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

1. 1 WELCOME Department of Soil Science, CSK HPKV 1

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

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

4. 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

5. Contents • Introduction • Nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture • Benefits and classification of nano-fertilizers • Synthesis & method of application of nano-fertilizers • Mechanism and fate of nano-fertilizers • Case studies • Bottlenecks • Conclusions • Future thrusts 5

6. ~ 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. 7 Source : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

8. 8 Source : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

9. The world food problems Environmental contamination High demand for water & energy Climate change Increasing population 9 Source : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12 Chaudhari et al. (2015)

13. 13 Source : Fertilizer Association of India. (2019)

14. 14 Source : Fertilizer Association of India. (2019)

15. 15 Source : Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative

16. 16

17. 17 Bernela et al. (2020)

18. 18 Agriculture Nanotechnology

19. 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

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

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

22. 22 Sustainable agriculture Source : International Union for Conservation of Nature

23. 23 Source : International Union for Conservation of Nature

24. Sustainable agriculture 24 “Zero Hunger” Source : International Union for Conservation of Nature

26. 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

28. 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

29. 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)

30. 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)

31. 31 Raliya et al. (2021)

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

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

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

35. 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 Source : Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative • 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.

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

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

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

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

40. 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 Source : Fertilizer Association of India. (2022)

41. Contents • Introduction • Nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture • Benefits and classification of nano-fertilizers • Synthesis & method of application of nano-fertilizers • Mechanism and fate of nano-fertilizers • Case studies • Bottlenecks of nano-fertilizers • Conclusions • Future thrusts 40

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

43. 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.

44. 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)

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

46. 46 Bernela et al. (2020)

47. Harnessing the potential of nano-fertilizers 47 Nutrients encapsulated in nano-porous material Coated with thin polymer film Delivered particles in nanoscale dimension Raliya et al. (2020)

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

49. Method of application of nano-fertilizers 49 Raliya et al. (2020)

51. 51 Source : Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative

52. 52 Raliya et al. (2020)

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

55. 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. 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)

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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

60. 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

61. 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

62. 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

63. 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

64. 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

65. Effect of nitrogen and zinc nano-fertilizer with the organic farming practices on plant growth 65 *Non-significant difference between the treatments. Haryana Kumar et.al. (2022) pH – 7.85 Alluvial soil

66. 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 Haryana Kumar et.al. (2022) pH – 7.85 Alluvial soil

67. Effect of nitrogen and zinc nano-fertilizer with the organic farming practices on grain yield 67 Haryana Kumar et.al. (2022) pH – 7.85 Alluvial soil

68. 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

69. 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

70. 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 micronutrients) 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. 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) Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu pH – 8.25 Clay loam soil

72. Kanjana (2020) 72 Effect of foliar application of nano-fertilizers on economic analysis of seed cotton yield (average of two years) Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu pH – 8.25 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

73. 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

74. 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

75. Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers and straight fertilizers on the growth parameters of maize 75 Raichur, Karnataka Raliya et al. (2021) pH – 7.7 Black soil

76. Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers and straight fertilizers on the yield and yield attributes of maize 76 Raichur, Karnataka Raliya et al. (2021) pH – 7.7 Black soil

77. Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers and straight fertilizers on the severity of turcicum leaf blight and economics of maize 77 Raichur, Karnataka Raliya et al. (2021) pH – 7.7 Black soil

78. 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

79. 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. 80 Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers on grain yield and economic returns of wheat Kumar et.al. (2020) Rajasthan pH – 8.65 Sandy loam soil

81. 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) Rajasthan pH – 8.65 Sandy loam soil

82. 82 Effect of IFFCO nano-fertilizers on grain yield and economic returns of barley Kumar et.al. (2020) Rajasthan pH – 8.65 Sandy loam soil

83. Legislation 83

84. 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

85. 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

86. 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

87. 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

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

89. 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

90. 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

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

92. 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

93. 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

94. 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

95. 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

97. 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

98. Contents • Introduction • Nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture • Benefits and classification of nano-fertilizers • Synthesis & method of application of nano-fertilizers • Mechanism and fate of nano-fertilizers • Case studies • Legislation • Bottlenecks • Conclusions • Future thrusts 86

99. 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

100. 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

101. 10 1 Source : Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative

102. 102

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

Estás leyendo una previsualización.

Eche un vistazo a continuación

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

Más Contenido Relacionado

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

Más reciente (20)