Strategic applications of nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture : Benefits and bottlenecks

1
WELCOME
Department of Soil Science, CSK HPKV
1

2
“Nanotechnology is already at the heart
of nature and we are starting to learn
how to work with this tool”
~ Edison Gomez

3
Strategic applications of nano-fertilizers for
sustainable agriculture : Benefits and
bottlenecks
Mohit Kashyap
Department of Soil
Science
CSK HPKV Palampur
3

Contents
• Introduction
• Nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture
• Benefits and classification of nano-fertilizers
• Synthesis and method of application of nano-fertilizers
• Mechanism and fate of nano-fertilizers
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
4

Contents
• Introduction
• Synthesis & method of application of nano-fertilizers
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
5

~ 3 Billion Tons
Global annual crop production
187 Million Tons of fertilizers
4 Million Tons of pesticides
2.7 Trillion cm3 of water
2 Quadrillion BTU of energy
Source : Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations 6

7
Source : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

8

The world
food
problems
Environmental
contamination
High demand for
water & energy
Climate change
Increasing
population
9

13
Source : Fertilizer Association of India. (2019)

14

15
Source : Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative

19
Richard Feynman
1918-1988
“There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”
12 December 1959
“Father of Nanotechnology”
Norio Taniguchi
1912-1999
Coined the term “Nanotechnology” in 1974

Definition
• A nm is a unit of length.
1nm=10-9 m
• technology
 The study of manipulating
matter
on an atomic scale.
20

21
Applications of nanotechnology in agriculture
Tarafdar et.al. (2020)

22
Sustainable agriculture
Source : International Union for Conservation of Nature

23

Sustainable agriculture
24
“Zero Hunger”

Contents
• Introduction
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
22

Nano-
fertilizers
Sometime extracted
from different plant
parts.
Helps to increase
soil fertility and
productivity.
Following different
methods of
nanotechnology.
Synthesized form of
traditional fertilizer.
26

Contents
• Introduction
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
26

Benefits of
smart nano-
fertilizers
Required in low
amounts and
improved soil fertility
Controlled release
of nutrients
Higher diffusion
rate and solubility
of nano-fertilizers
Significant reduction
of the risk of
environmental
pollution
Enhanced
absorption and
efficient
utilization
Smart release of
nutrients with
respect to specific
signals
28

Why do farmers use nano-fertilizers rather than traditional
fertilizers?
✔️enhance soil fertility, yield and quality parameters of the crops,
✔️improves the nutritional content of crops and the quality of the taste,
✔️ non-toxic and less harmful to the ecosystem and
✔️three-times increase in nutrient use efficiency (NUE).
29
Raliya and Tarafdar (2022)

Conventional v/s nano-fertilizers
Properties Nano-fertilizer Conventional fertilizer
Rate of nutrient loss Low loss of fertilizer nutrients High loss rate through drifting, leaching, run-off
Controlled release Rate of release and release pattern
precisely controlled
Excess release of nutrients lead to high toxicity and soil
Imbalance
Solubility High Low
Bioavailability High Low
Dispersion of mineral
micronutrients
Improved dispersion of insoluble
nutrients
Lower solubility due to large size particle
Effective duration of release Effective and extended duration Used by the plant at the site and time of application; the
rest is converted into an insoluble form
The efficiency of nutrients
uptake
Enhanced uptake ratio and saves
fertilizer resource
It is not available to roots and the efficiency of nutrients
uptake is low
Soil adsorption and fixation Reduced High
30
Thavaseelan and Priyadarshana (2021)

Somasundaran et.al. (2010) 32
Nutrient use efficiency (%) of conventional and nano-fertilizers

Classification of nano-fertilizer
• Nano-fertilizers are usually classified into three types:
1. Nanoscale fertilizers
2. Nanoscale additives
3. Nanoscale coatings
33

Nanoscale fertilizers can be classified into three groups
1. Nano-formulation of macronutrients.
2. Nano-formulation of micronutrients.
3. Nutrients-loaded nanomaterials.
34

Macro nano-fertilizers
• Examples:
• Nano-ultra-fertilizers,
• Nano capsules,
• N+P nano-fertilizer,
• IFFCO nano urea,
• IFFCO nano DAP
(still need to be installed if experiments are true),
• IFFCO nano K,
• etc.
35
• Examples:
• Nano-ultra-fertilizers,
• Nano capsules,
• N+P nano-fertilizer,
• IFFCO nano urea,
• IFFCO nano DAP
(still need to be installed if experiments are true),
• IFFCO nano K,
• etc.

