There is no significant difference in the performance of protected urea versus CAN fertiliser so far this year, according to research updates from Teagasc.
The trial work, being overseen by Teagasc’s Áine Murray compares CAN with protected urea nitrogen on three trial sites in Clonakilty, Moorepark and Athenry.
While statistically there is no significant difference between the different treatments, there are numerical differences with protected urea outperforming CAN on all but one replicate.
The results reflect just the first three rotations for 2025, so these results are just a snapshot of the year to date.
The experiment is designed to compare the yield and quality of pasture grown using two different forms of nitrogen across the three sites. The CAN is 27% nitrogen while the protected urea is commercially sourced NBPT-NPPT-coated protected urea at 46% nitrogen.
The study is conducted in plots which are cut multiple times per year at pre-grazing yields of 1,300kg to 1,500kg DM/ha, simulating a grazing scenario.
Fertiliser is applied at different rates using hand operated applicators.
There is a control treatment at all sites receiving zero chemical nitrogen.
No slurry is applied and no animals graze the plots, but one bag per acre of 0:7:30 is applied in April and July.
Because there are no animals grazing the site, there are no nutrients being recycled from dung or urine, so some of the nitrogen rates being applied by the researchers are higher than what farmers can apply. This is to reflect the lack of nutrient recycling at the trial plots. The four rates are:
75kg N/ha.150kg N/ha.300kg N/ha.450kg N/ha. These are split across eight applications between February and August.
Results
At Moorepark, the zero nitrogen treatment has grown 4.139t DM/ha so far in 2025 with the 300kg N/ha CAN treatment growing 5.447t while the protected urea treatment grew 5.675t DM/ha which is 0.228t DM/ha of a difference in favour of protected urea.
At Clonakilty, the zero nitrogen treatment has grown 2.898t DM/ha so far in 2025 with the 300kg N/ha CAN treatment growing 3.527t DM while the protected urea treatment grew 3.631t DM/ha which is a difference of 0.104t DM/ha in favour of protected urea.
In Athenry, the zero nitrogen treatment has grown 3.176t DM/ha to date while the 300kg N/ha treatment using CAN has grown 5.489t DM/ha and the protected urea treatment using the same rate has grown 4.906t DM/ha.
This is the only treatment to record a lower growth rate with protected urea compared to CAN. In this instance the protected urea treatment has recorded a total growth 0.583t DM/ha lower than the CAN treatment.
Figure 1 shows the cumulative results from the different treatments across the different trial sites.
While Áine acknowledges that the results are not statistically different, meaning the differences lie within the margin of error, there is a clear bias in favour of protected urea in terms of yield. It should be noted that this is not for the full year, but Áine will give a further update in two months’ time.
Essentially, the results give confidence to farmers to use protected urea, given that on average the treatments with protected urea have grown more than the CAN treatments.
However, it should be noted that based on previous studies, protected urea tends to perform better in the early part of the season so it will be interesting to see if that is repeated in 2025.
It should also be said that the study is limited in that it is just being conducted on three sites. Moreover, the study doesn’t take into account some of the challenges experienced on farm with protected urea as the nitrogen is being applied by hand applicators.
This means issues such as streaking, which was very apparent on many farms last season is not an issue within the trial plots. Streaking issues are likely to be as a result of incorrectly calibrated fertiliser spreaders, many of which struggle to spread compounds containing urea.
One of the issues encountered with urea is that it has low strength, meaning it can break easier upon hitting the vanes of the fertiliser spreader.
Urea fertiliser. \ Donal O'Leary
The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a new measure introduced by the European Commission to try to account for the carbon emissions of goods produced in countries outside of the EU. The mechanism applies to goods including steel, gas, electricity and fertiliser.
The legislation is designed to close the gap between European manufacturers of heavy goods and non-EU manufacturers when it comes to carbon footprint.
For example, a fertiliser manufacturer operating in Europe has significant extra costs of compliance with greenhouse gas emissions targets and is already operating in the emissions trading scheme.
These manufacturers are competing against imported fertiliser where the same environmental standards are not being enforced.
