The document summarizes a study on the biological feasibility, economic viability, and social acceptability of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Sri Lanka. Key findings include: SRI fields had higher soil fertility and better physical/chemical properties than non-SRI fields. Around 50% of SRI farmers observed advantages of SRI like increased resilience to climate changes. However, SRI adoption remains low due to technical, social, economic, and policy factors inhibiting farmers from continuing SRI practices.

2. Rice cultivation -- in crisis all over the world
Sri Lanka -- no exception ,with its:
 Shrinking cultivable area
 Fluctuating annual production levels
 Stagnant yield gains
 Water scarcity
 Escalating input costs
Rice cultivation --under crisis

3.  Increasing input costs – keeping farmers
interested in rice cultivation is itself a challenge
 Aggravated agrochemical use – leads to risks
for human health

4. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
 SRI -- eco-friendly, rice-
growing technology
 SRI rice – presents less
risk to human health
 Madagascar Rice
Production System (MRP)
 Developed in 1980’s

5. Major principles
 Planting method – Wider spacing and
single/double seedling
 Soil fertility management – Plenty of organic
matter addition
 Water management – non-inundation or AWD
 Weed control – non- chemical

6. Wider spacing
Single seedling
Non-chemical weed control
Wider spacingNon-inundation
See the difference

7.  SRI was introduced to SRI Lanka in the late
90’s
 Still adoption by farmers is very low
 Reasons could be either one or a complex
mix of
 Technical,
 Social,
 Economic, and
 Policy-oriented factors

8.  Study was conducted to investigate
 Biological feasibility of SRI
management practices adopted by
farmers at different locations
 Economic viability of SRI
 Social compatibility of SRI as
perceived by Sri Lankan rice farmers
Research Study

9. Methodology
 Economical viability Pre-tested questionnaire survey
among SRI and non-SRI farmer
 Social acceptability categories
 Biological feasibility
 Collected soil samples from SRI and non SRI (conventional
rice farming) fields and analyzed in laboratories
 Soil penetration measurements in SRI and non-SRI fields
 Questionnaire survey to collect farmer observation on soil
health, crop health and resilience to climatic changes of
SRI and non-SRI rice

10. District Village/Organization
Number of
Questionnaires
Completed
Number of Soil
Samples Collected
SRI
Non
SRI
Total SRI
Non
SRI
Total
Hamban-
thota
Lunama, Miniethiliya, Ihalagama, Rotawewa,
Thissa, Lunugamwehera, Thanamalwila,
Hambantota, Bandagiriya, Gonnoruwa,
Angunakolapalassa, Weerawila, Sooriyawewa,
Pallemalla, Ranna, Ambalanthota, Badalangala
90 37 127 12 8 20
Anuradha-
pura
Thambuththegama (Makulewa, Nallachchiya,
Galnewa, Thalakulama, Thalakolawewa,
Meegalewa, Mudungoda, Thammannawa,
Hureegaswewa, Thispanepura, Halambawewa,
Samaneliya, Siyambalagaswewa, Kalankuttiya)
41 16 57 3 3 6
Putthalam Nawagaththegama (Amunuwewa,
Tharanagahawewa, Nawagaththegama,
Kuruluwewa)
12 8 20 3 3 6
Wanathawilluwa (Eluwankulama) 22 10 32 3 3 6
Kurunegala Rambukkana (Godagandeniya, Beligodapitiya,
Weragoda, Medawala, Weralupotha)
16 9 25 3 3 6
Kegalle Warakapola ( Niwatuwa, Kukulpane, Nawgala,
Warakapola, Gasnewa, Tholangamuwa, Pahala
weligalla, Hingurupola)
27 14 41 3 3 6
Total
208 94 302 27 23 50

11. Questionnaire survey
Questionnaire survey Key informant discussion

12. SRI soil SRI field
SRI soil sampling Penetration
measurements

13. BIOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY AND
ADAPTABILITY OF SRI UNDER
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS

14. Results
 There was enhanced soil fertility in SRI fields against
non- SRI rice fields
 Soil in SRI fields had enhanced physical and chemical
properties
 Farmers were adequately aware of the difference of
crop health and soil health of SRI rice vs. non- SRI rice
 Interviewed SRI farmers had awareness on the
biological advantages and eco-friendly nature of SRI to
a satisfactory level
 Around 50 % of interviewed SRI farmers had recognized
the various advantages and resilience to climatic
change of SRI

15. 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Organicmatter%
Location
SRI Non SRI

16. 0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400Penetrationresistance(MPa)
Location
SRI NON SRI

17. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Healthy leaves Thick leaves Straight
leaves
Greenery
Percentageofrespondents
Leaf Characteristics

18. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45Percentageofrespondents
Soil Characteristics
Hambanthota
Rambukkana
Wanathawillu
Warakapola

19. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Drought Wind Flood occurrences
Percentageofrespondents
Climatic Characteristics
Hambanthota
Rambukkana
Wanathawillu
Warakapola

20. Rice yield (Tons/ha) in SRI and
non SRI
Production
system
Ham. Nawa. Ram. Tha. Wan. Wara. All
SRI with
traditional
varieties
3.04 NA 3.12 3.39 3.79 2.88 3.24
SRI with
improved
varieties
4.73 5.92 5.26 5.11 3.12 4.6 4.98
Non – SRI 6.06 2.53 4.11 4.58 3.69 3.45 4.07

21.  System is biologically feasible
 But still many of SRI farmers are shifting
from SRI to conventional rice cultivation
 Some didn't have intention to continue
SRI due to some other reasons

22. Thank you