L.P. believes that Ferrellgas, L.P. and Bridger have valid defenses to these claims and to Eddystone’s primary claim against JTS on the contract claim. The lawsuit does not specify a specific amount of damages that Eddystone is seeking; however, Ferrellgas, L.P. believes that the amount of such damage claims, if ultimately owed to Eddystone, could be material to Ferrellgas, L.P. Ferrellgas, L.P. intends to vigorously defend this claim. The lawsuit is in its early stages; as such, management does not currently believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On August 24, 2017, Ferrellgas, L.P. filed a third-party complaint against JTS, Jamex Transfer Holdings, and other related persons and entities (the "Third-Party Defendants"), asserting claims for breach of contract, indemnification of any losses in the EDPA Lawsuit, tortious interference with contract, and contribution. On June 25, 2018, Ferrellgas, L.P. entered into an agreement with the Third-Party Defendants which, among other things, resulted in a dismissal of the claims against the Third-Party Defendants from the lawsuit. On January 25, 2019, Ferrellgas, L.P., Bridger Logistics, LLC and all other defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Ferrellgas Finance Corp. [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Contingencies And Commitments	B. Contingencies and commitments The Finance Corp. serves as co-issuer and co-obligor for debt securities of the Partnership. The indentures governing the senior notes agreements contains various restrictive covenants applicable to the Partnership and its subsidiaries, the most restrictive relating to additional indebtedness and restricted payments. The restricted payments covenants require that, for the Partnership to make a restricted payment, the ratio of trailing four quarters EBITDA to interest expense (both as adjusted for certain, specified items) of the Partnership be at least 1.75x on a pro forma basis giving effect to the restricted payment and, if applicable, certain other specified events, subject to its ability to make restricted payments under the limited exception described below. If this pro forma ratio is below 1.75x, the Partnership may make restricted payments in limited amounts determined under the indentures. As of January 31, 2019, the ratio was 1.67x. As a result, it’s likely the distribution that will be made by the Partnership on June 15, 2019 for payment of interest on Ferrellgas Partners’ unsecured senior notes due 2020 will be made from capacity under the limited exception to the ratio requirement. the Partnership believes that its remaining capacity under the limited exception to the ratio requirement will allow it to make distributions to Ferrellgas Partners’ to cover interest payments on Ferrellgas Partners’ unsecured senior notes due 2020 through the maturity of those notes.