The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

SRI Forum, BiratnagarNovember 4, 2006

Norman Uphoff, CIIFADCornell University, USA

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a ‘work in progress’ – not finished

SRI methods usually enable rice farmers to: 1. Raise their production by 50% or more2. While at same time reducing their:

– Seed requirements -- by 80-90%– Irrigation water -- by 25-50%– Dependence on agrochemicals, and– Costs of production -- by 10-25%

With no need for new varieties of seeds andhigher net income/ha, by 50-100% or more,and with favorable environmental impacts

Basic SRI Practices:• Start with young seedlings – 8-12 days

old ( <15 days) have more potential for profuse growth of tillers/roots (D-S okay)

• Use single seedlings -- widely spaced – plant in a square, quickly, gently, shallow

• Apply minimum water – with no standing water in fields, enough to keep soil moist

• Weed with a ‘rotating hoe’ to aerate soil, control weeds and returned to soil

• Provide organic matter -- as much as possible -- for soil organisms and plants

Better Stated in terms of Ideas:1. If you transplant, use young seedlings,

preferably 8-12 days old, but less than 15 days to preserve tillering/rooting potential.

– Direct seeding is an option being experimented with by farmers in many countries to save labor.

Better Stated in terms of Ideas:1. If you transplant, use young seedlings.

2. Use wider spacing – single seeding per hill and square pattern of transplanting

– Not maximum spacing – need to maximize number of tillers per sq. meter, not per plant.

– Experiment to determine the optimum, which can increase over time.

– Do not crowd the plants together or their roots and canopies cannot grow their best.

Better Stated in terms of Ideas:1. If you transplant, use young seedlings.

2. Use wider spacing – single seeding per hill.

3. Keep the soil moist but unflooded. – Both plant roots and soil organisms need oxygen

to grow, so need to ensure that they have both water and air.

– Adjust water management schedule to soil type.– May not need to maintain thin layer of water

during reproductive stage (after PI).

Better Stated in terms of Ideas:1. If you transplant, use young seedlings.

2. Use wider spacing – single seeding per hill.

3. Keep the soil moist but unflooded.

4. Add organic matter to the soil, as much as possible.

• Fertilizer can enhance SRI yields, but the best yields with other SRI methods come when the soil has been enriched with organic matter.

Better Stated in terms of Ideas:1. If you transplant, use young seedlings.

2. Use wider spacing – single seeding per hill.

3. Keep the soil moist but unflooded.

4. Add organic matter to the soil, as much as possible.

5. Actively aerate the soil with a rotary hoe, as much as possible.

• Manual weeding or the use of herbicides is effective for weed control, but neither stimulates plant roots and soil organisms.

This is SRI in summary:1. If you transplant, use young seedlings.

2. Use wider spacing – single seeding per hill.

3. Keep the soil moist but unflooded.

4. Add organic matter to the soil, as much as possible.

5. Actively aerate the soil as much as possible.

6. Undertake other beneficial practices:1. Seedbed solarization – healthy seedlings

2. Seed selection/priming – start with best seeds

3. Determine best variety for local conditions, etc.

Review of SRI Results:

1. Bangladesh – IRRI-funded evaluations

2. Cambodia – GTZ evaluation; plus CEDAC evaluation of long-term users (3 years)

3. China – China Agricultural University

4. India – ANGRAU, TNAU, IWMI-India

5. Indonesia – Nippon Koei evaluation

6. Nepal – DADO Morang record-keeping

7. Sri Lanka – IWMI evaluation

8. Vietnam – farmer field school reporting

Country Evaluation done by/for:

YieldIncrease

Water-Saving

Cost Reduction

Increase in Net Income

Comments

BANGLADESHIRRI-funded evaluation

BRAC/SAFEBRRI/Syng-enta BD Ltd(Hossain, 2004)

24%NC

7% 59%

(32-82%)

On-farm evaluations [N=1,073], funded by IRRI PETRRA project

CAM-BODIANational Survey

GTZ (Anthofer et al., 2004) 41%

Flooding at TP

reduced 96.3%→

2.5%

56% 74%

Survey of 500 farmers (400 SRI users, 100 non-users), randomly sampled in 5 provinces; use of SRI has grown to >40,000 farmers in 5 years

