+86-311-86598888

info@derichemical.com

Product Quotation

Facebook Linkedin Twitter Tumblr Pinterest
Hebei Derui Chemical Co., Ltd. Hebei Derui Chemical Co., Ltd.

language language

    Current Status and Trends in the Agrochemical-Fertilizer Market

    Release Date:

    2019-08-14

    Editor’s Note: Pesticides are primarily used to control harmful organisms in crops, while fertilizers supply the essential nutrients required for plant growth. Both are indispensable to crop production; when they are needed simultaneously, this creates a favorable environment for the development of agro‑chemicals that combine both functions. The implementation of the revised Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides, coupled with internal and external factors such as safety and environmental protection, is vigorously driving industry transformation and reshaping market dynamics, presenting an unprecedented historical opportunity. In particular, as relevant regulations, requirements, and tasks are steadily put into practice and corresponding standards—such as T/CCPIA 022—2018 “Limits for Trace Other Pesticide Residues in Pesticide Formulations” and GB/T 37500—2019 “Determination of Plant Growth Regulators in Fertilizers by High‑Performance Liquid Chromatography”—are promulgated and enforced, they are fostering a fairer competitive landscape for the industry and the market. This article begins by providing an overview of the current management and registration status of agro‑chemicals‑fertilizer products, followed by separate introductions and analyses of the respective markets for herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators. Finally, it discusses existing challenges in the production, sales, and regulatory oversight of domestic agro‑chemicals‑fertilizer products, aiming to offer guidance for the sector’s further development.

     
    Agro‑pharmaceuticals may be single products formed by blending pesticides and fertilizers in specific ratios and stabilizing them within a defined formulation system through appropriate processing technologies (hereinafter referred to as “agro‑pharmaceutical products”). Alternatively, they may take the form of comprehensive application packages—comprising both products and associated application technologies and application equipment—specifically developed for integrated pesticide–fertilizer application (hereinafter referred to as “agro‑pharmaceutical solutions”).
     
    In the development of fertilizer‑pesticides, five major advantages have been identified: (1) Labor and effort savings. Two field operations are combined into one, reducing labor input, saving time, and conserving resources. (2) Improved working conditions. For pests and diseases that are difficult to control through in‑field applications during the later growth stages—such as in corn and sugarcane—pre‑application of fertilizer‑pesticides mitigates risks of human exposure. (3) Enhanced efficacy. The fertilizer acts as a carrier, ensuring more uniform dispersion of the pesticide active ingredients and facilitating optimal performance. (4) Resource conservation. By replacing sand in granular formulations with fertilizer, both base application and topdressing reduce transportation costs and help conserve resources. (5) Synergistic benefits between pesticides and fertilizers. Pest and disease management promotes crop health and nutrient uptake, while improved nutrient absorption, in turn, enhances the crop’s resistance to pathogens and its ability to absorb and translocate systemic pesticides.
     
    1. Current Status of Pesticide and Fertilizer Management
     
    At present, the registration of single‑component agrochemical‑fertilizer products primarily focuses on the assessment of pesticide ingredients, with granular formulations predominating and aqueous formulations accounting for a small share. By contrast, most combination products designed as integrated agrochemical‑fertilizer solutions are registered and regulated separately under either pesticide or fertilizer regulations. Fertilizer products are prohibited from containing pesticide ingredients. The newly issued national standard GB/T 37500—2019, “Determination of Plant Growth Regulators in Fertilizers—High‑Performance Liquid Chromatography,” provides a legal basis for the detection and identification of pesticide residues in such formulations. Industry practice generally assumes that single‑component agrochemical‑fertilizer products are subject to pesticide‑related oversight, while individual components included in integrated agrochemical‑fertilizer schemes are managed separately under both pesticide and fertilizer regulatory frameworks.
     
