When IFFCO launched nano urea in June 2021, they claimed that one 500 ml bottle of nano urea can replace a 45 kg bag of conventional urea. Additionally, IFFCO stated that nano urea increases crop yield, reduce input costs, minimize environmental impact and ensure controlled nutrient release. However, these claims were criticized by many researchers and considered them to be exaggerated.
These claims sounded revolutionary, but were they completely true?
IFFCO funded several research studies on nano urea across different crops grown in India. The findings from these studies were mixed. None of the studies confirmed that a single bottle of nano urea could completely replace a full bag of conventional urea. Instead, the results suggested that nano urea can supplement, but not fully replace, conventional urea.
Most research has shown that applying 75% of the recommended nitrogen through conventional urea combined with one or two foliar sprays of nano urea can produce yields comparable to using 100% nitrogen from conventional urea alone. This demonstrates nano urea’s potential to optimize nitrogen use, reduce dependence on imported urea, and increase nitrogen use efficiency often by more than 80%.
Nano urea also helps reduce environmental pollution by minimizing nitrogen losses through leaching and gaseous emissions, which contribute to water contamination and greenhouse gas emissions.
In crops like rice and wheat, however, the results have been inconsistent. Some studies have reported reduced yield and protein content when nano urea was used as a complete substitute for conventional urea.
Because of these mixed results and exaggerated initial claims, both farmers and researchers have avoided adopting nano urea widely. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that using one or two foliar sprays of nano urea alongside 75% of the recommended conventional urea dose can reduce costs and improve nutrient use efficiency without compromising yields. So, nano urea cannot replace but it can supplement conventional urea, allowing a reduction to ~75% of the recommended nitrogen rate.
What do you think is it right to release products for use by exaggerating research findings?