The world with a huge increasing population and simultaneous degradation of land by various means is facing a huge hazard in the field of agriculture. The new technology to increase the use efficiency of input is the need of the hour to meet the demand of the huge population. Nano urea is a sustainable option for farmers towards smart agriculture. Nano urea is gaining importance in Indian agriculture in increase nutrient use efficiency, increasing crop yields, and reducing excessive use of synthetic fertilizers (Dutta et al., 2021). The quantity of synthetic urea being applied by the farmers to supply nitrogen for the crops can be successfully reduced to 50% by using nano urea. When compared to bulky nitrogenous fertilisers like urea, nano urea is required in small quantities and also easy to store and transport. Farmers can easily carry bottles of nano urea over bulkier urea bags, which have a substantial influence on relative logistics and warehousing costs (Meena and Verma, 2022). Although nano urea have a great advantage, there are considerable limitations to focus. They include lack of better production facilities and risk management system. It is not recommended as basal dose, only foliar spray due to which spraying cost is more than top dressing /broadcasting cost. Mentality/perception of farmers towards new technologies also play a major role. The government’s policies and support for nano fertilizers will alter Indian agriculture and contribute to its long-term viability. This seminar will help us to understand about nano urea, its significance and problems in usage. Being a country of agriculture background, it is our duty to strengthen the spine of our agriculture technologies. Thus technology like nano urea which could increase the production without compromising crop yield, environment aspects etc. should be welcomed by the agriculture community. Despite aiding in sustainable crop production, limitations of nano urea should be carefully considered.

1. 1
WELCOME

2. 2
Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University
Agricultural College, Bapatla
Department of Agronomy
AGRON-692
Doctoral Seminar -II
on
Current Research on Nano Urea – Problems &
Prospectus
Course in-charge
Dr. K.
Chandrasekhar
Professor & Head
Department of
Agronomy
Presented by:
D. Venkata Sri
Akshay
PhD Scholar,
Department of
Agronomy

3. FLOW OF PRESENTATION
3
1.
• Introduction
2.
• Specifications & Benefits of
nano urea
3.
• How does nano urea works?
4.
• Problems with nano urea
5.
• Research findings
6.
• Conclusion

4. Agriculture environmental pressure
(percentage of impact)
Nature. 562: 519–
525
Staple crops
Legumes
Nuts and
seeds
Fruits and
Vegetables
Vegetable
oil
Sugar
Other crops
Animal
products
50 100 150 200
0
2010
GHG emissions
2050
Bluewater
use
N
fertilizers
201
0
205
0
201
0
2050
201
0
205
0
P
fertilizer
s
Introduction
Springmann et al., 2018
4

5. What is nano urea ?
• Nano urea is made up of two words 'nano’ and ‘urea’.
• The term ‘nano’ is adopted from ‘Greek’ word that
means ‘dwarf ’ and also “nano” means 10 -9 or one
billionth part.
• Other word ‘urea’ which is a name of a product and
fertilizer which provides nitrogen to plants.
• Nano urea is a nano technology based liquid
formulation of urea which provides nitrogen to plants
as an alternative to the conventional urea.
5

6. What is
nano
particle ?
6

7. Facts about commercial Nano Urea
• Invented by : Scientists of Indian Farmer Fertilizer
Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) - Sir Ramesh Raliya
and team.
• Invented at : It has been indigenously invented or
developed at Nano Biotechnology Research Centre,
Kalol, Gujarat in line with Atmanirbhar Bharat and
Atmanirbhar Krishi.
• Invention Date : May, 2021. Commercial production
of nano urea started since June,2021.
7

8. Commercially available Nano Urea by IFFCO
8

9. Composition & Dosage
• Nitrogen Content : In a 500ml of bottle it contains
40000 ppm nitrogen which is equivalent to impact of
nitrogen nutrient provided by one bag of conventional
urea.
• On the basis of weight it contains 4% of nano scale
particles of nitrogen .
• Recommended Dose : IFFCO claims that 500 ml of a
bottle is sufficient for one acre. This is not a
standard dose, because dose of nano urea depends
upon type of crops and nitrogen requirement of crops.9

