Presented by: Norman Uphoff Presented at: CIIFAD and Association Tefy Saina, Madagascar

1. The System of Rice
Intensification (SRI):
Advantages
Cornell International Institute for Food,
Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD)
and Association Tefy Saina, Madagascar

2. I. Advantages of SRI
beyond Yield Increases

3. Yield is Most Evident Advantage
• Yield is most obvious and visible benefit
• Increased number of tillers and larger
and more panicles can be counted and
measured; yield is simple and impressive
• But higher yield at high cost may be of
no real benefit
• It is greater productivity of resources
that makes farmers and countries richer
• SRI is more about productivity than yield
and also provides many other benefits

4. SRI Yield Gains Are Significant
• The following table summarizes data from a
French development assistance project to
improve small-scale irrigation schemes on
the high plateau of Madagascar
• There was no significant extension effort to
promote SRI in the area. Most of the spread
was farmer-to-farmer based on results
• SRA is a more input-intensive method for
rice growing, promoted by the government
• Very similar to results from Morang district,
Nepal, from two years of evaluation there

6. Other Benefits to Be Considered
• Cost reduction and increased profitability –
can reduce water, seed, labor and other inputs
• Lower capital requirements – more accessible
for poorer households, help with food security
• Resistance to pests and diseases – farmers can
reduce or end their use of agrochemical sprays
• Resistance to climatic effects – greater tolerance
to drought, cold, storm and salinity, no lodging
• Environmental benefits – less chemical use,
lower water demand, fewer greenhouse gases?
• Lower risk – less chance of net losses from rice
production
• Higher grain quality – higher milling out-turn,
better eating qualities, more nutritious rice?
• Biodiversity conservation – traditional varieties

7. A. Cost Reduction and
Increased Profitability

8. • Water saving can be 25-50%
• Seed reduction should be 80-90%
• Fertilizer can become unnecessary as
homemade compost can be even better
• Purchase of pesticides can be reduced
or becomes unnecessary
• Labor saving is possible after 1st year
• All these savings reduce cost per kg
of rice produced
• All this gives farmers more profit

9. Evaluation in Tamil Nadu, India
• 100 on-farm Adaptive Research Trials,
each with two 1,000 m2 plots, one with
SRI methods, one with farmer practices
• Not all practices used as recommended
(only 36), but all used 14-day seedlings
– FP yield average 5,657 t/ha (3,887-8,730)
– SRI average 7,227 t/ha (4,414-10,655)
– 31 SRI yields > 8 t/ha -- only 3 FP yields
• SRI average yield only 27.8% over FP
but still major economic improvements

10. COSTS OF CULTIVATION PER HECTARE
Tractor (hrs) Men’s Labor Women’s Labor
Bullock pair
@ Rs. 150 / Cost (Rs.)
Activity @ Rs. 200 / @ Rs. 40 / day @ Rs. 40 / day
hr hr
FP SRI FP SRI FP SRI FP SRI FP SRI
Nursery preparation 1 - - - 6 3 0.5 5.5 2110 681
Main field 7.5 7.5 2 2 12 12 - - 2005 2005
preparation
Manures & - - - - 7 7 10 10 7254 7254
fertilizers
Transplanting - - - - 5 5 55 75 2400 3200
Weeding - - - - - 38 80 - 3200 1520
Irrigation - - - - 7.5 6 - - 300 240
Plant protection - - - - 2 2 2 2 660 660
Harvesting 1 1 - - 12.5 12.5 75 75 3500 3500
Total 9.5 8.5 2 2 52 85.5 222.5 167.5 21,429 19,060
Saving of SRI over conventional system = Rs. 2,369 (11 %)

11. ECONOMIC EVALUATION (US$/ha)
Farmer SRI
practice practice
Income from grain
$ 659 $ 870
(Rs. 5.00 / kg)
Income from straw
$ 49 $ 63
(Rs. 0.25 / kg)
Gross return $ 708 $ 933
Cost of cultivation $ 466 $ 414
Net return $ 242 $ 519
Benefit : Cost ratio 1.52 2.25

12. This is not a „best case‟ evaluation
• Since not all SRI methods were being used;
usually SRI can raise yield by 50% or more
• Even so:
– Costs of production were reduced by 11%
– with labor inputs reduced by 7% (1st year)
– and water savings were 40-50%
– Farmers‟ net income per hectare was
increased by 110% with partial SRI methods