Long-term Users

CEDAC (Tech, 2004)

105% 50% 44% 89% 120 farmers who had used SRI for 3 years

CHINA China Agric. University(Li et al., 2005)

29% 44%7.4%

[ext. service promoting fertilizer & new seeds]

64%

SRI use in village had gone from 7 in 2003, to 398 in 2004; farmers considered labor-saving main benefit [N=82]

Country Evaluation done by/for:

YieldIncreas

e

Water-Saving

Cost Reduction

Increase in Net Income

Comments

INDIATamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu Agr. Univ. (Thiyagarajan et al., 2004)

28% 40-50%

11% 112%

100 on-farm comparison trials in the Tamiraparani Basin, supervised by TNAU and State extension service

Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh Agr. Univ. (Satyanara-yana, 2005)

38% 40% NA NA

On-farm trials supervised by ANGRAU and State extension service [N=1,535]

West Bengal

IWMI-India(Sinha and Talati, 2005) 32%

Rainfed version of SRI 35% 67%

SRI use in villages had gone from 4 farmers to 150 in 3 seasons [N=108]

INDO-NESIA

Nippon Koei- DISIMP (Sato, 2006) 84% 40% 24% 412%

3 years of evaluation in E. Indonesia; [1,849 trials conducted on 1,363 ha]

Country Evaluation done by/for:

YieldIncrease

Water-Saving

Cost Reduction

Increase in Net

Income

Comments

NEPAL Morang District Agric. Dev. Office (Uprety, 2005)

82% 43%2.2%

[but rotary hoes not widely

available]

163%

Morang district users from 1 in 2003 to >1,400 in 2005; data from 412 farmers

SRI LANKA

IWMI (Namara et al., 2004) 44% 24% 11.9-

13.3%90-117%

Survey of 120 farmers (60 SRI users, 60 non-users), randomly sampled in 2 districts

VIET-NAM

National IPM Program (Dông Trù village)

21% 60% 24% 65%

Record-keeping by Farmer Field School alumni on SRI results

AVER-AGE

52% 44% 25% 128%

Two Different Paradigms of Production • GREEN REVOLUTION strategy:

(a) Change the genetic potential of plants, and

(b) Increase the use of external inputs -- more water, fertilizer, insecticides, etc.

• SRI (AGROECOLOGY) changes the way that plants, soil, water and nutrients are managed:

(a) Promote the growth of root systems and

(b) Increase the abundance and diversity of soil organisms to better enlist their benefits

These changes → better PHENOTYPES

Ms. Im Sarim, Cambodia,with rice plant grownfrom a single seed,using SRI methods

and traditional variety-- yield of 6.72 t/ha

Morang District,

Nepal - 2005

Mahto Oraon, Malai village, Gumla district, Jharkhand state, India -- Khandagiri, 110-day variety with 65 tillers, grown as ‘rainfed’ SRI rice

EasternIndonesia ---Nippon Koei

IrrigationProject

2004

Mey Som, Cambodian farmer, showing SRI/non-SRI rice plants

FFS farmer in Dông Trù village, Hanoi Province, Vietnam, 2005

SRI

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

IH H FH MR WR YRStage

Org

an d

ry w

eigh

t(g/

hill)

CK

I H H FH MR WR YR

Yellowleaf andsheathPanicle

Leaf

Sheath

Stem

47.9% 34.7%

“Non-Flooding Rice Farming Technology in Irrigated Paddy Field”Dr. Tao Longxing, China National Rice Research Institute, 2004

FACTORIAL TRIAL RESULTS (T/Ha), MORONDAVA, 2000 [N=288] VarietyCONVENTIONAL HYV Traditional Average

SS/16/3/NPK 2.84 (6) 2.11 (6) 2.48 (12)1 SRI PracticeSS/ 16 / 3 / C 2.69 (6) 2.67 (6)SS/16/1/NPK 2.74 (6) 2.28 (6)SS/ 8 /3/NPK 4.08 (6) 3.09 (6)AS/16/3/NPK 4.04 (6) 2.64 (6)