10. Specifications or Features of Nano
Urea
• Nano urea developed by nanotechnology which contains
nano scale particles of urea (nitrogen ).
• It is available in liquid formulation, so it is water soluble.
• Average physical size of nano urea particles is in the range
of 10 - 50 nm (30nm).
• Nano Urea contains 4 % nitrogen by weight in it’s nano
liquid form.
• It contains 40000 mg/l or 40000 ppm nitrogen.
• Nitrogen present in nano urea effectively meets the crop’s
nitrogen requirement.
• Nano urea has better nitrogen use efficiency than
conventional urea. 10

11. Important characteristics of Nano
Urea
Nano
fertilizer
Small
particle
size
Minimum
losses
High
productivity
High
reactivity
High
nutrient
uptake
High
surface
area
11

12. Features of Nano Urea 12

13. Benefits of Nano Urea
• Reduces input cost and increases income of farmer.
• Environment friendly product, completely safe for soil,
air, water, birds, microorganisms, animals and humans.
• Cheaper than conventional urea.
• Reduces nitrogen losses and increases soil fertility and
productivity by crop residuals .
• It can be applied on almost every crop.
• Use of nano urea decreases the subsidy amount which is
provided by GOI for conventional urea.
13

14. • Carrying and storage of nano urea are easy for
farmers.
• Tool of sustainable agriculture.
• Nano urea has been included in the government's
Fertilizer Control Order after the field trials were
undertaken.
• The size of one nano urea liquid particle is 30 nano
meter and compared to the conventional granular urea
it has about 10,000 times more surface area to
volume size.
• Due to the ultra-small size and surface properties,
the nano urea liquid gets absorbed by plants more
14

15. NON TOXIC
Benefits
of
Nano Urea
15

16. Nano-enabled
Agriculture
Conventional
Agriculture
1920 2000
2080
Environmenta
l
Impact
N2 fixation
New varieties
Agrochemicals
Irrigation
Mechanization
Enhance √
Sense
Deliver √
Efficient
Sustainable
Nature Nanotechnology . 14(6):
541–553
Yield
16
Lowry et al., 2019

17. TOP DOWN APPROACH BOTTOM UP APPORAOCH
Methods of Nanoparticle Production
17

18. Application of Nano Urea
(As recommended by IFFCO)
• Nano urea is available in the market as
liquid formulation so it is applied as
foliar spray.
• Mix 2 to 4 ml of nano urea in one
liter of water and spray on crop
leaves at active growth stages.
• For best results, to be applied 2 foliar
sprays.
• 1st spray at active tillering / branching
stage (30-35 days after sowing/
transplanting).
18

19. Application Instructions
• Shake well the bottle before the use.
• Use flat fan or cut nozzles for spraying on the leaves.
• Spray during morning or evening hours, to avoiding dew.
• If rain occurs within 12 hours of the spray of nano urea,
it is advised to repeat the spray
• For better result nano urea should be used within 2 years
from the date of its manufacturing.
• Nano urea can easily be mixed with biostimulants , 100%
water- soluble fertilizers and agrochemicals. It is always
advised to go for a jar before mixing and spraying, for it’s
compatibility. 19

20. How does Nano Urea Works
• When nano urea is sprayed on leaves, due to its very
smaller size it easily enters through stomata and
other openings and is assimilated by the plant cell.
• It is easily distributed through phloem from source
to sink inside the plant as per its needs.
• Unutilized nitrogen is stored in the plant vacuole
and is slowly released for proper growth and
development of plants.
20

21. Entry, transport and translocation of nanoscale
particles 21

22. Problems with Nano Urea
• Lack of better production and
availability.
• Lack of standardization.
• Lack of nano urea risk management
system.
• High processing cost.
• It is not recommended as basal dose.
• cost effective but spraying cost is more
than top dressing /broadcasting cost. 22

23. Research findings
23

24. Table 1. Yield of rabi maize as influenced by
foliar application of urea and nano-urea
Samui et al., 2022
Crop Research. 57 (3) : 136-140
Paralakhemundi, Odisha
24

