CAN vs Urea: Choosing the Right Nitrogen Fertilizer
Nitrogen is the most critical nutrient for crop growth, and choosing between CAN (27% N) and Urea (46% N) is one of the most common decisions European farmers and distributors face. Both products have distinct advantages depending on soil type, climate, crop requirements and regulatory environment. This guide breaks down the key differences to help you make an informed sourcing decision.
Nutrient Content & Efficiency
The most obvious difference between CAN and urea is their nitrogen concentration. Urea contains 46% nitrogen — the highest of any solid nitrogen fertilizer — while CAN contains 27% nitrogen alongside calcium and, in some formulations, magnesium.
However, concentration alone does not determine effectiveness. The form of nitrogen matters enormously:
Urea (CO(NH₂)₂) contains nitrogen in amide form. After application, the enzyme urease in the soil converts it first to ammonium (NH₄⁺) and then to nitrate (NO₃⁻). This conversion process takes several days and is highly dependent on soil temperature, moisture and pH. During the conversion, significant nitrogen can be lost as ammonia gas (NH₃), especially when urea is surface-applied on warm, moist soils.
CAN provides nitrogen in two forms simultaneously: roughly half as ammonium (NH₄⁺) and half as nitrate (NO₃⁻). The nitrate fraction is immediately plant-available and moves freely in the soil solution to the root zone. The ammonium fraction is retained by soil particles and converted to nitrate over time, providing a sustained release effect.
This dual-form delivery gives CAN a significant efficiency advantage in many situations. Crops can begin taking up nitrate nitrogen immediately after application, while the ammonium component provides a slower-release reserve.
Soil pH impact: Urea has an initially alkaline reaction in the soil (pH rises during hydrolysis), which promotes ammonia volatilisation. Over time, however, the nitrification of ammonium to nitrate releases hydrogen ions, making urea a net acidifying fertilizer. CAN is essentially pH-neutral due to its calcium carbonate component, which buffers the acidifying effect of nitrification. On already acidic soils, this difference is significant.
Application & Handling
Storage and handling differ considerably between the two products. Urea is hygroscopic — it absorbs moisture from the air readily, which can cause caking and degradation during storage. It must be stored in dry, sealed conditions. CAN, while heavier per unit of nitrogen, is more physically stable and less sensitive to humidity.
Spreading characteristics: CAN granules are denser and spread more evenly with standard centrifugal spreaders, making it easier to achieve uniform application. Urea's lighter granules can be affected by wind, though prilled and granular urea formulations have improved this.
Foliar application and fertigation: Urea dissolves readily in water and is the preferred choice for foliar feeding and drip irrigation systems. CAN is not suitable for foliar application due to its calcium content, which can cause leaf burn.
Top-dressing in cool and wet conditions: This is where CAN truly excels. In Northern and Central European spring conditions — cool soils, frequent rain — urea suffers from two problems: slow urease conversion (which requires warmth) and high volatilisation risk on wet surfaces. CAN's immediately available nitrate fraction bypasses both issues.
Application timing: Urea is best applied when it can be incorporated into the soil within 24–48 hours (by rain or tillage) to minimize ammonia losses. CAN can be surface-applied with confidence in a wider range of conditions.
Use with inhibitors: Urease inhibitors (such as NBPT) can significantly reduce ammonia losses from urea, making it more competitive with CAN in terms of efficiency. EU regulations increasingly encourage or mandate the use of inhibitor-treated urea — the Nitrates Directive and national implementations are driving this trend.
Cost Comparison
Urea is typically cheaper per metric tonne than CAN. At current indicative prices (March 2026), bulk urea trades around $285–295/MT CFR Hamburg, while CAN trades at $240–255/MT DAP Rotterdam.
But the relevant metric for buyers is cost per kilogram of nitrogen, not cost per tonne of product:
On a pure cost-per-unit-N basis, urea is approximately 30–35% cheaper. This is the primary reason urea dominates global nitrogen trade and is the benchmark product.
However, this calculation does not account for:
Bottom line for distributors: Urea offers the lowest cost per unit N and is the volume product. CAN commands a premium but serves markets where precision, environmental compliance and soil conditions justify the higher price. Most European distributors stock both.
Environmental Considerations
Environmental regulation is increasingly shaping the CAN-vs-urea decision in Europe. The key issues are ammonia emissions, nitrate leaching and greenhouse gas contributions.
Ammonia emissions (NH₃): This is the most significant environmental differentiator. Urea is the single largest agricultural source of ammonia emissions in Europe. When surface-applied without incorporation or inhibitors, up to 30% of the nitrogen can be lost as ammonia gas. Ammonia contributes to particulate matter formation, acid rain and eutrophication of sensitive ecosystems.
CAN produces negligible ammonia emissions under normal conditions, making it the environmentally preferred option for nitrogen top-dressing.
EU regulatory trends: The EU's National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive requires member states to reduce ammonia emissions. Germany's Fertiliser Ordinance (Düngeverordnung) already mandates incorporation of urea within 4 hours of application, or the use of urease inhibitors. Similar regulations are in force or under development in the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and other member states.
Switzerland's agricultural policy also incentivises low-emission fertilisation practices, with direct payment conditions linked to nutrient efficiency.
Nitrate leaching: CAN's nitrate component is mobile in soil and can leach below the root zone during heavy rainfall, particularly on sandy soils. Urea's ammonium form (after conversion) is better retained by soil particles. In high-rainfall areas or on light soils, this can be a consideration against CAN.
Carbon footprint: The production of CAN has a higher carbon footprint per tonne than urea, primarily due to the energy-intensive nitric acid production step. However, when measured per unit of effectively delivered nitrogen (accounting for field losses), the difference narrows. Both products are produced from natural gas as the primary feedstock.
Overall environmental picture: For top-dressing applications in Northern Europe, CAN is the environmentally preferred product. For situations where urea is economically necessary, inhibitor-treated urea is the responsible choice.
Which Should You Choose?
The choice between CAN and urea depends on specific circumstances. Here is a practical decision framework:
Choose Urea when:
Choose CAN when:
For distributors and importers: Most successful European fertilizer distributors carry both products. Urea is the volume driver with lower margins; CAN serves premium and compliance-driven markets. Regional demand patterns vary significantly — Scandinavia, Germany and the Benelux countries are strong CAN markets, while Southern and Eastern Europe lean more toward urea.
Cerantis supplies both Urea (46% N) and CAN (27% N) from 20 MT per container. Contact us for current pricing on either product, or a combined offer for your full nitrogen portfolio.