3.34 (24)(.021) 2.67 (24) (.007) 3.01 (48)2 SRI PracticesSS/16/ 1 / C 2.73 (6) 2.47 (6)SS / 8 / 3 / C 3.35 (6) 4.33 (6)AS/16/1/NPK 4.10 (6) 2.89 (6)AS/16/ 3 / C 4.18 (6) 3.10 (6)SS/ 8 /1/NPK 5.00 (6) 3.65 (6)AS/ 8 /3/NPK 5.75 (6) 3.34 (6)

4.28 (36)(.000) 3.24 (36)(.000) 3.78 (72)3 SRI PracticesSS/ 8 / 1 / C 3.85 (6) 5.18 (6)AS/16/ 1 / C 3.82 (6) 2.87 (6)AS/ 8 / 3 / C 4.49 (6) 4.78 (6)AS/ 8 /1/NPK 6.62 (6) 4.29 (6)

4.69 (24)(.000) 4.28 (24)(.000) 4.48 (48)

ALL SRI PRACTICES

AS / 8 / 1 / C 6.83 (6)(.000) 5.96 (6)(.000) 6.40 (12)

FACTORIAL TRIAL RESULTS (T/ha), ANJOMAKELY, 2001 [N=240]CONVENTIONAL Clay Loam Average

SS/20/3/NPK 3.00 (6) 2.04 (6) 2.52 (12)1 SRI PracticeSS/ 20 / 3 / C 3.71 (6) 2.03 (6)SS/20/1/NPK 5.04 (6) 2.78 (6)SS/ 8 /3/NPK 7.16 (6) 3.89 (6)AS/20/3/NPK 5.08 (6) 2.60 (6) 5.25 (24) 2.83 (24) 4.04 (48)2 SRI PracticesSS/20/ 1 / C 4.50 (6) 2.44 (6)SS / 8 / 3 / C 6.86 (6) 3.61 (6)AS/20/1/NPK 6.07 (6) 3.15 (6)AS/20/ 3 / C 6.72 (6) 3.41 (6)SS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.13 (6) 4.36 (6)AS/ 8 /3/NPK 8.15 (6) 4.44 (6) 6.74 (36) 3.57 (36) 5.16 (72)3 SRI PracticesSS/ 8 / 1 / C 7.70 (6) 4.07 (6)AS/20/ 1 / C 7.45 (6) 4.10 (6)AS/ 8 / 3 / C 9.32 (6) 5.17 (6)AS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.77 (6) 5.00 (6) 8.31 (24) 4.59 (24) 6.45 (48)ALL SRI PRAC TICESAS / 8 / 1 / C 10.35 (6) 6.39 (6) 8.37 (12)

COMPARISONS OF FACTOR EFFECTS, Anjomakely[for each average reported, N = 120 -- except for fertilization, each N = 96]

Young seedling effect + 2.48 t/ha 8 days old 6.28 t/ha vs. 20 days old 3.80 t/ha

Water management effect + 1.41 t/ha Water control 5.75 t/ha vs. Flooding 4.34 t/ha

Fertilization (average for both types of soil) + 1.01 t/ha Compost 5.49 t/ha NPK fertilizer 4.48 t/ha

Average on clay soils w/o fertilization = 4.25 t/ha Plants per hill effect + 0.78 t/ha 1 plant/hill 5.43 t/ha vs. 3 plants/hill 4.65 t/ha

Spacing effect (note: both spacings are within SRI range) +0.08 t/ha 30 x 30 cm 5.08 t/ha vs. 25 x 25 cm 5.00 t/ha

Soil effect (for equal number of trials with compost and NPK fertilization) Clay (better) soil 6.75 t/ha vs. Loam (poorer) soil 3.72 t/ha

Comparison of root pulling results (RPR), in kg, at different stages of growth (Barison, 2002)

TreatmentsRPR at panicle

initiation

RPR at anthesis

RPR at maturity

% decrease in RPR between anthesis and

maturity

SRI with compost

53.00 77.67 55.19 28.69

SRI without compost

61.67 68.67 49.67 28.29

SRA with NPK + urea

44.00 55.33 34.11 38.30

SRA without fertilization

36.33 49.67 30.00 39.40

Conventional system

22.00 35.00 20.67 40.95

Root length density (cm cm-3) under SRI, SRA and conventional systems (Barison, 2002)