    2 Registration status of agrochemicals and fertilizers
     
    China’s research on agro‑pharmaceuticals began in the 1980s, and to date more than 30 such products have obtained registration. Under the current Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides and the Measures for the Administration of Fertilizer Registration, products classified as agro‑pharmaceuticals must undergo both pesticide and fertilizer registration. Among the registered formulations, the pesticide components are predominantly insecticides and herbicides, with a smaller proportion of fungicides; in terms of formulation types, granules account for the majority, while liquid formulations are relatively rare; and with respect to application methods, most products are applied directly by broadcasting, with few specialized service companies involved. As for active ingredient content, the concentration of the pesticide active ingredient generally does not exceed 1%, while the fertilizer base encompasses nearly all solid fertilizer types, including compound fertilizers, blended fertilizers, organic–inorganic compound fertilizers, and organic fertilizers.
     
    3 Herbicide and Fertilizer Market
     
    3.1 Research Background of Herbicide–Fertilizer Combinations
     
    The purpose of developing herbicidal fertilizers is to combine fertilization with weed control. When farmers apply these fertilizers, a single field operation delivers both nutrient supplementation and weed suppression, thereby reducing labor and costs. This integration of two separate tasks into one streamlines operations, saving labor, time, and energy, lowering production expenses, and enhancing the efficacy of both pesticides and fertilizers.
     
    Research on herbicide‑fertilizer formulations in China began in the 1980s. At the Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, researchers mixed the herbicide 2,4‑D with urea or calcium superphosphate and found significant synergistic effects, with calcium superphosphate demonstrating the most pronounced enhancement of both herbicidal efficacy and yield. Studies indicate that combining formulated herbicides with compound fertilizers produces additive and synergistic effects: herbicidal performance typically improves by more than 10%, while the fertilizer efficiencies of nitrogen fertilizers (urea plus ammonium chloride), calcium superphosphate, and potassium chloride increase by 8.3%, 5.4%, and 7.7%, respectively, resulting in an overall fertilizer efficiency gain of 8.6%. When crops are treated with herbicide‑specific fertilizer products, a “pre‑control, post‑promotion” biological effect emerges, characterized by restrained early growth and delayed senescence later in the season. As the application rate of such formulations increases, their inhibitory impact on soil ammonifying bacteria intensifies, urea decomposition slows, the duration of fertilizer effectiveness is extended, and nitrogen use efficiency is enhanced.
     
    Internationally, research groups led by Japan’s Motoo Kōichi began in the early 1960s investigating the use of herbicides mixed with fertilizers as basal dressings, aiming to reduce labor and prolong weed‑control efficacy. Results showed that fertilizers containing pentachlorophenol (PCP) not only maintained their pesticidal activity but also inhibited nitrification. Meanwhile, U.S. researchers in the mid-1960s found that prometon strongly suppressed both nitrification and denitrification, thereby reducing nitrogen losses, enhancing biological nitrogen fixation, increasing soil nitrogen levels, and improving fertilizer use efficiency.
     
    When investigating the effects of nitrogen fertilization on herbicide performance, researchers found that mixing glyphosate with liquid fertilizers such as urea or ammonium sulfate significantly enhanced glyphosate’s weed‑control efficacy. Specifically, when combined with 28% urea–ammonium nitrate (VAN) fertilizer, glyphosate’s control of common lambsquarters increased from 41% when used alone to 97%, demonstrating a substantial synergistic effect.
     
    3.2 Domestic and International Application Practices
     
    The wheat herbicide‑fertilizer compound effectively controls the emergence and growth of weeds in the field, ensuring weed‑free conditions throughout the entire growing season. Its overall weed‑control efficacy is exceptionally high, ranging from 81.9% to 100%, with an average of 91.4%, representing a significant improvement over conventional weed‑management practices. Application of this specialized fertilizer also markedly enhances key economic traits in the later stages of wheat development, boosting yield; compared with standard herbicide treatments, it increases average yield by 12.5 kg per mu, corresponding to a 4.7% yield gain. According to relevant reports, when used, this herbicide‑fertilizer exhibits a “prevention‑first, promotion‑later” biological effect: during the seedling stage, plant height is reduced, tillering is slowed, and biomass declines, but subsequent growth quickly returns to normal and even shows enhanced vigor.
     
    Field trials have demonstrated that the specialized herbicidal fertilizer for rice significantly boosts both yield and income, delivering a 5.1% to 9.7% increase compared with conventional local fertilization, equivalent‑quantity imported compound fertilizers, and nutrient‑equivalent blended fertilizers. It achieves a 100% control rate against barnyardgrass and an 85% control rate against other weeds.
     