Micro nano-fertilizers
• Examples:
• Nano-micronutrient (Eco-Star),
• IFFCO nano Cu,
• IFFCO nano Zn,
• IFFCO nano Fe,
• etc.
36

Nano-biofertilizers
• Examples:
• Biozar nano-biofertilizers,
• etc.
37

Nanoparticulate fertilizers
• Examples:
• Carbon nanotubes,
• Silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SiO2
NPs),
• Silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs),
• Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs),
• etc.
38

Nanocoating material
• Examples:
• Chitosan/nano-silica,
• Nano-titanium dioxide low-
density polyethylene (TiO2-
LDPE),
• etc.
39

Some important approved and commercially available nano-fertilizers
Nano-fertilizers Constituents Name of manufacturer
Nano urea liquid 30 nm urea particles (4.0% total nitrogen (w/v)) Indian Farmers Fertiliser
Cooperative Ltd, India
Biozar nano-biofertilizer Combination of microorganisms, organic materials, micronutrients, and
macromolecules
Fanavar Nano-Pazhoohesh
Markazi Company, Iran
TAG nano (NPK, Pho S, Zinc, Cal, etc.)
Fertilizers
Proteino-lacto-gluconate chelated with micronutrients,
vitamins, probiotics, seaweed extracts, and humic acid
Tropical Agrosystem India (P)
Ltd., India
Nano max NPK fertilizer Multiple organic acids chelated with major nutrients, amino
acids, organic carbon, organic micro nutrients/trace
elements, vitamins, and probiotic
JU Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd.,
Janakpuri, New Delhi, India
Nano ultra-fertilizer (500) g Organic matter, 5.5%; nitrogen, 10%; P2O5, 9%; K2O, 14%;
P2O5, 8%; K2O, 14%; MgO, 3%
SMTET Eco-technologies Co.,
Ltd., Taiwan
Nano micro nutrient (EcoStar) (500) g Zn, 6%; B, 2%; Cu, 1%; Fe, 6%+; EDTA Mo, 0.05%; Mn, 5%+;
AMINOS, 5%
Shan Maw Myae Trading Co.,
Ltd., India
Zinc oxide [ZnO] – universal additive
agent 1–50 nm
Zinc oxide 99.9% Land Green & Technology Co.,
Ltd., Taiwan
Hero super nano N, 0.7%; P2O5, 2.3%; K2O, 8.9%; Ca, 0.5%; Mg, 0.2%;
S, 0.4%
World Connet Plus Myanmar
Co., Ltd., Thailand
40

Contents
• Introduction
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks of nano-fertilizers
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
40

Synthesis/ production of nano-fertilizers
Top-down approach/ physical method
Bottom-up approach/ chemical method
Hybrid nano-fertilizers
Biogenic synthesis: A greener way
42

Top-down methods
• Breaking down approach
• Micron-sized particles
• Substrates- zeolites, other materials
(having high exchange capacities)
43
Bottom-up methods
• Build up materials from the bottom.
• Chemically controlled process.

Hybrid nano-fertilizers
• Formed by an organic
matrix ( usually a
polymer).
• A dispersed inorganic
phase ( in the form of
homogeneously
distributed nano-sized
particles).
44
Tarafdar et al. (2019)

Biogenic synthesis: A greener way
45
Raliya et al. (2018)

Harnessing the potential of nano-fertilizers
47
Nutrients
encapsulated in
nano-porous
material
Coated with thin
polymer film
Delivered
particles in nano-
scale dimension

48
Role of nano-enabled fertilizers
Raliya et.al. (2020)

Method of application of nano-fertilizers
49

Contents
• Introduction
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
49

51

Fate of nano-fertilizers
53
Calaby et al. (2017)

Contents
• Introduction
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
53

Raliya and Tarafdar (2013) 55
Effects of nano ZnO on the phenological parameters of cluster bean plant
Treatments Shoot length
(cm)
Root length
(mm)
Root area
(mm2)
Dry biomass
(g-1)
Control 44.53 720.23 809.30 10.47
Ordinary ZnO 47.73 835.20 1241.47 11.60
Nano ZnO 58.57 1197.70 1404.30 25.33
LSD (p =
0.05)
0.10 0.09 0.03 0.15
Jodhpur, Rajasthan pH – 8.1
Sandy loam soil

