Teagasc’s latest update on protected urea performance is to be welcomed. As Aidan Brennan reports on page 9, there was no difference in grass growth between protected urea-based fertilisers and traditional CAN or urea fertilisers.

There has been much talk about whether the newer products were performing, but this research shows that the biggest factor holding back growth this summer, no matter the fertiliser applied, has been the weather.

New technologies

As farmers adopt new technologies, it is important to have frequent and regular updates from research trials so that farmers can be confident that their on-farm tools are working.

If our climate targets demand more protected urea, farmers must be secure in the knowledge that it will perform as well as other fertilisers.

It’s time too for mandatory labelling to be enforced on the type and rate of the inhibitor used to protect the urea and the date it was applied.

We know, again from Teagasc research, that different inhibitors last for longer than others.

Farmers should be supplied with all of this data on each bag and be confident in the quality of the product supplied.

Some protected urea trial results from a variation of soil type and field elevation would also allay farmer concerns.