    According to reports, in the 1960s, the United States’ Rohm and Haas Company developed a urea‑based fertilizer‑herbicide blend that saved time and reduced costs, while also demonstrating a significant yield‑enhancing effect on crops. In the early 1980s, the U.S. further introduced more than 300 herbicides and five fertilizers suitable for co‑application, most of which were liquid compound fertilizers. However, due to findings that these herbicide‑fertilizer formulations were cumbersome to process and suffered from poor stability, they ultimately failed to achieve widespread adoption after extensive research.
     
    With the continued advancement of formulation‑processing technologies and bioavailability research, a wide array of cutting‑edge processing methods and increasingly environmentally friendly, efficient adjuvants and fillers have emerged, effectively addressing many longstanding technical challenges. Based on the characteristics of herbicides and the physicochemical properties of fertilizers, and taking into account the soil conditions of the target region, adopting a soil‑testing‑based, crop‑specific approach to co‑application of herbicides and fertilizers represents the most scientifically sound development pathway today.
     
    4 Insecticide–Fertilizer Market
     
    Traditional methods for controlling underground pests mainly include root drenching, seed treatment, seed coating, and foliar spraying. However, root drenching, seed treatment, and seed coating are labor‑intensive and cumbersome, increasing the likelihood of operator exposure to highly concentrated pesticides and posing significant health risks. Foliar spraying, on the other hand, typically relies on systemic translocation within the plant to deliver the active ingredient to the roots, resulting in only modest control efficacy. Other pests, such as onion maggots—larvae of sciarid flies—primarily infest allium vegetables like chives, Welsh onions, onions, green onions, and garlic. Once these pests erupt on a large scale, they are extremely difficult to manage. Conventional approaches often involve using highly toxic pesticides applied via root drenching to achieve acceptable control, but this practice frequently leads to excessive residues of such chemicals, seriously compromising food safety and public health.
     
    The advent of insecticide‑fertilizer products has addressed the aforementioned challenges by integrating pesticide application and fertilization into a single operation, saving labor and effort. Moreover, advanced techniques such as drip irrigation and flush application further consolidate these processes, significantly reducing labor requirements, improving working conditions, enhancing pest‑control efficacy, and boosting the efficiency of pesticide use.
     
    4.1 Phorate-based fertilizer
     
    Phosphamidon‑based agrochemical fertilizers, once a leading product in this category, can be blended with both organic and inorganic fertilizers to supply crops with essential nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium nutrients, thereby enhancing synergistic effects and boosting fertilizer efficiency by more than 25%. The granular formulations produced through such combinations are low‑toxicity, broad‑spectrum, highly effective, concentrated, and virus‑type agrochemical fertilizers. They have played a pivotal role in controlling a wide array of underground and aboveground pests, including aphids, sugarcane borers, cutworms, sugarcane snout beetles, sugarcane termites, sugarcane root aphids, sugarcane rice weevils, sugarcane field mice, sugarcane onion maggots, sugarcane grubs, mole crickets, red spiders, wheat sap‑sucking insects, cyst nematodes, wireworms, root maggots, onion maggots, leaf miners, corn borers, and fruit‑eating moths. These products were once used extensively in southern sugarcane fields. However, with the phase‑out of the highly toxic pesticide phosphamidon and restrictions on the trade of chlorpyrifos, the market landscape for insecticidal fertilizers is poised to undergo profound changes.
     
    4.2 Spirotetramat
     
    Currently, registered insecticidal fertilizer products include imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, abamectin, diazinon, metaldehyde, and others; resistance has already emerged in some formulations, leading to reduced efficacy.
     
    With the compound patent for spirotetramat in China having expired in 2017, a wave of product registrations is now underway in the country. Spirotetramat is a lipid biosynthesis inhibitor (LBI). The International Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) classifies it as Group 23: acetyl‑CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors, specifically ketone acids and their derivatives. By inhibiting the activity of ACCase during fatty acid synthesis in pests, spirotetramat disrupts lipid biosynthesis, impairs normal energy metabolism, and ultimately leads to pest mortality.
     