Under CBAM rules, importers of these products will have to purchase CBAM certificates for importing non-EU products.
The cost of the certificate will depend on the cost of carbon on the EU emissions trading system and the differential in carbon emissions between EU and non-EU fertilisers.
The cost of the certificates will be worked out retrospectively after each quarter, which means importers won’t actually know what the CBAM cost will be at the time of import.
Cost of carbon
According to the Irish Fertiliser Manufacturers and Blenders Association, CBAM could add between €25 and €30/t to the cost of Irish fertiliser next year, depending on the origin and cost of carbon.
As with most things, the cost is likely to be passed on to the end user, in this case farmers. As 85% of all urea used in Europe is imported from outside of the EU, CBAM will have a disproportionate impact on urea prices.
This will weaken the incentives for farmers to switch from CAN to protected urea in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
New nitrates rules
Last February, the Department of Agriculture announced it was restricting the use of unprotected granular urea from 15 September 2025. This week, the Department of Agriculture confirmed to the Irish Farmers Journal that the restriction on un-protected urea is set to go ahead from 15 September as per February announcement.
As part of this announcement, the Government altered the wording in the legislation on the nitrates directive to include a footnote under the fertilisation tables saying that “these fertilisation rates are only applicable where the fertiliser type specified by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is used”.
In effect, this means that from now on the minister of the day can determine what type of fertiliser can be used, without having to change legislation.
The confirmation by the Department of Agriculture that the ban is going ahead means that farmers will have to use up stocks of un-protected urea in this spreading season.
There are as of yet no plans to ban the use of CAN on farms.
In brief
Numerical differences exist, but no statistical differences from the first three rotations comparing fertiliser types on Teagasc trial sites.
The study is comparing CAN fertiliser with protected urea on simulated grazing plots on three sites across Ireland.
CBAM is set to come into force next year, which is likely to increase the cost of fertiliser, particularly urea by up to €30/t.
The Department of Agriculture has given no indication that it intends to restrict the use of CAN based fertiliser in the short to medium term.
There is no significant difference in the performance of protected urea versus CAN fertiliser so far this year, according to research updates from Teagasc.
The trial work, being overseen by Teagasc’s Áine Murray compares CAN with protected urea nitrogen on three trial sites in Clonakilty, Moorepark and Athenry.
While statistically there is no significant difference between the different treatments, there are numerical differences with protected urea outperforming CAN on all but one replicate.
The results reflect just the first three rotations for 2025, so these results are just a snapshot of the year to date.
The experiment is designed to compare the yield and quality of pasture grown using two different forms of nitrogen across the three sites. The CAN is 27% nitrogen while the protected urea is commercially sourced NBPT-NPPT-coated protected urea at 46% nitrogen.
The study is conducted in plots which are cut multiple times per year at pre-grazing yields of 1,300kg to 1,500kg DM/ha, simulating a grazing scenario.
Fertiliser is applied at different rates using hand operated applicators.
There is a control treatment at all sites receiving zero chemical nitrogen.
No slurry is applied and no animals graze the plots, but one bag per acre of 0:7:30 is applied in April and July.
Because there are no animals grazing the site, there are no nutrients being recycled from dung or urine, so some of the nitrogen rates being applied by the researchers are higher than what farmers can apply. This is to reflect the lack of nutrient recycling at the trial plots. The four rates are:
75kg N/ha.150kg N/ha.300kg N/ha.450kg N/ha. These are split across eight applications between February and August.
Results
At Moorepark, the zero nitrogen treatment has grown 4.139t DM/ha so far in 2025 with the 300kg N/ha CAN treatment growing 5.447t while the protected urea treatment grew 5.675t DM/ha which is 0.228t DM/ha of a difference in favour of protected urea.
At Clonakilty, the zero nitrogen treatment has grown 2.898t DM/ha so far in 2025 with the 300kg N/ha CAN treatment growing 3.527t DM while the protected urea treatment grew 3.631t DM/ha which is a difference of 0.104t DM/ha in favour of protected urea.