56
Effect of nano NPK fertilizers on yield parameters of potato
Treatments Treatment
details
Yield of
Vegetative
dry matter
Mg/ha
Fresh tubers
Yield Mg/ha
Tuber dry
Matter Yield
Mg/ha
Percentage
of protein in
tuber
(%)
Percentage
of Starch
(%)
Starch Yield
in Tubers
Mg/ha
T1 Control 1.428 30.666 6.843 10.00 15.89 4.872
T2 Nano nitrogen 1.942 42.444 8.120 10.05 13.06 5.542
T3 Nano phosphorus 1.835 37.334 8.572 9.20 16.47 6.147
T4 Nano potassium 1.648 39.334 8.702 9.05 15.71 6.183
T5 Nano( N+P) 1.987 46.665 8.656 9.56 12.54 5.851
T6 Nano (N+K) 1.931 44.664 8.616 9.63 13.20 5.895
T7 Nano (P+K) 1.788 40.832 8.267 9.48 14.05 5.737
T8 Nano (N+P+K) 2.148 48.221 9.246 9.13 13.10 6.315
T9 Traditional
(20:20:20 NPK)
1.706 39.998 8.300 9.63 14.97 5.838
Iraq pH – 8.3
Sandy loam soil Hayyawi et al. (2019)

Davarpanah et al. (2017) 57
Effects of foliar applications of nano-N (nN) and urea (U) fertilizers on fruit yield,
number of fruits per tree, fruit weight, fruit length and fruit diameter of pomegranate
Treatment Yield (kg/tree) Number of
fruits (per tree)
Fruit weight (g) Fruit length
(mm)
Fruit diameter
(mm)
Control 16.2 55.3 293.0 79.5 77.5
nN1
(0.25 g N/L)
18.9 64.5 293.1 78.0 80.0
nN2
(0.50 g N/L)
21.9 70.1 326.1 86.0 86.6
U1
4.60 g N/L
21.2 65.0 311.1 85.6 82.4
U2
9.20 g N/L
19.1 63.8 299.4 81.8 81.5
Iran pH – 8.21
Sandy loam soil

Effect of nano-potassium fertilization on fruit weight, bunch weight and yield/palm of Zaghloul date palm
Qena, Egypt El-Salhy et al. (2021) 58
Character Fruit weight (g) Bunch weight (kg) Yield/palm (kg)
Treatment 2019 2020 Mean 2019 2020 Mean 2019 2020 Mean
Vinasse spraying
(T1) 4.5 l K/palm
15.2 16.0 15.6 17.35 17.70 17.23 156.2 153.9 155.1
Nano-K
application (T2)
75g/palm
14.8 15.6 15.2 17.50 16.77 17.14 157.5 150.9 154.2
Nano-K2SO4
spraying (T3)
35g/palm
15.2 16.0 15.6 17.60 16.90 17.25 158.4 152.1 155.3
Potassin spraying
(T4) 30%K
15.0 15.8 15.4 17.38 16.93 17.16 156.4 152.4 154.4
K2SO4 (Control)
(T5) 1.5kg/palm
14.2 14.9 14.6 16.85 16.10 16.42 151.3 144.0 147.7
LS.D. 5% 0.55 0.52 0.53 0.55 4.83 5.12
pH – 7.9
Alluvial soil

Effect of nano-nitrogen, Azotobacter chrococcum and Bacillus subtilis on available N
(%) concentration in okra plant
59
Iraq pH – 7.3
Loamy soil Al-Jabri et al. (2019)
Vital vaccine N0 N1 N2 N3 Means
A0 2.23 2.40 2.50 2.66 2.45
A1 2.50 2.56 2.60 2.76 2.60
A2 2.36 2.50 2.50 2.63 2.50
A3 2.36 2.50 2.70 2.83 2.59
Means 2.36 2.49 2.57 2.72
Nitrogen fertilizer nanoscales
LSD at 5% Vital vaccine
0.06
Nitrogen fertilizer nanoscales
0.06
Interaction
0.13