    Spirotetramat primarily exerts its insecticidal activity through stomach toxicity, with some contact action as well. It also exhibits excellent systemic translocation and vertical penetration, making it a highly effective insecticide with bidirectional systemic movement. The compound is transported acropetally and basipetally via the xylem and phloem of the plant. It targets insect eggs and larvae, while reducing adult oviposition rates and decreasing the survival of offspring larvae. When applied to the plant surface, it not only provides robust control of foliar pests but also offers reliable protection for emerging stems and leaves, as well as hard-to‑reach areas where spray coverage is limited. Furthermore, it effectively controls concealed and shell‑encased pests. Another key feature is its long residual efficacy, delivering up to eight weeks of sustained pest control.
     
    Spirotetramat is highly effective and broad‑spectrum, providing robust control of a wide range of piercing‑sucking pests, including aphids, thrips, psyllids, mealybugs, whiteflies, and scale insects. Its approved applications span major crops such as cotton, soybeans, citrus, tropical fruit trees, nuts, grapes, hops, potatoes, and various vegetables. Studies have demonstrated its favorable selectivity toward beneficial insects, including lady beetles, hoverflies, and parasitic wasps.
     
    4.3 Chlorantraniliprole
     
    Chlorantraniliprole, whose patent is nearing expiration, has also attracted significant attention in the agro‑chemical market. With strong systemic properties, it is rapidly absorbed by crops after application, effectively protecting them from damage. It also exhibits potent activity against newly hatched larvae: upon exposure, these young pests ingest residual spray residue and succumb to poisoning, thereby markedly reducing pest survival rates. Moreover, its efficacy is exceptionally high—roughly 100 times that of other insecticides on the market—and when applied to the soil, it enhances root uptake and translocation. Its residual activity is long‑lasting, remaining effective even under rainy conditions.
     
    This active ingredient was first launched in China in 2008, with its primary marketing focus on filling the market gap for control of the rice leafroller. Led by the “Big Four” insecticides—represented by “Kangkuan”—it has steadily expanded its share in the rice‑growing sector, while other insecticides in the domestic rice market have been struggling to hold their ground, largely relying on abamectin and emamectin benzoate.
     
    As this active ingredient approaches the end of its patent protection, numerous domestic manufacturers have already been gearing up. With pesticide registration policies becoming increasingly stringent in 2018 and mounting registration‑cost pressures, how should companies position themselves? Pesticide producers will once again need to think carefully.
     
    5 Fungicide and Fertilizer Market
     
    In recent years, with the introduction of several highly effective fungicides, previously intractable diseases—characterized by poor residual control and a high likelihood of developing either high or low levels of resistance—have been significantly improved. This is particularly true for soilborne diseases: for nematodes, damping-off, bacterial wilt, and other underground pathogens, prevention and containment have historically relied on soil fumigation and root‑drench applications. In severely affected fields, any infected plants must be promptly removed; otherwise, yields can plummet by more than 80%, severely undermining efforts to increase production and farmers’ incomes.
     
    Soil disinfection typically relies on highly toxic pesticides; during the high-temperature season, agents are often applied by burial or injection to mix thoroughly with the soil across the entire plot, thereby eliminating pathogenic microorganisms. However, as commonly used chemicals such as dazomet and methyl bromide have come under increasing scrutiny due to their environmental impacts and effects on soil microbial ecology, a significant gap has emerged in the market for controlling underground soil-borne diseases.
     
    Compared with soil fumigation, root drenching has a lesser impact on soil ecology and allows for site‑specific control. However, it still suffers from high pesticide requirements, elevated costs, and labor‑intensive application, making it unable to fully eradicate underground diseases. Stakeholders at all levels are eager to develop innovative technologies that save both time and labor while delivering high‑efficiency yield protection, thereby addressing the industry’s current challenges of labor shortages and difficult pest‑and‑disease management, and helping to alleviate the twin crises of labor scarcity and inadequate access to effective crop‑protection products.
     
    The emergence of fungicidal fertilizers undoubtedly heralds new hope. Some ultra‑high‑efficiency fungicides exhibit highly targeted action, minimizing impacts on soil‑borne indigenous microorganisms. Moreover, their exceptional potency reduces the application rate to the milligram level per square meter, delivering robust efficacy with significantly lower input. Certain formulations also possess excellent systemic translocation, enabling underground application that effectively safeguards aboveground plant tissues during critical growth stages. This integrated fertilizer–fungicide approach markedly cuts both the quantity and frequency of foliar sprays, thereby fostering the advancement of sustainable agriculture while enhancing quality and yields.
     