TreatmentsSoil layers (cm)

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50

SRI with compost 3.65 0.75 0.61 0.33 0.30 0.23SRI without compost

3.33 0.71 0.57 0.32 0.25 0.20

SRA with NPK and urea

3.73 0.99 0.65 0.34 0.18 0.09

SRA without fertilization

3.24 0.85 0.55 0.31 0.15 0.07

Conventional system

4.11 1.28 1.19 0.36 0.13 0.06

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 100 200

N uptake (kg/ha)

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

/ha

)

Grain yield SRI (kg/ha)

Grainyield Conv

(kg/ha)

Poly.:Grain yield

SRI (kg/ha)

Poly.: Grain yield

Conv. (kg/ha)

Rice grain yield response to N uptake

Linear regression relationship between N uptake and grain yield for SRI vs. conventional methods

using QUESTS model (Barison, 2002)

Average Super-rice YIELD (kg ha-1) with New Rice Management (SRI) vs. Standard Rice Management

at different plant densities (CNRRI data, 2 yrs)

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

150,000 180,000 210,000

NRMSRM

Average Super-rice YIELD (kg ha-1) with New Rice Management (SRI) vs. Standard Rice Management

at different N application rates ha-1 (CNRRI data, 2 yrs)

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

120 kg 150 kg 180 kg 210 kg

NRMSRM

COST OF CULTIVATION PER HECTARE (TNAU STUDY)

PracticesTractor hours @ Rs. 150 / hr

Bullock pair @

Rs. 200 / hr

Men’s Labour

@ Rs. 40 / man-day

Women’s Labour

@ Rs. 40 / man-day

Cost (Rs.)

Conv. SRI Con SRI Conv SRI Conv. SRI Conv. SRI

Nursery Preparation

1 - - - 6 3 0.5 5.5 2,110 681

Main Field Preparation

7.5 7.5 2 2 12 12 - - 2,005 2,005

Manures & Fertilizers

- - - - 7 7 10 10 7,254 7,254

Transplanting - - - - 5 5 55 75 2,400 3,200

Weeding - - - - - 38 80 - 3,200 1,520

Irrigation - - - - 7.5 6 - - 300 240

Plant Protection - - - - 2 2 2 2 660 660

Harvesting 1 1 - - 12.5 12.5 75 75 3,500 3,500

Total 9.5 8.5 2 2 52 85.5 222.5 167.5 21,429 19,060

COST SAVING in SRI system vs. conventional system = Rs. 2,369 ( 11 % )

Economics of Cultivation (returns ha-1) Tamil Nadu Agric. Univ. study (N=100)

Conventional practices

SRI practices

Income from grains

(Rs. 5.00 / kg)US$ 659 US$ 870

Income from straw

(Rs. 0.25 / kg)US$ 49 US$ 63

Gross return US$ 708 US$ 933

Cost of cultivation US$ 466 US$ 414

Net return US$ 242 US$ 519

B : C ratio 1.52 2.25

SRI gets MORE from LESS by mobilizing biological processesSRI requirements include:• More labor while learning the method,

but SRI can become labor-saving• Water control needed for best results• Access to biomass for compost to

get best results -- can use fertilizer• Skill and motivation from farmers• Crop protection in some cases

The Element of SRI Successare below-ground, out of sight

• Greater ROOT GROWTH

• More abundant, diverse and active COMMUNITIES OF SOIL ORGANISMS

Bourema, Burkina Faso farmer, with SRI plant – summer 2006

Roots of a single rice plant (MTU 1071) grown at Maruteru

Agricultural Research Station, AP, India, kharif 2003

Cuba – Two plants the same age(52 DAP) and same variety (VN 2084)

Madagascar SRI field, traditional variety, 2003 – no lodging

Resistance to Abioticand Biotic Stresses:

• Drought tolerance/resistance

• Resistance to lodging to better tolerate wind, rain and storm damage

• Cold tolerance – has been seen

• Salinity tolerance? – no evidence yet

• Cope better with climate change?

• Widespread reports of resistance to pests and diseases – trophobiosis?

