Upload
sri-rice-international-programs-cals-cornell-university
View
663
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented by: Norman Uphoff Presented at: CREES Seminar, Washington DC
Citation preview
Opportunities for Raising Rice Yields and Factor Productivity
with the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
from Madagascar
Norman Uphoff, CIIFADCREES Seminar, Washington
October 30, 2004
SRI is controversial in some circles But it is not a ‘niche innovation’ as stated by Dobermann
in Agricultural Systems (2004); nor is it ‘voodoo science’ as suggested by Cassman and Sinclair, ACSSA (2004)
Sheehy et al. maintain in Field Crops Research (2004) that: “[SRI] has no major role in improving rice production
generally” -- but this is an untenable conclusion, unsupported by any systematic evidence, and with much evidence that contradicts it, esp. from China
Sinclair (USDA) wrote: “Discussion of SRI is unfortunate because it implies SRI merits serious consideration. SRI does not deserve such consideration.” Rice Today (2004)
However, SRI is making large differences in yields and in factor productivity in many countries – spreading rapidly
We want it to be scientifically evaluated – preferably with farmers [usually better results on-farm than on-station]
SRI Message: For Centuries, Even Millennia, We Have Been ABUSING and MISTREATING the Rice Plant
• We have FLOODED it – drowning its roots• We have CROWDED it – inhibiting the growth
potential of its canopy and roots• Now we apply FERTILIZERS and chemical
BIOCIDES that adversely affect soil biota which provide many services to plants: N fixation, P solubilization, protection against diseases and abiotic stresses, etc.
SRI Results are Remarkable,but Have Been Replicated Widely
• Yield increases – 50-100% or more, with• No change in varieties – all give increase, and
no need for mineral fertilizers – they are beneficial; compost gives better yield
• Little or no need for agrochemicals -- SRI plants more resistant to pests/diseases
• Reduced seed requirement – by 80-90% and less water requirement – by 25-50%
• More labor is required initially, but SRI can even become labor-saving over time
SRI rice field, hybrid variety, Yunnan province, 2004 – 18 t/ha
Cambodian farmerwith rice plant grown
from single seed,using SRI methods
and traditional variety
Madagascar SRIfield -- 2003
SRI field in Cuba-- 2003CFA Camilo Cienfuegos14 t/ha – Los Palacios 9
SRI field in Sri Lanka – with many panicles having 400+ grains
The System of Rice Intensification
• Evolved in Madagascar over 20 years by Fr. Henri de Laulanié, S.J. – working with farmers, observing, doing experiments, also having some luck in 1983-84 season
• SRI is now spreading around the world: positive results now seen in 21 countries
• SRI is a set of principles and insights that when translated into certain practices can change the growing environment of rice to get healthier, more productive plants representing different phenotypes
Fr. de Laulaniémaking field visit
Sebastien Rafaralahy andJustin Rabenandrasana,Association Tefy Saina
SRI is a set of principles and methods to get more productive
PHENOTYPES from any GENOTYPE
SRI changes the management of plants, soil, water, and nutrients to:
(a) induce greater ROOT growth and
(b) nurture more abundant and diverse populations of SOIL BIOTA
Capitalize on existing rice potentials
Swarna under SRICanopy of an individual rice plant grown under SRIconditions; usually this variety (Swarna) is ‘shy-tillering’
Andhra Pradesh, India, rabi season, 2003-04
Roots of a single rice plant (MTU 1071) grown at Agricultural Research Station
Maruteru, AP, India, kharif 2003
Different Paradigms of Production • The GREEN REVOLUTION paradigm:
(a) Changed the genetic potential of plants, and
(b) Increased the use of external inputs -- more water, fertilizer, insecticides, etc.