In Athenry, the zero nitrogen treatment has grown 3.176t DM/ha to date while the 300kg N/ha treatment using CAN has grown 5.489t DM/ha and the protected urea treatment using the same rate has grown 4.906t DM/ha.
This is the only treatment to record a lower growth rate with protected urea compared to CAN. In this instance the protected urea treatment has recorded a total growth 0.583t DM/ha lower than the CAN treatment.
Figure 1 shows the cumulative results from the different treatments across the different trial sites.
While Áine acknowledges that the results are not statistically different, meaning the differences lie within the margin of error, there is a clear bias in favour of protected urea in terms of yield. It should be noted that this is not for the full year, but Áine will give a further update in two months’ time.
Essentially, the results give confidence to farmers to use protected urea, given that on average the treatments with protected urea have grown more than the CAN treatments.
However, it should be noted that based on previous studies, protected urea tends to perform better in the early part of the season so it will be interesting to see if that is repeated in 2025.
It should also be said that the study is limited in that it is just being conducted on three sites. Moreover, the study doesn’t take into account some of the challenges experienced on farm with protected urea as the nitrogen is being applied by hand applicators.
This means issues such as streaking, which was very apparent on many farms last season is not an issue within the trial plots. Streaking issues are likely to be as a result of incorrectly calibrated fertiliser spreaders, many of which struggle to spread compounds containing urea.
One of the issues encountered with urea is that it has low strength, meaning it can break easier upon hitting the vanes of the fertiliser spreader.
Urea fertiliser. \ Donal O'Leary
The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a new measure introduced by the European Commission to try to account for the carbon emissions of goods produced in countries outside of the EU. The mechanism applies to goods including steel, gas, electricity and fertiliser.
The legislation is designed to close the gap between European manufacturers of heavy goods and non-EU manufacturers when it comes to carbon footprint.
For example, a fertiliser manufacturer operating in Europe has significant extra costs of compliance with greenhouse gas emissions targets and is already operating in the emissions trading scheme.
These manufacturers are competing against imported fertiliser where the same environmental standards are not being enforced.
Under CBAM rules, importers of these products will have to purchase CBAM certificates for importing non-EU products.
The cost of the certificate will depend on the cost of carbon on the EU emissions trading system and the differential in carbon emissions between EU and non-EU fertilisers.
The cost of the certificates will be worked out retrospectively after each quarter, which means importers won’t actually know what the CBAM cost will be at the time of import.
Cost of carbon
According to the Irish Fertiliser Manufacturers and Blenders Association, CBAM could add between €25 and €30/t to the cost of Irish fertiliser next year, depending on the origin and cost of carbon.
As with most things, the cost is likely to be passed on to the end user, in this case farmers. As 85% of all urea used in Europe is imported from outside of the EU, CBAM will have a disproportionate impact on urea prices.
This will weaken the incentives for farmers to switch from CAN to protected urea in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
New nitrates rules
Last February, the Department of Agriculture announced it was restricting the use of unprotected granular urea from 15 September 2025. This week, the Department of Agriculture confirmed to the Irish Farmers Journal that the restriction on un-protected urea is set to go ahead from 15 September as per February announcement.
As part of this announcement, the Government altered the wording in the legislation on the nitrates directive to include a footnote under the fertilisation tables saying that “these fertilisation rates are only applicable where the fertiliser type specified by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is used”.
In effect, this means that from now on the minister of the day can determine what type of fertiliser can be used, without having to change legislation.
The confirmation by the Department of Agriculture that the ban is going ahead means that farmers will have to use up stocks of un-protected urea in this spreading season.
There are as of yet no plans to ban the use of CAN on farms.
In brief
Numerical differences exist, but no statistical differences from the first three rotations comparing fertiliser types on Teagasc trial sites.
The study is comparing CAN fertiliser with protected urea on simulated grazing plots on three sites across Ireland.
CBAM is set to come into force next year, which is likely to increase the cost of fertiliser, particularly urea by up to €30/t.
The Department of Agriculture has given no indication that it intends to restrict the use of CAN based fertiliser in the short to medium term. 
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: