Home
About Us
Product Center
Blog
Contact Derui

language

Home

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 essential nutrients for plant growth—both are indispensable to crop production. When these two categories are needed simultaneously, it creates a favorable environment for the development of agrochemical‑fertilizer products. The implementation of the revised Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides, combined with internal and external factors such as safety and environmental protection, is powerfully 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 related 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 agrochemical‑fertilizer products, followed by separate introductions and analyses of the respective markets for herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators. Finally, it discusses the existing challenges in the production, sales, and regulatory oversight of domestic agrochemical‑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 specialized processing techniques (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—developed specifically 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 ingredient 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) Mutual synergy 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-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 water‑based formulations accounting for a small share. Most combination products designed as integrated agrochemical‑fertilizer solutions, however, 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 governed by pesticide regulations, while individual components included in an agrochemical‑fertilizer formulation are subject to separate pesticide and fertilizer regulatory regimes.

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, granular products predominate, while liquid formulations are relatively rare; and with respect to application methods, most are applied directly by broadcasting, with few specialized service companies involved. As for active ingredient content, the concentration of pesticide active ingredients 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. By integrating two separate operations into one, this approach saves labor, time, and energy, lowers production expenses, and enhances 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 delivering the most pronounced improvements in both efficacy and yield. Studies have demonstrated that combining formulated herbicides with compound fertilizers produces additive and synergistic benefits: herbicidal performance typically increases by more than 10%, while the fertilizer efficiencies of nitrogen fertilizers (urea plus ammonium chloride), calcium superphosphate, and potassium chloride rise 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 application rates of these herbicide‑fertilizer combinations increase, their inhibitory impact on soil ammonifying bacteria intensifies, urea decomposition slows down, 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 formulation 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‑based weed control, average yields increase by 12.5 kg per mu, corresponding to a 4.7% yield gain. According to relevant reports, when used in wheat, this herbicide‑fertilizer exhibits a “prevention‑first, promotion‑later” biological effect—manifesting as reduced plant height during the seedling stage, slower tillering, and lower biomass—but subsequently returns to normal growth 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 challenges such as complicated processing and poor stability, these formulations 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 a significant risk of occupational injury. 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 damage allium vegetables like chives, Welsh onions, onions, green onions, and garlic. Once these pests erupt on a large scale, they become extremely difficult to manage. Conventional approaches often require the use of 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 human 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 technologies such as drip irrigation and flush application further consolidate pest control, fertilization, and irrigation, significantly reducing labor requirements, improving working conditions, enhancing 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 mutual efficacy 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 the restrictions on 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, including quinone acids and their derivatives. By inhibiting ACCase activity during lipid synthesis in pests, spirotetramat disrupts lipid production, 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 and reduces adult oviposition rates while enhancing the survival of offspring larvae. When applied to the plant surface, it not only effectively controls foliar pests but also provides robust protection for emerging stems and leaves, as well as hard-to‑reach areas where spray coverage is limited. It delivers strong control against concealed and shell‑bound pests. Another key feature is its long residual efficacy, offering up to eight weeks of sustained pest suppression.

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 crop‑protection and fertilizer market. With strong systemic properties, it is rapidly absorbed by crops after application, effectively safeguarding them from damage. Moreover, it 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. In addition, 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 during 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 rice stem borers in paddy fields. Led by the “Four Great Kings” of insecticides—most notably Kangkuan—it has steadily expanded its footprint in the rice‑growing sector, leaving domestic rice‑field insecticide markets struggling to hold their ground against relentless competition from avermectins 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‑related costs, 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 drenching. 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 commonly relies on highly toxic pesticides; during the high-temperature season, agents are often applied by burial or injection to thoroughly mix with the soil across entire fields, thereby eliminating pathogenic microorganisms. However, as widely used chemicals such as dazomet and methyl bromide have come under increasing scrutiny due to their adverse environmental impacts and effects on soil microbial ecology, a significant gap has emerged in the market for effective underground disease control.