    Among these, several flagship products stand out, including pyraclostrobin, fluxapyroxad, prothioconazole, and fluopyram.
     
    5.1 Fluopyram
     
    Fluxapyroxad exhibits a broad spectrum of fungicidal activity, demonstrating strong efficacy against diseases caused by nearly all fungal classes—including Ascomycetes, Basidiomycetes, Oomycetes, and Deuteromycetes—such as rusts, smuts, leaf spot, powdery mildew, blights, downy mildews, and take‑all. It is suitable for use on cereal crops, soybeans, cotton, coffee, citrus, peanuts, potatoes, vegetables, ornamental plants, and turfgrass. Fluxapyroxad is primarily applied as a foliar treatment, with application rates ranging from 75 to 200 g a.i./ha. 2 It can also be used as a seed treatment at a rate of 5–10 g per 100 kg of seeds. Although fludioxonil exhibits poor uptake through seeds and roots, when applied as a seed treatment it effectively controls both seedborne and soilborne diseases in young seedlings, with long-lasting protective effects.
     
    Fluxapyroxad exhibits excellent control efficacy against coffee rust, potato early blight, and vegetable leaf spot diseases. It is particularly effective against wheat foliar diseases, especially wheat leaf blotch, with reported activity surpassing that of all strobilurin fungicides except pyraclostrobin.
     
    According to research, a 0.2% fluxapyroxad granular formulation exhibits excellent efficacy against tomato late blight, peanut white mold, potato late blight, wheat rust, and other diseases.
     
    5.2 Pyraclostrobin
     
    Pyraclostrobin exhibits potent activity, with remarkably strong antifungal efficacy and notably good curative effects, delivering highly significant control of a wide range of fungal diseases. It also exerts physiological regulatory functions, such as improving crop physiological processes and enhancing stress tolerance.
     
    Given its numerous advantages, which crops can pyraclostrobin be applied to? At present, it is widely used on a variety of crops, including rice, wheat, peanuts, vegetables, fruit trees, tobacco, and tea plants. It is primarily employed to control leaf blights, rusts, powdery mildews, downy mildews, blights, anthracnoses, scabs, brown spot diseases, and damping-off—conditions caused by fungi belonging to the Ascomycetes, Deuteromycetes, Basidiomycetes, and Oomycetes classes. Notably, it demonstrates outstanding efficacy in managing diseases such as cucumber downy mildew and powdery mildew, banana black sigatoka and leaf spot, grape downy mildew, anthracnose, and powdery mildew, as well as early blight, late blight, powdery mildew, and leaf blight in tomatoes and potatoes.
     
    In addition, pyraclostrobin can enhance the uptake of nitrogen fertilizer, and many organizations have conducted in-depth research on pyraclostrobin‑based fertilizer products. Experimental results indicate that a 0.02% pyraclostrobin granular formulation exhibits excellent control efficacy against potato late blight and watermelon anthracnose, while a 0.38% pyraclostrobin–cyprodinil granular formulation is highly effective in managing strawberry gray mold.
     
    Since the expiration of all patents on pyraclostrobin more than four years ago, domestic interest in pyraclostrobin has remained undiminished, with a sharp surge in registrations at one point!
     
    5.3 Prothioconazole
     
    Prothioconazole is undoubtedly another major focus. As a sterol demethylation (DMI) inhibitor and an ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitor, it not only exhibits excellent systemic activity and outstanding protective, curative, and eradicant efficacy but also boasts a long residual period. Extensive field trial results demonstrate that prothioconazole is highly safe for crops, delivers strong disease control and management, and significantly boosts yields. Compared with triazole fungicides, prothioconazole offers a broader spectrum of activity. It is primarily used to manage numerous diseases on crops such as wheat, barley, rapeseed, peanuts, rice, legumes, sugar beets, and field vegetables. In particular, it is effective against leaf spot, sheath blight, and smut diseases in cereals, as well as those caused by Septoria species ( Septoria spp. ), Fusarium ( Fusarium spp. ) and Cladosporium ( Rhynchosporium spp. ) exhibits excellent activity against diseases caused by … .
     