Rice fields in Sri Lanka: same variety, same irrigation system, and same drought : conventional methods (left), SRI (right)

Rice in Tamil Nadu, India: normal foreground; SRI crop in center, no lodging

Rice in Dông Trù, Vietnam: normal methods on right; SRI with

close spacing in middle; SRI with wider spacing on left

Shortening of Crop CycleReported in more and more situations:

• Best data from District Agricultural Development Office/Morang in Nepal– Shorter crop cycle reduces the risks of

biotic and abiotic stresses– Also may permit additional cropping

We see that weeding, i.e., active soil aeration, is shortening the crop cycle and raises crop yield – saving water

Nepal: Monsoon Season, 2005

51 farmers in Morang district who planted popular Bansdhan variety using SRI methods (usual maturity @ 145 days)

Age of N of Days to Reductionseedling farmers harvest (in days)> 14 d 9 138.5 6.510 - 14 d 37 130.6 14.4 8 - 9 d 5 123.6 21.4[WWF/AP evaluation: 7-10 days reduction]

Nepal: Weeding Effect

412 farmers in Morang district using SRI methods in monsoon season, 2005

Data show that WEEDINGS can raise yieldAve. SRI yield = 6.3 t/ha, vs. control = 3.1 t/ha

----------- No. of No. of Average Rangeweedings farmers yield of yields 1 32 5.16 (3.6-7.6) 2 366 5.87 (3.5-11.0) 3 14 7.87 (5.85-10.4)

Farmer Innovation Is Important

• New and better implements – are reducing SRI labor requirements

• New and better methods of crop establishment are also saving labor

• Extrapolation of SRI concepts and practices to other crops promising

• Farmer-to-farmer dissemination has been essential for SRI’s spread

Roller-marker devised by Lakshmana Reddy, East Godavari,AP, India, to save time in transplanting operations; Reddy’syield in 2003-04 rabi season was 17.25 t/ha paddy (dry wt)

Cono-weeder designed byH. M. Premaratna, Sri Lanka,locally manufactured for $10

Four-row weeder developedby Gopal Swaminathan,

Cauvery Delta, Tamil Nadu,India; Gopal also devised theKadiramangalam variation

of SRI for production in high-temperature regions

Weeder designed by Nong Sovann, Kampong Spreu province,Cambodia; built for $3, with a $20 increase in value of rice

SRI Seeder Developed in Cuba

Designed/built by Luis Romero (14 t/ha), 40x40 cm spacing-- too wide; his neighbor built 12-row seeder to be ox-drawn

Liu Zhibin, Meishan, Sichuan province, China, standing in his raised-bed, no-till SRI field; measured yield was 13.4 t/ha;in 2001, his SRI yield of 16 t/ha set Sichuan yield record

SRI concepts and practices being extended to other crops

• Winter wheat in Poland• Millet (ragi) in Karnataka state, India• Sugar cane in AP state, India• Cotton in TN state, India• Chickens in Cambodia

Winter wheat crop (Poland) before going into winter dormancy

SRI RAGI (FINGER MILLET), Rabi 2004-0560 days after sowing – Varieties 762 and 708

VR 762

VR 708

10 15 21*

*Age at which seedlings weretransplanted from nursery

Results of trials beingbeing done by ANGRAU

Ms. Im Sarim, Cambodia,with rice plant grownfrom a single seed,using SRI methods

and traditional variety-- yield of 6.72 t/ha

‘MODERN AGRICULTURE’ faces many challenges

• Costs of production are increasing with diminishing returns to inputs

• Reliance on petrochemical inputs is becoming more uncertain and costly

• Adverse environmental impacts are increasing and becoming less acceptable

• Global climate change requires some reorientation in strategy– Variability is more disruptive than warming

SRI suggests directions for ‘post-modern agriculture’

• 21st century needs systems of production more intensive/less extensive than in 20th – Energy costs rising, – Land and water resources must be used more

productively, – Environmental impacts must be reduced

• Post-modern agriculture is most modern!– Building on advances in biology, ecology

and microbiology (Mattoo and Abdul-Baki, 2006)

– 21st century will be ‘the century of biology’

THANK YOU

• Web page: http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/

• Email: ciifad@cornell.edu or ntu1@cornell.edu or

• tefysaina.tnr@simicro.mg