1.
Potential Contributions of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) for Increasing Production with Pro-Poor Orientation and Environmental Benefits Norman Uphoff Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD) in association with Sathguru Management Consultants For presentations in Chennai, Coimbatoir, Hyderabad and New Delhi, India, May 9-14, 2002

2.
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) developed in Madagascar almost 2 decades ago offers opportunities to: <ul><li>Increase production and reduce poverty, </li></ul><ul><li>Raise factor productivity, in ways that are </li></ul><ul><li>Accessible to the poor, while being </li></ul><ul><li>Environmentally friendly . </li></ul>

3.
Advantages of SRI : <ul><li>SRI can achieve higher yields of rice — even double or triple — averaging about 8 t/ha, which would be double the present world average , without requiring new technology or inputs. </li></ul><ul><li>SRI capitalizes on potentials that have long existed in the rice plant's genetic endowment -- but that have been inhibited by the standard practices for growing irrigated rice, managing plants, soil, water and nutrients in new ways. It gives a different phenotype from rice genome. </li></ul>

4.
SRI is attractive because it can raise the productivity of: <ul><ul><ul><li>Land </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Labor </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Capital </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Water </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>While reducing the costs of production </li></ul>

5.
SRI changes the ways that farmers have grown irrigated rice for centuries, even millennia. <ul><li>SRI is more accessible to the poor because it does not depend on external inputs -- no new seeds or use of agrochemicals . </li></ul><ul><li>SRI can reduce the demand for water because it requires only about half as much water as when rice is grown in continuously flooded fields. </li></ul><ul><li>SRI can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions because growing rice in continuously flooded paddies accounts for about 25% of the annual total emissions of methane (CH 4 ) into the atmosphere. </li></ul>

6.
SRI is counterintuitive , because it can produce more from less . <ul><li>Higher yields result from: </li></ul><ul><li>Transplanting younger, smaller seedlings </li></ul><ul><li>Fewer plants per hill & per m 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Using less water per season </li></ul><ul><li>Less or no need for purchased inputs </li></ul>

7.
<ul><li>There is mounting evidence from a growing number of countries that SRI does indeed have the potentials that have been reported from Madagascar </li></ul><ul><li>Nobody is asked to accept and utilize SRI based on our reports. We only would like it be to tried and evaluated by farmers and researchers . </li></ul>

8.
The main objections against this methodology have been that: <ul><li>SRI is too good to be true </li></ul><ul><li>SRI is labor-intensive </li></ul><ul><li>It requires good water management </li></ul><ul><li>* Being “too good” only means that SRI </li></ul><ul><li>should be subjected to careful scrutiny. </li></ul><ul><li>* SRI may turn out to be labor-saving . </li></ul><ul><li>* Water control is definitely necessary. </li></ul>

9.
SRI is being advanced by a broad coalition of participants <ul><li>NGOs </li></ul><ul><li>research institutions </li></ul><ul><li>universities </li></ul><ul><li>government agencies </li></ul><ul><li>farmer groups </li></ul><ul><li>concerned individuals, and also now </li></ul><ul><li>private sector organizations </li></ul>

10.
The methodology raises many interesting questions that invite scientific study. But we have been seeing remarkable results from SRI methods in farmers' hands . Farmers often are getting better results from SRI methods than researchers do in their on-station trials.

11.
In Madagascar , where yields average 2-2.5 t/ha, 100s of farmers in 2 programs (USAID and French) have averaged 8-9 t/ha over a 5-year period.

12.
In China , the first SRI trials gave 9.2 to 10.5 t/ha . Although these levels can be achieved in China with the best varieties and best techniques, these take twice as much water as applied with SRI. SRI method used with hybrid rice varieties has given yields in the 12-15 t/ha range.

13.
In Indonesia , after three years of evaluation, SRI methods are now being incorporated into the Government of Indonesia's new Integrated Crop Management strategy along with IPM methods. <ul><li>The first SRI yields at Sukamandi station were </li></ul><ul><li>6.3 t/ha , followed by 9.5 t/ha the next season. </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers in the IPM farmer field school at Ciamis got 6.7-7 t/ha with SRI compared with 4.5 t/ha using their previous best methods. </li></ul>

14.
In Cambodia and Myanmar , where conventional yields are even lower than in Madagascar (2 t/ha), farmers using SRI have averaged 5 t/ha or more with NGO guidance.

15.
In the Philippines , farmers working with several NGOs have gotten increased yields with SRI. <ul><li>Farmers with the Consortium for Development of Southern Mindanao Cooperatives (CDSMC) averaged 4.95 t/ha the first year compared with their usual 2 t/ha yield. </li></ul><ul><li>Broader Initiatives for Negros Development (BIND) got 7.4 t/ha compared with 5.6 t/ha using the best modern methods. </li></ul><ul><li>A staff member of the Dept. of Agriculture’s Agricultural Training Institute got 7.6 t/ha his first time using SRI compared to 3.6 t/ha before. </li></ul>

16.
In Sri Lanka , where the average yield is about 3.5 t/ha, farmers have averaged 8 t/ha with SRI, with a few farmers achieving much higher yields.

17.
In Bangladesh , also with 3.5 t/ha average yields, stagnant for some years, farmers working with CARE and and the Dept. of Agricultural Extension attained 6.5 to 7.5 t/ha with SRI techniques.

18.
In The Gambia , 10 farmers split their fields to compare the results using SRI and conventional methods. SRI gave them yields of 7.4 t/ha compared to 2.5 t/ha with their usual practices.

19.
In Sierra Leone , 8 groups of 20 farmers each averaged 5.3 t/ha using SRI methods compared with their usual yield of 2.5 t/ha. <ul><li>In Laos , farmers working with Oxfam/CAA averaged only 3.6 t/ha their first season with SRI, compared to 3.0 t/ha usual yield – </li></ul><ul><li>But their harvest:seed ratio was increased from 43:1 to 207:1 , which pleased the farmers. </li></ul>

20.
I n Cuba , the first two reported yields were both over 9 t/ha , working from a simple printed description of the SRI methodology. <ul><li>Average yields so far are 7.8 t/ha compared with 5.1 t/ha for conventional methods in same circumstances. </li></ul><ul><li>In India , trials at TNAU for modified SRI produced 5.1-7.6 t/ha -- not higher than control plots but with 56% water saving . </li></ul>

21.
In Sri Lanka and Madagascar , some farmers have achieved yields in the range of 15 to 20 t/ha once they have built up the quality of their soils. The maximum potentials of SRI methodology remain to be realized.

22.
<ul><li>SRI is considered as a methodology </li></ul><ul><li>rather than as a technology because </li></ul><ul><li>it is not a fixed set of practices prescribed for farmers to adopt as instructed. </li></ul><ul><li>SRI is based on a set of insights and principles about how to help rice plants achieve more productive phenotypes by realizing genetic potentials in the plant. </li></ul>

23.
SRI is thus a set of PRINCIPLES for improving plant performance <ul><li>These can be summarized as: </li></ul><ul><li>(a) RICE PERFORMS BETTER WITH: </li></ul><ul><li>Wide spacing (for canopy and roots) and </li></ul><ul><li>Careful transplanting (avoiding trauma) of </li></ul><ul><li>Young seedlings (better growth potential) </li></ul>

24.
(b) RICE PERFORMS BETTER IN SOIL that is: <ul><li>Well-aerated during the vegetative growth period, through: </li></ul><ul><li>* careful water management, and </li></ul><ul><li>* mechanical weeding (rotating hoe). </li></ul><ul><li>Enriched microbiologically through </li></ul><ul><li>* compost (SOM), and different </li></ul><ul><li>* plant/soil/water/nutritient management. </li></ul>

25.
SRI PRACTICES – to be varied according to local conditions are: <ul><li>Early transplanting -- < 15 days, best between 8-12 days, only two tiny leaves </li></ul><ul><li>Careful transplanting – in 15-30 minutes, root laid into soil 1-2 cm, root shape L > J </li></ul><ul><li>Wide spacing – single plants per hill, in square pattern , 25x25cm, up to 50x50cm </li></ul>

26.
SRI Practices (continued) <ul><li>Well-drained soil during vegetative growth phase – no continuously standing water – </li></ul><ul><li>with daily application of small amount, or alternate wetting/drying; after flowering, thin layer of water (1-2 cm), then drain </li></ul><ul><li>Early and frequent weeding , 10-12 DAT, up to 4 times, with a “rotating hoe” </li></ul><ul><li>Nutrient amendments are recommended – compost preferred over chemical fertilizer, best applied to preceding crop </li></ul>

27.
Results of SRI Practices <ul><li>Synergistic root development and tillering , with greater grain filling -- possibly greater pest and disease resistance </li></ul><ul><li>Phenotypic changes attributable to SRI practices: </li></ul><ul><li>30 tillers/plant -- up to 50-80, even more </li></ul><ul><li>Larger root systems -- 28 kg /clump root pulling resistance for 3 plants grown conventionally vs. 53 kg /plant for a single SRI plant </li></ul><ul><li>Positive correlation between tillers/plant and grains/panicle – large panicles, no lodging </li></ul>

29.
Rice is not an aquatic plant <ul><li>“ Rice thrives on land that is water-saturated or even submerged during part or all of its growth cycle.” (p. 43) </li></ul><ul><li>“ Most varieties maintain better growth and produce higher grain yields when grown in flooded soil than when grown in unflooded soil.” (pp. 297-298). </li></ul><ul><li>S. K. DeDatta, The Principles and Practices of Rice Production , J. W. Wiley, NY, 1981. </li></ul>

30.
<ul><li>In hypoxic soil, rice roots remain close to the surface. About ¾ are in top 6 cm at 29 DAT (Kirk and Solivas 1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Rice plant roots grown in flooded soil form air pockets ( aerenchyma ) through disintegration of 30-40% of the cortex (Kirk and Bouldin 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>“… disintegration of the cortex must surely impair the ability of the older parts of the root to take up nutrients and convey them to the stele” (ibid) </li></ul><ul><li>In unflooded soil, neither irrigated nor upland varieties form aerenchyma (Puard et al. 1989) </li></ul>

31.
Rice root cross-sections for upland and irrigated varieties (Puard et al. 1989)

32.
Abstract <ul><li>Nature and growth pattern of rice root system under submerged and unsaturated conditions </li></ul><ul><li>S. Kar, S. B. Varade, T. K. Subramanyam, and B. P. Ghildyal, </li></ul><ul><li>Il Riso (Italy), 1974, 23:2, 173-179 </li></ul><ul><li>Plants of the rice cultivar Taichung (Native) were grown in pots of sandy loam under 2 water regimes in an attempt to identify critical root-growth phases. Observations on root number, length, volume and dry weight were made at early tillering, active tillering, maximum tillering, and reproductive stages. </li></ul><ul><li>Rice root degeneration , normally unique to submerged conditions , increased with advance in plant growth. At flowering, 78% </li></ul><ul><li>had degenerated . During the first phase under flooding, and </li></ul><ul><li>throughout the growth period under unsaturated conditions, </li></ul><ul><li>roots rarely degenerated . </li></ul>

33.
Explanation in terms of phyllochrons <ul><li>Periodic interval of plant growth common to all gramineae species -- in rice, from ~5-8 days </li></ul><ul><li>Period when plant produces one or more phytomers (unit of tiller, leave and root) from its apical meristem </li></ul><ul><li>Phyllochrons represent biological rather than calendar time -- lengthened or shortened by a number of factors that can slow or speed up the plant’s “biological clock” </li></ul>

36.
Speeding up the biological clock <ul><li>Higher temperature vs. more cold </li></ul><ul><li>Wider spacing vs. root/canopy crowding </li></ul><ul><li>More insolation vs. shade </li></ul><ul><li>Ample nutrients in soil vs. nutrient deficits </li></ul><ul><li>Soil penetrability vs. soil compaction </li></ul><ul><li>Sufficient moisture vs. drought conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Sufficient oxygen vs. hypoxic soil </li></ul>

37.
Good News for Plant Breeders <ul><li>SRI methods appear to enhance the yield of all varieties , traditional and improved </li></ul><ul><li>Best results with SRI come with HYVs : </li></ul><ul><li>* IR-15 (Madagascar) 12 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>* IR-46 (Madagascar) 13.5 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>* BG-358 (Sri Lanka) 17 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>* Taichung-16 (Madagascar) 21 t/ha </li></ul>

38.
Evidence of Synergy <ul><li>Factorial trials by Faculty of Agriculture students at Univ. of Antananarivo, under contrasting agroecological conditions : </li></ul><ul><li>West coast near Morondava, 2000, </li></ul><ul><li>hot, dry climate, poor sandy soils, ~100m </li></ul><ul><li>High plateau at Anjomakely, 2001, </li></ul><ul><li>temperate climate, better soils, ~1200m </li></ul>

39.
Six Factors <ul><li>Variety: HYV (2798) vs. local (riz rouge) or Soil quality: clay (better) vs. loam (poor) </li></ul><ul><li>Water mgmt: aerated vs. saturated soil </li></ul><ul><li>Seedling age: 8 days vs. 16 or 20 days </li></ul><ul><li>Plants per hill: 1/hill vs. 3/hill </li></ul><ul><li>Fertilization: compost vs. NPK vs. none </li></ul><ul><li>Spacing: 25x25cm vs. 30x30cm (ND) </li></ul><ul><li>6 replications: 2.5x2.5m plots (N=288, 240) </li></ul>

42.
Value of Soil Aeration? <ul><li>Data from 76 farmers at Ambatovaky, 1997-98 season </li></ul><ul><li>Yield differentials analyzed according to number of weedings with “rotary hoe” </li></ul><ul><li>Saw similar effect of weeding in data from thesis by Frederic Bonlieu (U Anjers) </li></ul><ul><li>1 weeding = 4.2 t/ha, 2 weedings – 4.4 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>3 weedings = 5.1 t/ha ($20 yields $210?) </li></ul>

44.
Spread of SRI? <ul><li>Slow spread in Madagascar, picking up </li></ul><ul><li>French project to improve small-scale irrigation schemes on high plateau around Antsirabe and Ambositra – five years </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers could choose rice methods: peasant practices ; SRA = recommended system, higher inputs; or SRI </li></ul>

46.
Concluding Concerns from SRI <ul><li>Importance of ROOTS </li></ul><ul><li>DeDatta book on rice: in chapter on the “morphology, growth and development of the rice plant” only 8 out of 390 lines of text on roots; and in 16-page index with 1100 entries, </li></ul><ul><li>not even one entry! on roots – “roots a waste”? </li></ul><ul><li>Importance of SOIL MICROBIOLOGY </li></ul><ul><li>-- presently ignoring exudates, mycorrhizae, etc. </li></ul>

47.
Comparative Yields with SRI <ul><li>B’desh 6.5-7.5 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Cambodia 5-6 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>China 9.2-10.5 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Cuba 7.8 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Gambia 7.4 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Indonesia 7.0 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Laos 3.6 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Madagascar 8-9 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>up to 15-20 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Myanmar 5.5 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>4 t/ha comparison </li></ul><ul><li>2-3 t/ha average yld </li></ul><ul><li>50% water saving </li></ul><ul><li>5.1 t/ha comparison </li></ul><ul><li>2.5 t/ha (same farms) </li></ul><ul><li>5.0 t/ha comparison </li></ul><ul><li>3.0 t/ha, 207:1 H/S </li></ul><ul><li>2.5 t/ha farmer yield </li></ul><ul><li>3.8 t/ha modern yield </li></ul><ul><li>2-2.5 t/ha comparison </li></ul>

48.
More Comparative Yields <ul><li>Philippines 6.3 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Sierra Leone 5.3 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Sri Lanka 6.3 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>yields up to 17 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Effects Not Seen Yet: </li></ul><ul><li>India </li></ul><ul><li>Nepal </li></ul><ul><li>Thailand </li></ul><ul><li>3.7 t/ha comparison </li></ul><ul><li>2.5 t/ha (N = 160) </li></ul><ul><li>2.9 t/ha comparison </li></ul><ul><li>Water management problems common </li></ul>