Compared with soil fumigation, root‑drenching applications have a lesser impact on soil ecology and allow for site‑specific control. However, they still suffer from high pesticide requirements, elevated costs, and labor‑intensive operations, making it difficult to fully eradicate underground diseases. Stakeholders at all levels are eager to develop innovative technologies that both reduce labor and time while delivering high‑efficiency yield protection, thereby addressing the industry’s current challenges of labor shortages and pest‑management difficulties 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 just milligrams per square meter, delivering robust efficacy with significantly lower inputs. Certain formulations also possess excellent systemic translocation, enabling underground application that effectively safeguards aboveground plant tissues during critical growth stages. This integrated fertilizer‑and‑fungicide delivery 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, smut, net blotch, powdery mildew, blight, downy mildew, 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, and its activity is reportedly superior to that of all other 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, on which crops can pyraclostrobin be applied? At present, pyraclostrobin 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 exceptional 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. According to experimental results, a 0.02% pyraclostrobin granular formulation exhibits excellent control efficacy against potato late blight and watermelon anthracnose, while a 0.38% pyraclostrobin‑azoxystrobin granular formulation is highly effective in managing strawberry gray mold.

For more than four years since the patents on pyraclostrobin have all expired, the domestic boom in pyraclostrobin has shown no sign of abating, with registrations once surging.

5.3 Cyproconazole

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 trials have demonstrated 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 widespread 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 cyproconazole: Anhui Jiuyi Agricultural Co., Ltd. for 97% cyproconazole technical and Shandong Hailir Chemical Co., Ltd. for 95% cyproconazole technical. Cyproconazole 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, in addition to its favorable crop safety and excellent disease‑control performance, cyproconazole significantly increases yields. Compared with triazole fungicides, it 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, take‑all, Fusarium wilt, leaf blotch, rusts, sclerotinia rot, net 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 differentiator. 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 solidifying propiconazole’s 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, the neonicotinoid insecticides thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, as well as other active ingredients such as metalaxyl and imazalil. Among the combination products developed by Bayer, several have become branded formulations, including 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 pest and disease control, not only addressing Rhizoctonia‑ and Fusarium‑induced diseases in potatoes but also delivering outstanding insecticidal 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 patented emulsifiable concentrate technology, improving product spread on crops and increasing resistance to rain wash‑off. For prothioconazole, the EU market is especially critical, and Bayer has developed numerous combination products based on this active ingredient. Currently, over 80% of the EU market for prothioconazole is accounted for by its formulated products.

In addition, prothioconazole also demonstrates excellent performance as a crop‑protectant fertilizer. 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 attracted considerable 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 flush application, it further consolidates pesticide application, 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 cases of phytotoxicity and plant damage. 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 diethylaminoethyl hexanoate (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, failure to apply them according to scientifically established methods and dosages may result in excessively rapid crop growth, inhibited development, or even plant death. Moreover, such misuse can adversely affect the quality of agricultural products and harm 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 application must be subject to rigorous, scientifically sound assessments—covering appropriate application rates, methods of use, health risk evaluations related to human exposure, and environmental risk assessments. Only after obtaining legal 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 approved and released several national standards related to plant protection and agricultural inputs. Notably, the release 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, they not only ensure timely replenishment of essential nutrients but also allow two or even multiple field operations to be consolidated, significantly reducing labor, material, and resource inputs. This integrated approach has been widely adopted and proven effective in both cash‑crop cultivation and large‑scale field farming for 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 of 120–180 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 from insufficient nutrient content or failure to meet regulatory limits on restricted ingredients.

(2) Agro‑pharmaceutical products straddle both the pesticide and fertilizer sectors, posing significant regulatory challenges and resulting in frequent instances of unauthorized production and sale. In particular, the illicit 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 diminished efficacy within the shelf life.

(4) For the reasons outlined above, agro‑fertilizer products have low acceptance and are often subject to widespread misunderstanding 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 Formulation Products,” and the introduction of additional new regulatory measures by local administrative authorities, the compliant and lawful development of the agro‑chemical fertilizer sector will be effectively safeguarded.

Source: China Pesticide Industry Association

Tags:

Introduction to China’s Top 20 Chemical Industrial Parks

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

More information

The National Agricultural Technology Extension Center has issued guidelines on “one spray, three protections” for wheat to address the heightened risk of recurrence of diseases such as Fusarium head blight, stripe rust, and aphids.

2026-04-10

The petrochemical and chemical industries comprise more than 27,000 large-scale enterprises—efforts to upgrade and retrofit aging facilities are being further intensified.

2026-04-06

In 2026, corn borer, cotton bollworm, and ear rot—among other corn pests and diseases—are expected to occur at a relatively severe level. The National Agricultural Technology Center has issued a control plan!

2026-04-02

Address: