With farm profitability firmly in focus, experts urge growers to consider maximising returns and nitrogen performance by using urease inhibitors this season.
Multiple factors are driving the need to optimise nitrogen use this spring. Continued geopolitical unrest and potential supply chain constraints are keeping fertiliser prices up, while the legacy of harvest 2025 combined with poor grain prices is casting a shadow on the bottom lines of farming businesses.
Managing cash flow
“Higher fertiliser prices have coincided with uninspiring grain prices,” notes COFCO’s Sales Manager, Russell Davison. “It’s understandable from a cash-flow perspective that some farmers have delayed purchase decisions. In recent years, inclement autumns have led to a rise in spring cropping, which also caused growers to delay their fertiliser orders, adding pressure on supply.”
According to Essex grower, Steve Crayston, there’s another factor influencing purchasing decisions: the current absence of the BPS. “Traditionally, many farmers purchased their fertiliser with a delivery in the late-autumn, early-winter, for a January payment.
“This coincided with the larger payments from BPS and other schemes. Without them, growers are having to juggle their cash flow, and that can affect when they might purchase fertiliser.”
Caution over delivery delays
Despite subdued demand, Russell says that there isn’t much potential for a downside in the price of fertiliser and urges farmers to place their orders.
“Increasing the efficiency of fertiliser is becoming more important and timing of applications play a significant role,” he says.
“It is worth bearing in mind that the UK fertiliser sector doesn’t have a ‘just in time’ approach, especially as most raw materials are now imported. Spring 2025 was, logistically, one of the most difficult on record, and while there were many factors that contributed to the situation, concern is growing that we are, once again, heading in a similar direction.”
Urease inhibitors – bottom-line benefits
Russell also highlights the wider role of urease inhibitors: “Products such as Limus offer bottom-line benefits compared with ammonium nitrate, as well as reducing volatilisation,” he says.
BASF business development manager Andrew Clune explains why. He says that urea can lose on average around 20% of nitrogen to the atmosphere. In extremely poor conditions – warm and dry with a little soil moisture to break down the granules – this can be as high as 80%.
“We regularly see around a 5% yield uplift from using Limus treated urea over untreated urea. So, while there is a cost to adding a urease inhibitor, more nitrogen is retained in the soil where plants can utilise it, supporting higher yields.”
Protecting the future
The Urea Stewardship Programme governs the use of urea-based fertilisers as part of the Government’s Clean Air Strategy 2019 and is a voluntary stewardship initiative designed to reduce ammonia emissions from urea fertilisers.
Any fertiliser containing more than 1% of urea nitrogen can only be applied between 15 January and 31 March each year; otherwise a urease inhibitor must be used.
“While farm audits are undertaken by Red Tractor, Defra is monitoring atmospheric ammonia levels,” cautions Andrew. “It is also surveying fertiliser manufacturers and comparing the volumes of urea, inhibitors and inhibited urea sold. There are real-world consequences if best practice isn’t adhered to. The reality is, if you’re using urea, you should be using a treated urea.”
“Ultimately, it is better to keep nitrogen where it should be – in the soil – for a longer period of time,” says Andrew. “Urease inhibitors aren’t only good for the environment, they make agronomic and economic sense too.”
On-farm advantages
Steve started using urease inhibitors before the guidelines came into effect in April 2024. In 2025, Limus protected urea was used across the whole farm.
“Initially we used Limus protected urea as a risk management strategy for the last applications going onto wheat and maize. We were impressed with the results. Last year, the vast majority of our applications – even if they were before the end of March – went on with an inhibitor.”
The approach is likely to reduce costs for Steve’s farm. Comparing the cost per kilo of nitrogen, Andrew says that urea plus Limus costs less than ammonium nitrate.
“It’s better value, from both a cost and performance perspective.”
Russell agrees: “Why wouldn’t you want to save money, protect soil-based nutrients and help environmental recovery?”