Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675132,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675132,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 8 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27085
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify">Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  </p><p align="justify"><em>* What's so special about urea decontrol?</em></p><p align="justify">Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).</p><p align="justify"><em>* What does decontrol entail?</em></p><p align="justify">Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.</p><p align="justify">The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.</p><p align="justify">The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.</p><p align="justify"><em>* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?</em></p><p align="justify">The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.</p><p align="justify">As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.</p><p align="justify"><em>* What is the government's game plan?</em></p><p align="justify">Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.</p><p align="justify"><em>* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?</em></p><p align="justify">Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.</p><p align="justify">In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675132,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675132,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 8 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27085
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify">Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  </p><p align="justify"><em>* What's so special about urea decontrol?</em></p><p align="justify">Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).</p><p align="justify"><em>* What does decontrol entail?</em></p><p align="justify">Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.</p><p align="justify">The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.</p><p align="justify">The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.</p><p align="justify"><em>* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?</em></p><p align="justify">The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.</p><p align="justify">As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.</p><p align="justify"><em>* What is the government's game plan?</em></p><p align="justify">Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.</p><p align="justify"><em>* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?</em></p><p align="justify">Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.</p><p align="justify">In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ef36b10bff9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675132,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27085,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675132,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 8 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27085
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government&#039;s next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What&#039;s so special about urea decontrol?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What does decontrol entail?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India&#039;s total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn&#039;t much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* What is the government&#039;s game plan?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify">Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  </p><p align="justify"><em>* What's so special about urea decontrol?</em></p><p align="justify">Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).</p><p align="justify"><em>* What does decontrol entail?</em></p><p align="justify">Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.</p><p align="justify">The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.</p><p align="justify">The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.</p><p align="justify"><em>* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?</em></p><p align="justify">The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.</p><p align="justify">As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.</p><p align="justify"><em>* What is the government's game plan?</em></p><p align="justify">Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.</p><p align="justify"><em>* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?</em></p><p align="justify">Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.</p><p align="justify">In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 27085,
		'title' => 'Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* What's so special about urea decontrol?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* What does decontrol entail?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
</p>
<p align="justify">
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* What is the government's game plan?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4675132,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 27085,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify">Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  </p><p align="justify"><em>* What's so special about urea decontrol?</em></p><p align="justify">Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).</p><p align="justify"><em>* What does decontrol entail?</em></p><p align="justify">Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.</p><p align="justify">The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.</p><p align="justify">The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.</p><p align="justify"><em>* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?</em></p><p align="justify">The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.</p><p align="justify">As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.</p><p align="justify"><em>* What is the government's game plan?</em></p><p align="justify">Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.</p><p align="justify"><em>* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?</em></p><p align="justify">Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.</p><p align="justify">In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.</p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 27085,
	'title' => 'Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* What's so special about urea decontrol?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* What does decontrol entail?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.
</p>
<p align="justify">