Pakistan Hafeez et al. (2015) 60
Effect of copper nanoparticles on germination response and yield parameters of wheat
Treatment
s
Germinatio
n %
Germination
Index
Leaf Area
(cm2/plan
t)
Chlorophyll
contents
(SPAD
units)
Grains
per
spike
Spikes
per pot
100 grain
weight (g)
Grain
yield per
pot (g)
0 ppm 94.67 13.77 6.847 38.433 23.333 13.00 4.0800 6.4200
10 ppm 94.67 14.38 8.980 41.667 25.333 13.33 5.1033 8.5700
20 ppm 96.0 13.96 10.783 46.480 27.667 16.33 5.7567 10.873
30 ppm 96.67 14.49 12.793 51.367 30.667 19.33 6.4500 13.513
40 ppm 96.57 14.43 10.290 50.400 20.667 11.67 3.8067 5.1000
50 ppm 82.67 12.32 8.263 37.833 19.333 9.00 3.1800 4.0867
LSD at
5%
8.3020 1.0308 0.5473 4.8054 2.7175 2.5506 0.2805 0.335
pH – 7.8
Alluvial soil

Hayyawi et al. (2018) 61
Effects of nano-fertilizers on biological yield, grain yield, harvest index and concentration of N, P and K in
the leaves of wheat
Treatment Treatment
details
Biological
yield
Mg/ha
Grain
yield
Mg/ha
Harvest
index
%
N% P% K%
T1 Control 11.499 4.060 35.27 2.00 0.22 1.22
T2 Nano (N+P) 12.449 5.305 42.55 2.76 0.46 1.88
T3 Nano (N+K) 12.289 4.886 39.79 2.53 0.33 2.20
T4 Nano (P+K) 12.138 4.575 37.65 2.34 0.40 2.33
T5 Nano (N+P+K) 13.047 5.642 43.18 2.88 0.60 2.66
T6 Nano SMP 13.364 5.996 44.96 3.17 0.66 2.88
T7 AGRIMEL (NPK
+ traditional
fertilizer)
12.674 5.198 41.07 2.55 0.46 2.22
LSD at 5% 0.470 0.406 4.460 0.303 0.017 0.108
Iraq pH – 7.95
Silt clay loam soil

Pakistan Razaaq et al. (2015) 62
Effects of silver nanoparticles on germinations and number of seminal roots of wheat
SNPs
concentration
(in ppm)
Germination % Germination
Index
Number of
seminal roots
0 87.5 0.9188 3.6682
25 97.5 0.8900 6.3698
50 90.0 0.7728 6.3748
75 92.5 0.7783 5.8000
100 57.5 0.76 2.3708
125 37.5 0.839 1.2000
150 25.0 0.8375 1.1000
pH – 6.8
Alluvial soil

Pakistan Razaaq et al. (2015) 63
Effects of silver nanoparticles on leaf area (A), root biomass (B), fresh weight (C), dry weight (D) and
chlorophyll content of wheat seedlings
pH – 6.8
Alluvial soil

Effect of nitrogen and zinc nano-fertilizer with the organic farming practices
on cereal and oil seed crops
Haryana Kumar et.al. (2022)
Test Crop Treatment 1 (T1) Treatment 2 (T2)
1 Wheat N:P:K:Zn (kg)
(150:60:30:25)
Organic manure 2.5 MT+ Biofertilizer consortium 1250 ml+
Sagarika granular 25 kg + Sagarika liq. 625 ml + three sprays each
of nano nitrogen and nano zinc
2 Peral millet N:P:K:Zn (kg) (60:30:0:0) Organic manure 2.5 MT + Biofertilizer consortium 1250 ml +
Sagarika granular 25 kg+ Sagarika liq. 625 ml + Three sprays of
nano nitrogen and nano zinc
3 Mustard N:P:K:Zn:S (kg)
(80:30:20:25:25)
Organic manure 1.25 MT + Biofertilizer consortium 1250 ml +
Sagarika granular 25 kg+ Sagarika liq. 625 ml + three sprays each
of nano nitrogen and nano zinc
4 Sesame N:P:K:Zn (kg) (37.5:0:0:0) Organic manure 1.25 MT + Biofertilizer consortium 1250 ml +
Sagarika granular 25 kg+ Sagarika liq. 625 ml + two sprays each of
nano nitrogen and nano zinc
Treatment option chosen per hectare
64
pH – 7.85
Alluvial soil

Effect of nitrogen and zinc nano-fertilizer with the organic farming
practices on plant growth
65
*Non-significant difference between the treatments.
pH – 7.85
Alluvial soil

Effect of nitrogen and zinc nano-fertilizer with the organic farming practices
on growth and development
66
(A) Wheat: tillers, spike length and spikelet (B) Pearl millet: tillers, ear head length (C) Sesame: branches, capsule (D)
Mustard: siliquae, seeds. Parameters were observed two weeks before harvesting. # in numbers
pH – 7.85
Alluvial soil