    Prothioconazole is one of the world’s top ten fungicides. On November 7, 2015, its compound patent expired in China. Unlike other patented products, it did not immediately attract strong interest from domestic companies; on the contrary, over the following two years, despite active responses from several Chinese firms, the registration of prothioconazole in China was far from smooth sailing.
     
    To date, only two companies have registered technical-grade propiconazole: Anhui Jiuyi Agricultural Co., Ltd. for 97% propiconazole technical and Shandong Hailir Chemical Co., Ltd. for 95% propiconazole technical. Propiconazole not only exhibits strong systemic activity and outstanding protective, curative, and eradicant efficacy, but also boasts a long residual period. Extensive field trials have demonstrated that propiconazole is highly safe for crops, delivers excellent disease control and management, and significantly boosts yields. Compared with triazole fungicides, propiconazole offers a broader spectrum of fungicidal activity.
     
    Prothioconazole is primarily used to control a wide range of diseases in cereal crops such as wheat, barley, rapeseed, peanuts, rice, and legumes. It demonstrates excellent efficacy against nearly all major cereal diseases, including powdery mildew, net blotch, take‑all, leaf blotch, rusts, sclerotinia rot, spot blotch, and tan spot in wheat and barley. It also effectively manages soilborne diseases—such as sclerotinia rot—in rapeseed and peanuts, as well as key foliar diseases, including gray mold, black spot, brown spot, stem base rot, sclerotinia rot, and rusts. The typical application rate is 200 g a.i./ha. 2 At this dosage, its activity is superior to or equivalent to that of conventional fungicides such as flutriafol, tebuconazole, and cyprodinil.
     
    To prevent the emergence of resistance and meet the needs of specific crops and the control of diverse diseases, Bayer is currently developing and registering both standalone propiconazole formulations and combination products with active ingredients that operate via different modes of action. In addition to being compatible with the fungicide fluxapyroxad, propiconazole can also be tank‑mixed with tebuconazole, pyraclostrobin, spirodiclofen, and other agents. In the product development pipeline for propiconazole, these formulated combinations represent a key highlight. To delay the onset and progression of resistance to propiconazole, Bayer has leveraged its proprietary strengths to create an extensive portfolio of synergistic mixtures, thereby helping propiconazole secure a robust market position.
     
    The formulated products include the methoxyacrylate fungicides fluxapyroxad and pyraclostrobin, the triazole fungicide tebuconazole, the SDHI fungicides fluopyram, fluxapyroxad, and bixafen, the heterocyclic fungicide spiroxamine, and the neonicotinoid insecticides thiamethoxam and imidacloprid; other active ingredients comprise metalaxyl‑M and imazalil. Among the combination products developed by Bayer, several have become branded formulations, such as Fandango (prothioconazole + fluxapyroxad), Prosaro (prothioconazole + tebuconazole), the Xpro series (prothioconazole + bixafen), Cripton (prothioconazole + pyraclostrobin), Emesto Silver (prothioconazole + fluopyram), and TitanEmesto (prothioconazole + fluopyram + thiamethoxam). These products have laid a solid foundation for the market growth of prothioconazole.
     
    Among these, Cripton is used to control foliar diseases in peanuts, with particularly strong efficacy against leaf spot; Emesto Silver effectively manages Rhizoctonia‑caused diseases in potatoes while also inhibiting the development of Fusarium resistance; Titan Emesto combines insecticidal and fungicidal activity, not only controlling Rhizoctonia‑ and Fusarium‑induced diseases in potatoes but also delivering outstanding pest‑control performance. The Xpro product line, formulated with prothioconazole and bixafen, offers excellent long‑lasting protection and broad‑spectrum fungicidal activity, while enhancing crop stress tolerance and boosting yields. This series leverages Leafshield’s patented emulsifiable concentrate technology, improving product spread on crops and increasing resistance to rain wash‑off. For prothioconazole, the EU market is of particular importance, and Bayer has developed numerous combination products based on this active ingredient. Currently, over 80% of the EU market for prothioconazole is served by such formulations.
     