25. Treatments
Grain
yield
(t ha-1)
Stover
yield (t
ha-1)
Biological
yield (t
ha-1)
Harvest
Index
(%)
T1 : Control (no nitrogen) 2.31 6.23 8.5 27.25
T2 : 75% RDN (90 kg ha-1) 3.30 7.53 10.8 30.50
T3 : 100% RDN (120 kg ha-1) 5.25 9.20 14.4 36.28
T4 : 75% RDN + FSU @ 1% at knee height and
tasseling
3.77 8.03 11.8 32.02
T5 : 75% RDN + FSU @ 2% at knee height and
tasseling
4.01 8.40 12.4 32.37
T6 : 75% RDN + FSNU @ 2 ml l-1 at knee height
and tasseling
4.29 8.87 13.2 32.65
T7 : 75% RDN + FSNU @ 3 ml l-1 at knee height
and tasseling
4.46 8.97 13.4 33.02
T8 : 75% RDN + FSNU @ 4 ml l-1 at knee height
and tasseling
4.58 9.00 13.6 33.77
T9 : 100% RDN + FSNU @ 2 ml l -1 at knee height
and tasseling
6.24 10.50 16.7 37.20
T10 : 100% RDN + FSNU @ 3 ml l-1 at knee
height and tasseling
6.59 10.63 17.2 38.24
25

26. Table 2. Grain, straw yield and harvest index of
rice in kharif as influenced by application of
nano urea
The Pharma Innovation Journal.11(6):
185-187
Sahu et al.,
2022
Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh
26

27. Treatments
Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
Stover
yield(kg
ha-1)
Harvest
Index (%)
T1 : RDF (N100 : P50 : K30 kg ha-1) 3947.92 5308.33 42.68
T2 : 150% of RDF (N150 : P75 : K45 kg ha-1) 3812.5
5143.75
42.59
T3 : 125% of RDF (N125 : P62.5 : K37.5 kg ha-1) 3908.33 5258.33 42.66
T4 : 50% of RDN + Two foliar sprays of nano
urea (AT and PI)
5077.08 6164.58 45.18
T5 : 75% of RDN + Two foliar sprays of nano
urea (AT and PI) 5195.83
6250.00 45.42
T6 : 100% of RDN +Two foliar sprays of nano
urea (AT and PI)
5020.83 6097.92 45.15
T7 : 125% of RDN +Two foliar sprays of nano
urea (AT and PI)
4491.66 5693.75 44.10
T8 : 150% of RDN +Two foliar sprays of nano
urea (AT and PI)
4402.08 5597.92 44.07
T9 : 50% of RDN (Basal as well as two split doses
3781.25 4952.08 42.79
27

28. Table 3. Nitrogen uptake of rice in kharif as
influenced by application of nano urea
The Pharma Innovation Journal.11(6):
185-187
Sahu et al.,
2022
Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh
28

29. Treatments
N uptake (kg ha-1)
Grain Straw
T1 : RDF (N100 : P50 : K30 kg ha-1) 41.83 30.94
T2 : 150% of RDF (N150 : P75 : K45 kg ha-1) 40.43
29.36
T3 : 125% of RDF (N125 : P62.5 : K37.5 kg ha-1) 41.45 30.43
T4 : 50% of RDN + Two foliar sprays of nano urea
(AT and PI)
55.30 38.25
T5 : 75% of RDN + Two foliar sprays of nano urea
(AT and PI)
57.16 39.36
T6 : 100% of RDN +Two foliar sprays of nano urea
(AT and PI)
54.27 37.19
T7 : 125% of RDN +Two foliar sprays of nano urea
(AT and PI)
48.05 33.02
T8 : 150% of RDN +Two foliar sprays of nano urea
(AT and PI)
47.10 32.89
T9 : 50% of RDN (Basal as well as two split doses 29

30. Table 4. Comparative performance of urea and
nano urea on yield and harvest index of
fingermillet
Samanta et al., 2022
Crop Research. 57 (3) : 166-170
Paralakhemundi, Odisha
30

31. Treatments
Grain
yield (kg
ha-1)
Stover
yield(kg
ha-1)
Biological
yield (kg
ha-1)
Harvest
Index
(%)
T1 : 0 kg N ha-1 434.3 1516.9 1951.2 22.3
T2 : 20 kg N ha-1 661.2 2189.7 2850.9 23.2
T3 : 40 kg N ha-1 1047.5 3751.3 4798.7 21.8
T4 : 20 kg N ha -1 + 2 sprays of 1% urea 831.7 2657.6 3489.3 23.8
T5 : 20 kg N ha-1 + 2 sprays of 2% urea 888.0 2876.3 3764.3 24.1
T6 : 20 kg N ha-1 + 2 sprays of nano urea
@ 2 ml l-1 924.6 2912.7 3837.3 24.3
T7 : 20 kg N ha-1 + 2 sprays of nano urea
@ 3 ml l-1 969.2 2996.3 3965.5 24.4
T8 : 20 kg N ha-1 + 2 sprays of nano urea
@ 4 ml l-1 1018.6 3143.3 4161.8 24.5
T9 : 40 kg N ha-1 + 2 sprays of nano urea
@ 2 ml l-1 1206.9 3739.9 4946.9 24.4
T10 : 40 kg N ha-1 + 2 sprays of nano urea
@ 3 ml l-1 1303.9 3963.4 5267.3 24.8
31