Effect of nitrogen and zinc nano-fertilizer with the organic farming
practices on grain yield
67
pH – 7.85
Alluvial soil

Effect of nano-fertilizers on yield response of onion
Mane et al. (2020) 68
Treatments Average weight of
onion (g)
Bulb yield (t/ha) Yield of leaves (t/ha) Bulb to leaves
ratio
Control ( No N & Zn :
100% RD of PK)
52.1 19.57 4.9 3.98
Control ( No N & Zn :
100% RD of PK + 2
sprays of nano N
60.4 22.15 5.1 4.34
RDF (100% NPK and
Zn)
70.0 34.86 5.4 6.45
RDF (50% N, 100%
PK) + 2 sprays of
nano N
72.2 35.92 5.46 6.58
Uttar Pradesh Inceptisol pH – 7.76

El-Azim et al. (2019) 69
Effect of NPK chemical or nano-fertilizers on biological, economical and vegetative yield of potato
Treatment Treatment
details
Biological
yield
Economical
yield
Tubers dry
yield
Vegetative
fresh yield
Vegetative dry
yield
T1 (control) 100% NPK
non-nano
fertilizers
35.96 18.42 6.14 17.54 3.53
T2 100% NPK
nano-fertilizers
36.95 20.07 6.69 16.88 3.43
T3 50% NPK
nano-fertilizers
39.81 23.59 7.86 16.23 3.32
T4 25% NPK
nano-fertilizers
41.11 21.86 7.29 19.25 3.87
L.S.D. at 5% 1.87 1.78 0.595 0.40 0.11
Potato vegetative and tuber fresh and dry yield (ton/ha )
Egypt pH – 7.45
Clay soil

Kanjana (2020) 70
Effect of foliar application of nano-fertilizers on total dry weight and seed cotton yield
Treatment details 2014-15 2015-16 Average 2014-15 2015-16 Average
Control 1257 1107 1182 159.5 144.5 152.0
Micro-nutrients
(Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn
and B)
1277 1082 1180 124.8 135.8 130.3
NF1 (nano-
Ca+Mg+S)
1327 1250 1289 142.4 151.4 146.9
NF2 (nano-
N+P+K)
1383 1202 1292 145.7 169.8 157.7
NF3 (nano P+K
and micro-
nutrients)
1403 1336 1369 199.8 149.1 174.4
NF4 (only nano
chelated
micronutrients)
1407 1293 1350 271.9 145.7 208.8
CD (0.05) 103.2 160.9 60.1 58.6
Seed cotton yield (kg/ha) Total (shoot + root) dry weight (g/plant)
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu pH – 8.25
Clay loam soil

71
Effect of foliar application of nano-fertilizers on seed cotton yield (q/ha) during two consecutive
years (2014-15 and 2015-16)
Kanjana (2020)
Clay loam soil

Kanjana (2020) 72
Effect of foliar application of nano-fertilizers on economic analysis of seed cotton yield
(average of two years)
Clay loam soil
Treatments Dosage/ha Cost Rs/ha Additional
return (Rs/ha)
Net return
(Rs/ha)
B:C ratio
NF 1 1563 g/ha 1953 5500 2047 1.6:1
NF 2 125 ml/ha 188 5500 3812 3.3:1
NF 3 1250 ml/ha 900 9500 7100 4.0:1
NF 4 470 g/ha 619 8500 6381 4.0:1
Seed cotton @ Rs. 5000/ha

Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers on additional (grain + straw) yield of wheat crop and
economic return over RDF
Pathak et al. (2020) 73
Particular T1 = RDF T2 = RDF-50%
N + 2 sprays of
nano N
T3 = RDF + 2
sprays of nano
Zn
T4 = RDF + 2
sprays of nano
Cu
T5 = RDF-50%
N + 1 spray
each of nano N,
nano Zn and
nano Cu
Grain + straw
yield (kg/ha)
7,970 9,475 8,960 8,330 8,415
Additional yield
over RDF (T1)
kg/ha
- 1,505 990 360 445
Economic
returns over RDF
(Rs./ha)
- 18,070 11,006 6,502 5,075
Uttar Pradesh Inceptisol pH – 7.6

Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizer on growth, grain yield and managing turcicum leaf blight disease in maize
74
Raichur, Karnataka Raliya et al. (2021)
pH – 7.7
Black soil

Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers and straight fertilizers on the growth parameters of maize
75
pH – 7.7
Black soil

Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers and straight fertilizers on the yield and yield attributes of
maize
76
pH – 7.7
Black soil

Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers and straight fertilizers on the severity of turcicum leaf
blight and economics of maize
77
pH – 7.7
Black soil

Rajasthan Kumar et.al. (2020) 78
Effect of nano-fertilizers on crop productivity and economic returns of wheat and barley
Treatments Treatment details
T1 Farmer’s Fertilizer Practice (FFP)
T2 FFP - 50% N + 2 Spray of Nano Nitrogen
T3 FFP + 2 Spray of Nano Zinc
T4 FFP + 2 Spray of Nano Cu
T5 FFP - 50% N + 1 Spray of Nano N + 1 Spray of Nano Zn + 1 Spray
of Nano Cu
pH – 8.65
Sandy loam soil

Kumar et.al. (2020) 79
Crop Parameters Farmer
Fertilizer
Practice (FFP)
FFP -50%N +
2 Spray of
Nano-N
FFP + 2 Spray
of Nano-Zn
FFP+ 2
Spray of
Nano-Cu
FFP (-50% N)
+ 1 Spray of
Nano-N+ 1
Spray of
Nano-Zn+ 1
Spray of
Nano-Cu
Lowest yield (kg/ ha ) 2250 2400 2370 2370 2380
Highest yield (kg/ ha) 6410 6760 6610 6580 6875
Wheat Mean yield (kg/ha ) 4330 4580 4490 4475 4628
Response over FFP
(kg/ha )
- 250 160 145 297.5
Per cent increase
over FFP
- 5.77 3.7 3.35 6.87
Net return over FFP
(Rs./ha)
- 4812.50 3080.00 2791.25 5726.88
Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers on grain yield and economic returns of wheat
Rajasthan pH – 8.65
Sandy loam soil

80
Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers on grain yield and economic returns of wheat
Kumar et.al. (2020)
Sandy loam soil

81
Crop Parameters Farmer
Fertilizer
Practice (FFP)
FFP -50%N +
2 Spray of
Nano-N
FFP + 2 Spray
of Nano-Zn
FFP+ 2
Spray of
Nano-Cu
FFP (-50% N)
+ 1 Spray of
Nano-N+ 1
Spray of
Nano-Zn+ 1
Spray of
Nano-Cu
Lowest yield (kg/ ha ) 3200 3380 3300 3250 3350
Highest yield (kg/ ha) 5260 5620 5730 5790 5900
Barley Mean yield (kg/ha ) 4230 4500 4515 4520 4625
Response over FFP
(kg/ha )
- 270 285 290 395
Per cent increase over
FFP
- 6.38 6.74 6.86 9.34
Net return over FFP
(Rs./ha)
- 4117.50 4346.25 4422.50 6023.75
Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers on grain yield and economic returns of barley
Kumar et.al. (2020)
Sandy loam soil

82
Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers on grain yield and economic returns of barley
Kumar et.al. (2020)
Sandy loam soil

Criticism of
nano-urea
Chemically packaged urea is 46 % nitrogen, which means 45 kg
bag contains 20 kg of N. contrastingly, nano urea sold in 500 ml
bottles has only 4 % N or 20 gm. How this can compensate for the
kilogrammes of nitrogen normally required puzzles scientists.
~Dr N.K. Tomar
84

Criticism of
nano-urea
1. Different parts of the plant contain nitrogen in varying proportions and
because nanoparticles are so small and numerous having lot more surface
area relative to their volume, compared with mm size grains or urea that
plants are exposed to-nearly 10,000 times more in nitrogen.
2. The interaction and metabolism is vastly improved and therefore the
response in terms of yield is more.
3. The increased surface area make the nano particles in nano-urea deliver
more nitrogen.
4. There are still several aspects of plant activity when exposed to nano
particles that are unclear and a subject of research is still ungoing about
mechanism of nano-urea.
5. But we have results from experiments and farmers are getting benefitting
from it and ultimately, they are the best judge.
~ Dr. Ramesh Raliya ( Inventor of nano-urea)
85

Fertilizers plants in India
62 large sized plants
20 plants produce
DAP
64 medium and
small-scale units
producing SSP
86
29 plants
produce urea
13 plants manufacture
ammonium sulphate (AS),
calcium ammonium
nitrate (CAN) and other
nitrogenous fertilizers