13. Evaluations in Sri Lanka and Cambodia
(Namara et al., 2003; Anthofer et al., 2004)
• IWMI: In Sri Lanka, 60 SRI users and 60 non-
SRI users were randomly selected in 2 districts:
– Average yield went up 42-56% depending on season
– Farmer profitability of rice production more than
doubled, with some variance by season
– Data did not show reduced total cost of production, but
cost of production (Rs./kg of rice) went down by 21.5%
• GTZ: In Cambodia, 400 SRI users, 100 non-SRI
users were chosen at random in 5 provinces:
– Average yield was increased by 41%
– Farmers’ net margins/ha were raised by 74%
– Variable costs of production went down by 56.5%
In neither were „SRI users‟ using all the SRI practices
recommended, or using them all as recommended

14. Evaluations in Bangladesh
• Coordinated by BRAC and supported by
PETRRA project, funded DFID and
managed by IRRI/Bangladesh
• Two seasons, 2002-03 and 2003-04
• Not all recommended practices used, but:
– Tillers/hill up 95% and 60% in these years,
– Effective tillers up 94% and 122%
– Grain weight up 14-18% per 100 grains
• Yield increase of 26.6%; net returns/ha
up 60%

15. Yield Results: Bangladesh Evaluations
SRI Farmers' practice
10
9
8.1
8
7.03
6.34
7
6.1
5.9
5.9
5.25
6
Yield (t/ha)
4.7
5
4
3
2
1
0
BRAC POSD SAFE Syngenta
Figure 1. Comparative yield of rice under SRI and farmers'
practices by partner organisations, 2002-03

16. Farmer Net Returns:
Bangladesh Evaluations
SRI Farmers' practice
45262
42100
50000
38257
31865
40000
Net return (Tk/ha)
27765
24863
24120
30000
16655
20000
10000
0
BRAC POSD SAFE Syngenta

17. Economic Evaluations Are More
Useful than Agronomic Comparisons
• Few innovations have come along in the
rice sector that can give farmers similar
improvement in yields
• That SRI increases can be achieved
with lower cost means that the
economic gains are even greater
• In addition, there are social and
environmental benefits to be considered

18. B. Lower Capital Requirements
Making SRI More Accessible
to Low-Income Households

19. SRI Is Considered Relatively
More Labor-Intensive
• Capital expenditures can be reduced
because of no need to purchase
fertilizers or other agrochemicals
• Only purchase advised in rotating
hoe or cono-weeder (~ $10-15)
• SRI productivity gains can pay off
this investment in one season
• Credit or supply may be a problem

20. Labor-Intensity Has Been Seen
as a Constraint for Poor
• Evaluation of SRI in Madagascar by
Moser and Barrett (2003) concluded
that despite SRI advantages of
higher productivity, poor households
could not afford to use its methods
because of cash flow constraints –
needing to earn income from labor
on a daily/weekly basis to survive –
could not afford to wait 3 months

21. • If this is a problem, the fault lies in
institutional failures -- to provide
reasonable access to credit -- rather
than in the SRI methods themselves
• Disadoption rates of 40% were
reported in Moser-Barrett study
• GTZ evaluation did not find labor-
intensity or disadoption to be problem
in Cambodia (number of SRI users has
gone from 28 to 15,000 in four years)

22. Labor-Intensity Is Not Much
of a Problem
• As SRI is turning out not to be labor-
intensive over time -- and not always to be
more labor-intensive even at the outset –
so this concern is receding
• IWMI study found poor farmers were as
likely to adopt SRI as richer farmers, and
more likely to continue with SRI once they
had adopted it (Namara et al., 2003)
• Yield and income gains should help make
poor households more food-secure

23. C. Resistance to Pests
and Diseases

24. Repeated Reports from Farmers
• SRI crops are “more resistant to pests
and diseases – no need to spray”
• This aspect of SRI has been less studied
– though 2001 report from IPM farmer group
in Ciamis, Indonesia, showed higher
beneficial:predator insect ratio in SRI plots
• Tamil Nadu Agricultural University study
has provided data confirming farmers‟
observations