As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* What is the government's game plan?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 22 January, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nutrient-facts/99/',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'nutrient-facts-harish-damodaran-4675132',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4675132,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 8 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 27085
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran'
$metaKeywords = 'Nutrient based subsidy,Fertilizer,Fertilizer Subsidy,fertilizers,subsidies,Urea,farming,Agriculture,Urea Decontrol'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express


Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify">Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead.  </p><p align="justify"><em>* What's so special about urea decontrol?</em></p><p align="justify">Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP).</p><p align="justify"><em>* What does decontrol entail?</em></p><p align="justify">Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd.</p><p align="justify">The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well.</p><p align="justify">The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure.</p><p align="justify"><em>* But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea?</em></p><p align="justify">The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea.</p><p align="justify">As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices.</p><p align="justify"><em>* What is the government's game plan?</em></p><p align="justify">Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records.</p><p align="justify"><em>* How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime?</em></p><p align="justify">Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government.</p><p align="justify">In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Nutrient facts -Harish Damodaran

-The Indian Express Having decontrolled petrol and diesel, the government's next focus is on containing fertiliser subsidies. Key to this is decontrol of urea and ushering in a system of crediting subsidy payments directly into the bank accounts of farmers. HARISH DAMODARAN explains the existing subsidy regime and the road ahead. * What's so special about urea decontrol? Urea is the only fertiliser whose maximum retail price (MRP) is still fixed by the government, with imports also permitted only through designated state trading enterprises. Moreover, there is a significant domestic industry in urea. In 2013-14, production at 22.72 million tonnes far exceeded imports of 7.09 Mt. This is unlike for other fertilisers, where India is 100 per cent import-dependent either for the final product (muriate of potash or MOP) or raw materials/ intermediates (rock phosphate, sulphur and ammonia for manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate or DAP). * What does decontrol entail? Decontrol would mean allowing the MRP for urea to be market-determined, as it is with other fertilisers. Besides, there will be no import restrictions. Anybody can import urea, not just MMTC, STC or Indian Potash Ltd. The government has already, since April 2010, freed non-urea fertilisers from price controls, following which the MRP of DAP has gone up from Rs 9,350 to around Rs 23,000 a tonne, and of MOP from Rs 4,455 to Rs 16,650. During the same period, the MRP of urea has been raised only marginally from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,360 a tonne. In the event of price decontrol of urea, farmers would obviously end up paying much more for it as well. The impact of decontrol on the industry would be mainly on account of imports. The landed price (cost plus freight) of imported urea in India is currently about $300 a tonne, which is lower than the average of $322 in 2013-14 and $413 the year before. On the other hand, the average production cost for domestic plants is roughly Rs 18,000 or $ 290 per tonne, ranging from a low of Rs 11,000 to as high as Rs 41,000. In a free import regime, the high-cost units may face closure. * But why protect inefficient manufacturers? Also, if farmers are already paying more for other fertilisers, would they not be able to absorb similar price rises in urea? The second question first. Urea has a disproportionately high share - over 55 per cent - in India's total fertiliser consumption. A wheat farmer typically applies 2.5 bags (125 kg) of urea per acre over the full cropping period, compared to just one bag (50 kg) of DAP and half a bag (25 kg) of MOP. He is, therefore, that much more sensitive to an increase in the price of urea. Also, the decontrol in other fertilisers happened at a time when minimum support prices (MSP) were going up. Today, given falling global prices for agri-commodities, there isn't much scope for MSP increases to compensate for costlier urea. As regards inefficient urea plants, there are those whose costs are high only because they are using imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) as feedstock. This is far more expensive, at $14-15 per MBTU, relative to the $5-6 for domestically produced gas. But there are also units with very high energy consumption requirements, which probably deserve to be shut down. The resultant production loss of 1.5-2 Mt can easily be covered by imports without really pushing up prices. * What is the government's game plan? Ideally, it would want to decontrol urea, which accounts for two-thirds of the annual fertiliser subsidy bill of Rs 100,000 crore-plus if one includes unpaid liabilities. But given the political costs involved, it is seeking to do this over three years or so. This period should suffice for having systems in place to credit subsidy payments directly into the Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts of every farmer based on proper identification and digitisation of land title records. * How is this different from the existing nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime? Under NBS, there is a fixed per-kg subsidy on each nutrient. Right now, it is, for example, Rs 20.875 for nitrogen (N), Rs 18.679 for phosphorous (P) and Rs 15.5 for potash (K). Based on this, the subsidy payable on DAP (which contains 18 per cent N and 46 per cent P) works out to Rs 12,350 a tonne, just as it is Rs 9,300 in the case of MOP. But this subsidy is today paid not to the farmer, but to the manufacturer who is also free to set the MRP. Besides, the NBS is not applicable on urea, whose MRP is fixed by the government. In the proposed new NBS regime, the MRPs of all fertilisers, including urea, would be market-determined. Further, the subsidy will be paid directly to the farmer. Currently, farmers buy urea mainly because it is the cheapest fertiliser available. In a genuine NBS system, they would value urea basically for its high N (46 per cent) content. Further, they may increasingly demand fertiliser products customised to their specific crop needs or soil conditions, rather than blindly choosing urea or DAP.