Objectives of fertilizer policies
✔️ To sustain agricultural growth,
✔️ to ensure adequate availability of right quality of fertilizers at right time and at the right
price to farmers,
✔️ to promote balanced nutrient application,
✔️ unbiased distribution.
87

Categories of fertilizer policies
1. Pricing and subsidy policies
2. Marketing and distribution policies
3. Production and import policies
88

1. Pricing and subsidy policies
Fixed policy -1976
Retention price scheme -1977
Decontrol of prices -1991
New pricing scheme – 2003
Nutrient based subsidy scheme - 2010
89

2. Marketing and distribution policies
Fertilizer control order -1957
Liberation of fertilizer marketing -1966
Fertilizer movement of control order -1973
Block delivery scheme -1980
90

3. Production and import policies
Production and availability of fortified and coated
fertilizers - 2009
Neem coated urea policy - 2015
91

Pricing mechanism of NPK
Urea (N)
Retail price : Rs. 280/50 kg bag (fixed by the government)
Cost of supply : Rs. 970/50 kg bag
Subsidy cost : cost of supply – retail price (970-280=690)
DAP/MOP (P and K)
Retail price : Rs. 1150/50 kg bag
Subsidy : fixed by the government (35 %)
Cost of supply : Rs. 1810/50 kg bag
Retail price calculation : cost of supply - subsidy
92

Production, import and consumption of urea during last 5 years
93
Year Production
(Mt)
Import (Mt) Kharif Rabi Total
2016-17 24.20 4.97 14.36 15.26 29.62
2017-18 24.02 6.01 14.86 15.06 29.89
2018-19 23.90 7.56 15.45 16.57 32.02
2019-20 24.46 9.12 15.37 18.33 33.70
2020-21* 15.15 6.61 17.78 2.43 20.21
Urea consumption (Mt)
*Figures for kharif 2020 and rabi 2020-21 (as on 10/11/2020)
Source : IFFCO

Subsidy paid by Government of India for urea during last 3 years (Rs. Crore)
94
Note: 1 crore = 10 million
Source : IFFCO
Year Indigenous urea Imported Urea Total
2016-17 40,000 11,257 51,257
2017-18 36,974 9,980 46,954
2018-19 32,190 17,155 49,345

Bottlenecks
of nano-
fertilizers
Has ill-effects on
plant system if used
in excess amount
Potential to cause
respiratory disorder
and carcinogenic
effect
Produce waste toxic
materials
95
Safety concerns for
farm workers and
consumers

Contents
• Introduction
• Case studies
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
84

Conclusions
✔️Nano-fertilizers are utilized alone or in conjunction with organic materials to efficiently
boosting nutrients to crops plants while reducing environmental pollution through minimizing
nutrient loss and enhance the higher absorption rate.
✔️ Moreover, the economic benefit of reducing the leaching and volatilization losses of
conventional fertilizers is very attractive for producers in addition to being clean technologies
for the environment.
✔️ Nano-fertilizers will lead to self-reliance and help in meeting Sustainable Development
Goals ( SDGs) with reduced environmental footprints.
✔️ The evaluation of the possible risks and the advantages of nano-fertilizers and conventional
fertilizers in the ecology of the soil and the environment should be considered to achieve
sustainable agriculture.
97

Contents
• Introduction
• Case studies
• Legislation
• Bottlenecks
• Conclusions
• Future thrusts
86

Future thrusts
✔️Foliar application of nano fertilizers calls into focus efficient spray
technologies with agri-tech solutions such as drones, improved sprayers etc. for
better farming application practices.
✔️To investigate the evaluation of the microbial signalling mechanisms of plants
when interacting with nano-fertilizers.
✔️ The modelling of the biological and biochemical interactions of the nano-
fertilizer in the soil should also be explored.
99

Future thrusts
✔️ With regard to soil applications of nano-fertilizer, through metagenomics,
the possible effects that the use of nano-fertilizer implies on the soil microbiota
can be explored.
✔️ Nano fertilizers are ‘Informed Choices’ available to farmers to address the
limitations faced by today’s agriculture.
10

10
1

Strategic applications of nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture : Benefits and bottlenecks

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Strategic applications of nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture : Benefits and bottlenecks

Similar to Strategic applications of nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture : Benefits and bottlenecks (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Strategic applications of nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture : Benefits and bottlenecks