25. Pest abundance in nursery (per seedling)
Insects and SRI cultivation Conventional t value
their damage / (Mean SE) cultivation
population (Mean SE)
Cut worm 0.0 0.0 20.4 4.8 16.1**
(% damaged leaves) (0.0) (19.1)
Thrips 0.5 0.2 6.1 0.5 19.3**
(0.9) (2.5)
Green leaf 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 14.8**
hopper (0.8) (0.9)
Brown plant 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 11.5**
hopper (0.0) (0.8)
Whorl maggot 0.8 0.2 9.3 2.6 12.5**
(% damaged leaves) (0.9) (9.1)
(Figures in parentheses are transformed values) ** Significant difference (T <0.001)

26. Pest abundance in main field (per hill)
Insects and SRI cultivation Conventional t value
their damage / (Mean SE) cultivation
population (Mean SE)
Whorl maggot 17.9 1.9 23.2 2.0 6.6**
(% damaged leaves) (18.0) (19.1)
Thrips 6.6 0.1 20.2 2.0 12.2**
(2.2) (4.1)
Green leaf 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.2 10.7**
hoppers (1.0) (1.2)
Brown plant 1.1 0.2 2.7 0.2 14.4**
hoppers (1.2) (1.8)
Whorl maggot 5.6 1.8 8.8 1.4 4.5**
(% truncated leaves) (5.9) (9.1)
(Figures in parentheses are transformed values) ** Significant difference (T <0.001)

27. Pest abundance in main field (per hill)
Insects and their SRI cultivation Conventional t value
damage / (Mean SE) cultivation
population (Mean SE)
Gall midge 5.0 1.2 11.0 1.5 9.3**
(% silver shoot) (6.8) (19.1)
Stem borers 11.7 1.3 7.3 1.0 10.1**
(deadheart/white (15.5) (10.0)
ear)
Leaf folder 20.3 1.6 6.5 1.0 15.4**
(scraped leaves) (21.7) (11.8)
Earhead bugs 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.4NS
(1.1) (1.1)
(Figures in parentheses are transformed values) ** Significant difference (T < 0.0001)

28. D. Resistance to Climatic
Effects

29. „Abiotic Stresses‟ Are Major
Threats to Rice Crops
• „Extreme events‟ due to unexpected
variations in rainfall and temperature
becoming more common, whether or
not there is global warming
• DROUGHT is a major problems for
rice farmers
• SRI plants after about 1 month
become resistant to drought

30. Two rice fields in Sri Lanka -- same variety,
same irrigation system, and same drought :
conventional methods (left), SRI (right)

31. Storm Damage Is Also a Major
Problem for Rice Farmers
• SRI rice crops have resisted:
– Typhoon damage (Meishan, Sichuan,
China, September 2002)
– Cyclone damage (Andhra Pradesh,
India, December 2003)
– Cold spell (Andhra Pradesh, India,
February 2004)
• Young SRI plants do not resist
flooding, however

32. Non-lodged SRI crop above,
in Tamil Nadu, India

33. E. Environmental Benefits

34. These Benefits Not Yet Documented
• Environment will surely benefit from a
reduction in rice sector‟s demand for
water -- less problems for farmers too
• Water quality will improve with reduced
use of N fertilizer with less nitrate (NO3)
in groundwater and fewer chemicals --
also better for farmers‟ health
• With no flooding of rice fields, reduce
methane and other greenhouse gas
emissions (offset by NO2?) – need study

35. F. Lower Farmers‟ Risk

36. SRI Appears More Risky
• For first month or so, SRI paddy field
looks terrible!
– Only a few small plants can be seen: no
beautiful green field as farmers expect
– Field is brown mud, not flooded so that
the blue sky is reflected
• Small seedlings appear vulnerable,
but with good nursery growth, in an
unflooded field they are very hardy

37. SRI Can Reduce Risk
• By raising yields on average, and at the same
time reducing costs of production, farmers
have less risk with SRI:
– The IWMI evaluation found that Sri Lankan farmers
had net economic losses in about 2% of their
seasons, compared with 17% of their seasons
growing rice with conventional methods
– The GTZ found that the risk of not meeting
production targets was greatly reduced for SRI
farmers in Cambodia
• These economic analyses are reinforced by
the reduction in losses from biotic or abiotic
stress that SRI methods make possible