32. Table 5. Evaluation of the Foliar Application of
Nano Urea on the Performance of rabi
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)
Goud et al., 2022
International Journal of Environment and
Climate Change, 12(11): 2700-2706
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad
32

33. Treatments
Grain
yield (kg
ha-1)
Stover
yield
(kg ha-1)
Harvest
Index
(%)
T1 : No Nitrogen application 1450 c 750 c 34.2 c
T2 : 50% Recommended Dose of Nitrogen (RDN)
at sowing + 25% RDN at star bud stage+ 25%
RDN at 50% flowering
2349 a 1774 a 43.6 a
T3 : 50% RDN at sowing + foliar spray of nano-
N @ 2 ml l-1 at star bud stage and at 50 %
flowering
1836 b 1296 b 41.4 a
T4 : 50% RDN at sowing + foliar spray of nano-
N @ 2.5ml l-1 at star bud stage and at 50 %
flowering
1853 b 1343 b 42.1 a
T5 : 50% RDN at sowing +foliar spray of nano-
N @ 3 ml l-1 at star bud stage and at 50%
flowering
1885 b 1389 b 42.5 a
T6 : 50% RDN at sowing +foliar spray of nano-
N @ 3.5 ml l-1 at star bud stage and at 50%
flowering
1927 b 1426 b 42.6 a
( RDF = 75:90:30 N:P:K kg ha-1 ) 33

34. Table 6. Effect of Foliar Application of Nano-
urea on Yield Attributes and Yield of Pearlmillet
(Pennisetum glaucum L.)
Arya et al., 2022
International Journal of Plant & Soil
Science. 34(21): 502-507
Coimbatore , Tamil
Nadu
34

35. Treatments
Test
weight
(g)
Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
Stover yield
(kg ha-1)
T1 : 50% RDN as basal + 0.3% Nano-urea FS @ P.I +
25% RDN @ booting
12.31 * 2568 * 4169 *
T2 : 50% RDN as basal + 25% RDN @ P.I + 0.3% Nano-
urea FS @ booting
12.26
*
2552 * 4160 *
T3 : 50% RDN as basal + 0.3% Nano-urea FS @ P.I and
booting
12.68 * 2665 * 4333 *
T4 : 50% RDN as basal + 0.4% Nano-urea FS @ P.I +
25% RDN @ booting
13.64 * 2826 * 4597 *
T5 : 50% RDN as basal + 25% RDN @ P.I + 0.4% Nano-
urea FS @ booting
13.26 * 2825 * 4552 *
T6 : 50% RDN as basal + 0.4% Nano-urea FS @ P.I and
booting stage
14.14
*
2844 * 4581 *
T7 : 50% RDN as basal + 0.5% Nano-urea FS @ P.I +
25% RDN @ booting
14.19
*
3016 * 4902 *
T8 : 50% RDN as basal + 25% RDN @ P.I + 0.5% Nano-
urea FS @ booting
14.18
*
2922 * 4597 *
T : 50% RDN as basal + 0.5% Nano-urea FS @ P.I and
35

36. Fig. 1. Comparison of treatments on grain yield of
the tested crops which were grown under field
condition with the treatments
Grain
Yield
(q
ha
-1
)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Wheat Sesame Pearl millet Mustard
Grain Yield
T1
Grain Yield
T2
Nature. 12:6938
Kumar et al., 2022
Haryana, India
Treatments
T1: conventional
fertilizer
T2: organic farming
practice with nano
fertilizer of
nitrogen and zinc.
36

37. Table 7. Evaluation of Nano Urea on Yield
Attributes of Rice (Oryza Sativa L.)
Midde et al., 2022
Chemical Science Review and
Letters.
11 (42): 211-214
Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu
37

38. Treatments
No. of
panicles
m-2
No. of filled
grains
Panicle-1
Grain
yield (kg.
ha-1)
Straw
yield (kg.
ha-1)
T1 - Control 183 99.85 4236 5462
T2 - 100 % N through Nano urea 291 144.6 6589 7437
T3 - 90 % RDN through Urea + 10 %
N through Nano urea
268 * 132.5 * 6299 * 7043 *
T4 - 80 % RDN through Urea + 20%
N through Nano urea
272 * 135.8 * 6371 * 7186 *
T5 - 70% RDN through Urea + 30%
N through Nano urea
299 148.3 6645 7513
T6 - 60% RDN through Urea +40% N
through Nano urea
321 157.4 6814 7956
T7 - 50% RDN through Urea + 50%
N through Nano urea
335 165.9 7056 8342
T8 - 40% RDN through Urea + 60%
N through Nano urea
249 123.7 6053 6809
S. Ed 6.53 2.85 101.40 146.73
C.D 12.15 6.12 217.25 314.71
38

39. 39
Fig. 2. Effect of nano nitrogen and urea on seed,
stover yield and harvest index of Mustard (Brassica
juncea L.)
Yield
(kg
ha
-1
)
Treatments
Treatments
T1- Control (No Nitrogen)
T2-100% RDN
T3-50% RDN as basal +1 Nano-
N spray @1250 ml ha-1
T4-50% RDN as basal + 1 Nano-
N spray @ 725 ml ha-1
T5-50% RDN as basal + 2
Nano-N sprays @ 725 ml
ha-1
T6- 50% RDN + 1 Urea spray @
2% (500 L ha-1)
T7- 3 Nano-N sprays @ 725 ml
ha-1
T8- 3 urea sprays @ 2% (500 L
-1
Seed yield Stover
yield
Harvest
index
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
300
0
250
0
200
0
150
0
100
0
500
0
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
29
28.5
28
27.5
27
26.5
Navya et al., 2022
Biological Forum – An International Journal.
Jagtial, Northern Telangana Zone

40. Table 8. Effect of Nano Urea vs Conventional Urea on the
Nutrient Uptake of Black Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) along
with Biofertilizers
40
Kannoj et al., 2022
Biological Forum – An International Journal. 14(2a): 499-504
Udaipur, Rajasthan

41. Treatments
Total nutrient Uptake ( kg
ha-1 )
N P K
Nitrogen Sources
N1(100 % Conventional urea fertilizer) 111.09 30.49 193.73
N2 (75 % Conventional urea + 25 % of Nano urea
fertilizer)
117.61 31.88 204.69
N3 (50 % Conventional urea + 50 % of Nano urea
fertilizer)
125.80 34.03 216.75
N4 (25 % Conventional urea + 75 % of Nano urea
fertilizer)
104.01 28.58 185.73
N5 (100 % of Nano urea fertilizer) 94.92 26.29 177.37
SEm ± 2.33 0.65 4.49
CD (P=0.05) 6.66 1.86 12.846
Biofertilizers
B1 (No biofertilizer) 104.41 28.00 185.75
B2 (B2: Azotobacter) 110.67 30.54 195.42
B3 (B3: PSB ) 108.51 29.78 192.43
41

42. Table 9. Effect of IFFCO Nano fertilizers
on Yield and B:C ratio in Maize
Ajithkumar et al., 2021
International Journal of Plant & Soil Science
33(16): 19-28
Raichur, Karnataka
(Pooled data of 2019and 2020)
42

43. Treatments Yield (q
ha-1)
B:C
ratio
T1 : Control (No nitrogen and zinc, 100% P & K fertilizers) 34.58 1.97
T2 : T1 + 2 sprays of nano N (4ml l-1) 38.27 2.04
T3 : T1 + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano N 2X (8ml l-1) 38.15 1.91
T4 : T1 + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano Zn (2ml l-1) 36.75 1.96
T5 : T1 + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano N (4ml l-1) mixed with
IFFCO nano Zn (2 ml l-1)
38.68 2.00
T6 : RDF (100% NPK) + 100% zinc 47.40 2.55
T7 : 50% N, 100% PK + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano N (4ml l-1) 49.37 2.59
T8 : RDF (100% NPK) + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano Zn (2ml l-1) 48.85 2.60
T9 : 50% N, 100% PK, 0% Zinc + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano N
(4ml l-1) mixed with IFFCO nano Zn (2 ml l-1)
51.25 2.60
T10 : 50% N, 100% PK, 0% Zinc + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano N
(4ml l-1) mixed with IFFCO nano Zn (2 ml l-1) and IFFCO nano
Cu (2ml l-1)
52.90 2.61
T11 : 50% N, 100% PK, 0% Zinc + 2 sprays of IFFCO nano N
(4ml l-1) mixed with IFFCO Sagarika (2 ml l-1)
58.90 2.99
43