    In addition, prothioconazole also demonstrates excellent performance as a combined fungicide–fertilizer product. Studies have shown that a 0.12% prothioconazole granular formulation is highly effective in controlling a range of diseases, including peanut white mold, peanut root rot, peanut leaf spot, rice sheath blight, wheat powdery mildew, wheat sheath blight, and wheat rust.
     
    In addition, as another leading member of the methoxyacrylate fungicide family, dinocap‑based agrochemical products have also garnered significant attention. According to experimental studies, a 0.02% dinocap granular formulation demonstrates excellent control efficacy against diseases such as tomato gray mold, pepper anthracnose, watermelon vine wilt, and potato late blight.
     
    The formulation of highly effective fungicides and fertilizers integrates application and fertilization into a single operation, saving labor and effort. Coupled with advanced technologies such as drip irrigation and fertigation, it consolidates spraying, fertilization, and irrigation, significantly reducing labor input, improving working conditions, enhancing control efficacy, and boosting the utilization rates of both fertilizers and pesticides. The market development prospects are exceptionally promising.
     
    6 Plant Growth Regulators and Agrochemical Fertilizers
     
    When it comes to plant growth regulators, there’s the time‑tested compound 920 and the emerging star, brassinolide; our understanding of these agents is steadily reshaping conventional perceptions. In actual agricultural practice, plant growth regulators have become indispensable partners for farmers, playing a pivotal role in enhancing crop quality and boosting farmers’ incomes.
     
    Plant growth regulators generally act on the plant’s internal physiological and biochemical processes, either directly or indirectly supplementing the plant’s endogenous growth hormones to modulate growth, flowering, fruit enlargement, or abscission. They are typically of low to slightly toxic hazard to humans and livestock. To date, based on existing scientific assessment methods and data, officially approved active ingredients that have undergone comprehensive safety risk evaluations have not been found to cause teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, or bioaccumulative toxicity, making their use in agricultural production highly safe for both humans, animals, and the environment.
     
    Because plant growth regulators can significantly boost crop yields and enhance product quality, in recent years many fertilizer manufacturers and distributors have, disregarding their legal obligations and associated risks, added them to fertilizer products, thereby disrupting market order. Coupled with inherent quality issues in some fertilizers, this has frequently led to phytotoxicity and plant‑injury incidents. Consequently, strengthening market oversight and rigorously cracking down on illegal adulteration is imperative.
     
    Plant growth regulators are a class of substances that exhibit physiological and biological effects similar to those of plant hormones. To date, compounds known to modulate plant growth and development include daminozide (DA‑6), forchlorfenuron, sodium nitrophenolate, gibberellins, ethephon, brassinolide, and paclobutrazol, among others. When used appropriately, plant growth regulators generally do not pose risks to human health. However, if applied without adherence to scientifically recommended methods and dosages, they may cause excessively rapid crop growth, inhibit growth, or even lead to plant death. They can also affect the quality of agricultural products and pose potential hazards to environmental health.
     
    Because plant growth regulators exhibit pronounced growth‑promoting effects, they can significantly increase crop yields, enhance the visual quality of agricultural products, and in some cases even improve their nutritional value, thereby substantially boosting the economic returns of farming. However, as a type of plant hormone, their widespread use must be subject to rigorous, scientifically sound assessments—covering application rates, methods of use, health risk evaluations based on human exposure, and environmental risk assessments. Only after obtaining lawful national pesticide registration can public food safety and environmental ecological safety be ensured.
     
    However, in the market, it is understood that unscrupulous fertilizer traders, driven by profit motives, illegally add large quantities of plant growth regulators to fertilizer products, thereby disrupting market order. Coupled with inherent quality defects in some fertilizers, this often leads to incidents of plant poisoning and damage.
     
    Recently, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Standardization Management Committee have approved and released several national standards in the field of agricultural inputs. Notably, the issuance of GB/T 37500-2019, “Determination of Plant Growth Regulators in Fertilizers—High‑Performance Liquid Chromatography,” provides technical support for regulatory enforcement against the illegal practice of adding plant growth regulators to fertilizers.
     