38. G. Higher Grain Quality

39. SRI Advantages Are More than Quantity
• In this area also, we have more farmer
reports than scientific evaluations
• There is evidence that milling outturn
is higher from SRI paddy rice due to:
– Fewer unfilled grains (less chaff), and
– Fewer broken grains (less shattering)
• There are also reports of better eating
qualities and better keeping quality
after cooking
• Some evidence is available from China

40. MEASURED DIFFERENCES IN GRAIN QUALITY
Characteristic SRI (3 spacings) Conventional % Diff.
Chalky kernels 23.62 - 32.47 39.89 - 41.07 - 30.7
(%)
General 1.02 - 4.04 6.74 - 7.17 - 65.7
chalkiness (%)
Milled rice 53.58 - 54.41 41.54 - 51.46 + 16.1
outturn (%)
Head milled 41.81 - 50.84 38.87 - 39.99 + 17.5
rice (%)
Paper by Prof. Ma Jun, Sichuan Agricultural University,
presented at 10th conference on Theory and Practice for
High-Quality, High-Yielding Rice in China, Haerbin, 8/26/2004

41. Grain Quality Will Be
Increasingly Important
• Consumers are becoming more
concerned with quality
• Rice is losing demand as mass food
• SRI enables farmers to get high yield
of „organic‟ rice, for higher premium?
Chemical-free rice is more healthy
• Given larger root system taking up
more micronutrients, SRI could be
more nutritious, but no evidence yet

42. H. Biodiversity Conservation

43. Unexpected Benefit
• SRI methods raise the yields of both
„modern‟ varieties of rice – high-
yielding varieties (HYVs) and hybrids
– All the highest SRI yields (> 15 t/ha)
have been with „modern‟ varieties
• But „traditional‟ varieties respond
well – with yields in 5-12 t/ha range
– Because the market price for such
varieties is higher (2-3x), growing them
can be very profitable -- even more than
growing „modern‟ varieties

44. Rice Biodiversity Is Being
Reduced by New Varieties
• SRI can make it attractive for farmers
to conserve their traditional varieties –
local landraces
• CIIFAD has started a collaborative
initiative with NGOs and farmer groups
in Cambodia, Madagascar and Sri
Lanka to promote „organically-grown‟
indigenous rice varieties – for local
sale and for export – at higher prices

46. Biodiversity Conservation Will
Benefit Plant Breeding
• Conserving the genetic inheritance
of rice species will make it possible
to continue breeding improved
varieties, though for other qualities
than maximum yield
• Hybrid varieties give even higher
yield with SRI methods, and much
less seed is required, so SRI makes
this innovation more attractive too

47. I. Diversification and
Modernization of Agriculture

48. SRI Is Not Just for Producing
More Rice
• The world does not need as much rice as can
be produced with SRI methods
• SRI, as noted at the start of this presentation, is
mostly concerned with PRODUCTIVITY
• Too much of the world’s land, labor, water and
capital is currently devoted to rice production
• We will be better off if staple food needs can be
met with fewer of these resources, so that
more of them can be devoted to other kinds of
production

49. Intensification Should Support
Diversification
• We aim to meet with world‟s basic food
needs and ensure food security with
fewer resources
• Increased efficiency and productivity will
lower the price of rice, which will benefit
the urban poor
• More diversified farming operations will
improve both incomes and nutrition

50. Intensification Should Support
Modernization
• SRI is expected to help farmers become
better managers and decision-makers,
more involved in experimentation and
evaluation and in making changes
• SRI supports more ecological approach
to agriculture, with knowledge-based
development, focused on the potentials
of biology
• 21st century = „the century of biology‟ ?

51. SRI STILL RAISES MORE
QUESTIONS THAN WE HAVE
ANSWERS FOR
• Enough is known now to pursue a two-
pronged strategy with research and
practice proceeding in parallel
• There are many researchable issues to
be taken up by scientists in association
with farmers and extension personnel –
what is important is that new knowledge
be widely shared

52. THANK YOU
Email: ciifad@cornell.edu
or tefysaina.tnr@simicro.mg
Web page:
http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/

53. Addendum: Phyllochrons