44. Table 10. Fresh cob yield, green fodder yield and harvest index
as influenced by foliar application of nano nitrogen and nano
zinc in Sweet Corn (Zea mays L. saccarata)
Note: RD P2O5 and RD K2O common for all the treatments except T1 and Foliar
application of nano N and nano Zn at @ 25 and 50 DAS
Journal of Farm Science. 34(4): 381-385
Rajesh et al., 2021
Raichur, Karnataka
44

45. Treatments
Fresh cob
Yield (q ha-
1)
Green
fodder
Yield (q
ha-1)
Harvest
Index
T1 : Absolute control 78.3 134.1 36.98
T2 : 100% NPK (150 kg N, 75 kg P2O5, and
37.5 kg K2Oha-1)
131.4 189.7 40.92
T3 : 100% NPK + 25 kg ha -1 ZnSO4 152.5 207.9 41.61
T4 : 75% N + FA of chemically synthesized nano
N @ 4 ml l-1 133.0 200.0 39.69
T5 : 50% N + FA of chemically synthesized nano
N @ 4 ml l-1 126.4 184.4 40.67
T6 : 25% N + FA of chemically synthesized nano
N @ 4 ml l-1 113.2 168.3 40.12
T7 : FA of chemically synthesized nano N @ 4
ml l-1 85.12 132.4 39.14
T8 : T4 + FA of chemically synthesized nano Zn
@ 2 ml l-1 158.1 214.8 41.88
T9 : T5 + FA of chemically synthesized nano Zn
@ 2 ml l-1 133.5 208.6 39.03 45

46. Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 17(11)
Anand, Gujarat
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Wheat
yield
(kg
ha
-1
)
-
Pooled
No N & Zn 100% NPZn 50% N +
Nano N (2
sprays)
50% Zn +
Nano Zn (2
sprays)
100% NP & Zn +
Nano Cu (2
sprays)
50% N & Zn +
Nano Zn & Cu
(2 sprays)
Nano
fertilizers
Fig . 3. Effect of nano fertilizers on wheat grain yield at
Regional Research Station, Anand during rabi seasons of 2019-
20 and 2020-21 (Pooled data)
Kumar et al., 2021
46

47. Kumar et al., 2021
Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 17(11)
ICAR- IARI, Pusa
NoPoKo Nano
N
Nano N +
Zn + Cu
Nano N
+ Zn
Nano
Zn
Nano
fertilizers
4.0
0
3.5
0
3.0
0
2.5
0
2.0
0
1.5
0
1.0
0
0.5
0
Wheat
grain
yield
(t
ha
-1
)
Fig. 4. Effect of nano N, nano Zn and nano Cu in
absence of fertilizer NPK on the grain yield of wheat
47

48. Fig. 5. Effect of nano N, nano Zn and nano Cu in
absence
of fertilizer NPK on the seed yield of mustard
Kumar et al., 2021
Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 17(11)
ICAR- IARI, Pusa
NoPoKo Nano
N
Nano N +
Zn + Cu
Nano N
+ Zn
Nano
Zn
Nano
fertilizers
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Mustard
Seed
yield
(t
ha
-
1
)
48

49. Location Crop Treatment
Mean Yield
(kg ha-1)
%
Increase
(Overall)
NetRet
un
( Rs
ha-1)
Uttar
Pradesh
Wheat
(431
Nos.)
FFP@ 4354
FFP (- 50 % N) + 2 Nano
N Sprays
4779 9.76 8,182
Mustard
( 44 Nos.)
FFP 1708
FFP (- 50 % N) + 2 Nano
N Sprays
1837 7.55 5,724
Potato
(187
Nos.)
FFP 32,298
FFP (- 50 % N) + 2 Nano
N Sprays
35,414 9.65 31,165
Table 11. Multi location- Multi Crop - Farmer
Field Trials (FFT’s) of Nano Fertilizers
49
Rabi, 2019-20

50. Conclusion
• Being a country of agriculture background it is our
duty to strengthen the spine of our agriculture
technologies.
• Thus technology like nano-urea which could increase
the production without compromising crop yield,
environment aspects etc. should be welcomed by the
agriculture community.
• Despite aiding in sustainable crop production,
limitations of nano-urea should be carefully
considered. 50

51. 51
THANK
YOU