DEALERS PERSPECTIVES ON NANO FERTILIZERS AND THEIR ROLE IN PRODUCT POSITIONING


215 / 318

Authors

  • K.DURGA PRASAD
  • Y.PRABHAVATHI
  • S.HYMA JYOTHI
  • P.LAVANYA

https://doi.org/10.58537/jorangrau.2025.53.3.12

Keywords:

Cost effective, Nano Fertilizers, perception, promotion

Abstract

 This study explores dealers’ perceptions about nano fertilizers in Guntur district, Andhra
 Pradesh. The study was conducted in 2024. The study employed a sample of 35 dealers and
 percentage analysis, mean scores and chi square technique were employed to analyse the data.
 The findings revealed that dealers perceived nano fertilizers as cost-effective and efficient. These
 were viewed as having high ease of use owing to their effective storage, dissolution and application
 characteristics. Dealers, as first point of contact, shape farmers input choices, thereby making
 their perceptions as proxy for positioning and perceived effectiveness of nano fertilizer.
 Recommendations from agricultural departments and fellow farmers identified as crucial for
 adoption among farmers and promotions by company representatives and media influence were
 found less impactful. The chi-square analysis highlighted that dealers prioritized affordability for
 lower customer footfall (fewer than five customers), while ease of use was emphasized for higher
 footfall (more than five customers). The demand for nano fertilizers is expected to grow, with
 adoption likely to increase due to their ease of use and reduced perceived risks through farmer
 education. Enhancing product benefits and implementing focused media promotions could further
 accelerate adoption among farmers.

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2021. Soil

2. pollution: A hidden reality, FAO, Rome

3. Iqbal, S., Sutharsan, S and Thenuja, M. 2024.

4. A study on the adaptability of farmers to

5. n-nano fertilizer usage in Oryza Sativa

6. L. cultivation in selected divisional

7. secretariat divisions of Ampara district of

8. Sri Lanka. International Journal of

9. Botany Studies, 9(1): 8-14.

10. Kumar, S., Roy, S., Atal, R., Panda, C. K and

11. Sohane, R. K. 2020. Knowledge gap of

12. agri-input dealers in farm

13. production. Current Journal of Applied

14. Science and Technology, 39(4): 92-101.

15. Kumar, Y. 2021. Sales promotion and

16. marketing strategy of Nano urea (liquid).

17. Indian Journal of Fertilisers, 17(9): 882

18. 891.

19. Ganiger S. 2012. Knowledge perception and

20. role performance of input dealers in agro

21. advisory services in northern dry zone

22. of Karnataka. Ph. D. Thesis. Acharya

23. N.G. Ranga Agricultural University,

24. Guntur.

25. Mahapatra, D. M., Satapathy, K. C and Panda,

26. B.2022. Biofertilizers and nanofertilizers

27. for sustainable agriculture:

28. Phycoprospects and challenges. Science

29. of The Total Environment, 803: 149990

30. Pingali, P. 2012. Green revolution: Impacts,

31. limits and the path ahead. Proceedings

32. of the National Academy of Sciences,109

33. (31):12302–12308

34. Raliya, R., Saharan, V., Dimkpa, C and Biswas,

35. P. (2018). Nanofertilizer for precision and

36. sustainable agriculture: Current state

37. and future perspectives. Journal of

38. Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 66(26):

39. 6487–6503.

40. Vishakha, K., Deepa, N., Rohini, A.,

41. Vidhyavathi, A and Ravikumar, R. 2023.

42. Awareness and Perception of Farmers

43. and Dealers on Nano Urea in Gondia

44. District of Maharashtra, India.

45. International Journal of Environment and

46. Climate Change, 13(10): 981-991.

47. Waghmode, Y., Borate, H.V and Gulkari, K.D.

48. 2014. Training needs of agricultural input

49. dealers in transfer of technology.

50. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education,

51. 25(1): 543-546

Downloads

Published

13-05-2026

How to Cite

K.DURGA PRASAD. (2026). DEALERS PERSPECTIVES ON NANO FERTILIZERS AND THEIR ROLE IN PRODUCT POSITIONING (Y.PRABHAVATHI, S.HYMA JYOTHI, & P.LAVANYA, Trans.). The Journal of Research ANGRAU, 53(3), 118-126. https://doi.org/10.58537/jorangrau.2025.53.3.12