    Should fertilizers and plant growth regulators never be used together? The answer is no. Plant growth regulators act like a switch that accelerates crop development; once activated, they speed up the crop’s metabolic and biochemical processes, thereby increasing its demand for nutrient uptake and utilization. When applied in conjunction with fertilizers, this approach not only ensures timely replenishment of essential nutrients but also allows two or even multiple field operations to be consolidated, significantly reducing labor, material, and resource inputs. In both cash‑crop production and large‑scale field cultivation, this integrated strategy has been widely adopted and proven effective over many years.
     
    This standard applies to the determination of the content of plant growth regulators—including sodium nitrophenolate, 2,4‑D, abscisic acid, naphthaleneacetic acid, forchlorfenuron, uniconazole, indole‑3‑acetic acid, and indole‑3‑butyric acid—in water‑soluble fertilizers, compound fertilizers, complex fertilizers, and blended fertilizers. In other words, once the detected level of these substances in a fertilizer product reaches the established quantitative threshold, it may be legally deemed to contain added pesticide‑based plant growth regulators.
     
    Method detection limits and quantitation limits for each target analyte in the standard
     
    The sword of Damocles of the law has been drawn, leaving unlawful conduct trembling in fear. For the vast majority of law-abiding enterprises, this is undoubtedly cause for celebration: the further purification of market order will enable them to focus on developing superior products and delivering even better services to the market and their customers.
     
    7 Outlook
     
    In recent years, various agro‑pharmaceutical fertilizer products have been widely promoted in the agricultural inputs market, particularly in the sugarcane and rice sectors of southern China. These products share the same application timing and roughly similar application rates and methods as conventional fertilizers. However, by reducing labor costs and enhancing user safety, they align with contemporary market demands, ushering in a new phase of growth. For instance, with China’s current sugarcane acreage standing at 23 million mu, and assuming an application rate of 150 kg per mu, the market potential for agro‑pharmaceutical fertilizers amounts to 3.45 million tons. At prevailing prices ranging from 120 to 180 yuan per 50 kg, the market size exceeds RMB 10 billion. An increasing number of companies—including Guangxi Tianyuan Biochemical Co., Ltd., Guangdong Zhongxun Agricultural Science Co., Ltd., and Henan Yuanjian Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd.—are entering this burgeoning sector.
     
    Although the market outlook is viewed favorably by the industry, domestic production, sales, and management of agro‑pharmaceuticals currently face certain challenges.
     
    (1) There are no authoritative standards to which agro‑fertilizer products can be referenced, resulting in inconsistent product labeling and uneven product quality. In particular, issues of fertilizer injury arise when nutrient levels are insufficient or when the control of restricted ingredients fails to meet regulatory requirements.
     
    (2) Agro‑pharmaceutical products straddle both the pesticide and fertilizer sectors, posing significant regulatory challenges and resulting in frequent instances of non‑compliant production and sales. In particular, the unauthorized addition of pesticide ingredients to fertilizer products, coupled with marketing claims that such fertilizers can control pests and diseases, necessitates coordinated inter‑agency oversight and targeted inspection campaigns—tasks that are highly complex and difficult to implement.
     
    (3) The compatibility between pesticides and fertilizers is poorly managed, and the technical expertise is inadequate, making it difficult to ensure product quality and safety. In particular, certain pesticide formulations exhibit reduced stability when mixed with fertilizers, leading to a decline in efficacy within the shelf life.
     
    (4) For the reasons outlined above, agro‑fertilizer products have low acceptance and are often misunderstood in agricultural production.
     
    With the promulgation of the national standard GB/T 37500-2019, “Determination of Plant Growth Regulators in Fertilizers—High‑Performance Liquid Chromatography,” the implementation of the industry standard T/CCPIA 022-2019, “Maximum Limits for Trace Other Pesticide Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations,” and the introduction of additional regulatory measures by local authorities, the agrochemical‑fertilizer sector is poised to enjoy robust support for compliant and lawful development.
     
     
     

    Tags:

    Previous:

    Introduction to China’s Top 20 Chemical Industrial Parks

    Next:

    Forty-five enterprises in Jiangsu have had their “Safety Production Licenses for Hazardous Chemical Production Enterprises” revoked.