• SRI changes certain management practices for plants, soil, water and nutrients, so as to:
(A) Promote the growth of root systems, and
(B) Increase the abundance and diversity of
soil organisms, and also (C) Reduce water use and costs of production
21st Century Agriculture Should Be• More PRODUCTIVE AGRONOMICALLY:
– LAND -- per unit area -- per ha or per acre– LABOR -- per hour or per day– WATER -- per cubic meter or per acre/ft– CAPITAL -- more profitable for $ invested
• More ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN– More robust in face of CLIMATE CHANGE
• More SOCIALLY BENEFICIAL– ACCESSIBLE to the poor, reducing poverty– Providing greater FOOD SECURITY– Contributing more to HUMAN HEALTH
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Changes in Fertilizer Use
World Grain Production (mmt)
Fertilizer Use (mmt)
Marginal Response Ratio
Decade Δ Decade Δ
1950 631 14 --
1961 805 (+174) 31 (+17) 10.2:1
1969-71 1116(+311) 68(+37) 8.4:1
1979-81 1442(+326) 116(+48) 6.8:1
1989-91 1732(+290) 140(+24) 12.1:1
1999-01 1885(+153) 138(-2) ?
‘Modern agriculture’ is not necessarily the ultimate form of agriculture
• Productivity gains achieved with heavy use of external inputs are slowing down
• Negative side-effects are becoming more evident -- environmental, social costs
• Can we make further progress in the 21st century by doing ‘more of the same’?
• Doubtful because of diminishing returns -- in case of rice (K. Cassman et al., 1998) -- a further 60% increase in rice production we will require 300% increase in N fertilizer
Previous Productivity Gains Were Made in Large Part with
Use of CHEMICAL INPUTS
Fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. are now
-- giving diminishing returns while -- creating environmental hazards
and health risks,– with rising costs of production and
-- continuing problems of efficacy
How to Reduce Chemical Dependence and Energy
Dependence in Agriculture?• Capitalize maximally/optimally on
biological processes and potentials
• Pay more attention to phenotypes – they are what we eat, not genotypes
• Phenotypes are product of G x E interaction – SRI changes the E
• May be relevant for other crops also
Plant Physical Structure and Light Intensity Distribution
at Heading Stage (Tao et al., CNRRI, 2002)
Dry Matter Accumulation betweenSRI and Control (CK) Practices (kg/ha)at Maturity (Zheng et al., SAAS, 2003)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Stem Sheath GreenLeaf
With.Leaf
Panicle Biomass
SRICK
Table 2. Different sizes of the leaf blade (cm) with SRI practices (Zheng et al., SAAS, 2003)
Prac-tice
3rd leaf 2nd leaf Flag leaf Average
Length Width Length Width Length Width Length Width
SRI 64.25 1.57 71.32 1.87 57.67 2.17 64.41 1.87
CK 56.07 1.43 62.03 1.57 48.67 2.01 55.56 1.67
+/- 8.18 0.14 9.29 0.30 9.00 0.16 8.86 0.20
%Δ 14.59 9.79 14.97 19.11 18.49 7.96 15.95 11.98
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6-J ul 16-J ul 26-J ul 5-Aug 15-Aug 25-Aug
Date
LAI
SRICK
Figure 1. Change of leaf area index (LAI) during growth cycle (Zheng et al., 2003)
Root Oxygenation Ability with SRI vs. Conventionally-Grown Rice
Research done at Nanjing Agricultural University,Wuxianggeng 9 variety (Wang et al. 2002)
0
100
200
300
400
500
N-n n-2 Heading Maturity
Development stage
Ox
yg
en
ati
on
ab
ilit
y o
f α -
NA
(ug
/h.g
DW
)
W
S
Much Remains to be Known about the Mechanisms
• Multiple hypotheses can be formulated from the existing scientific literature
• Relatively little soil research has focused on soil biology
• Relatively little plant research has focused on plant roots
• One example is the apparent effect of phytohormones produced by aerobic bacteria and fungi (e.g., auxins, cytokinins)
Cuba – 52 DAP, Variety VN 2084
Greatest Benefit Is Not YIELD• This can vary, often widely; for farmers,
profitability is more important outcome• From society’s perspective, what is most
important is factor productivity – kg of rice per land, labor, capital, and water !
• No question any longer of whether SRI methods give higher yields/productivity but rather how to explain these changes
• SRI can surely be further improved since it has been developed inductively so far
What Are the ‘Negatives’?Surprisingly few -- the main constraint is
labor intensity -- at least initially
• This is receding as a constraint, mostly a problem for first few weeks or seasons– Cambodian evaluation showed no increase
(305 vs. 302 hrs/ha) -- and better timing; in China and India, it is becoming labor saving
– IWMI study showed labor productivity higher by 50-62%, with partial use of SRI methods
– Farmer innovation is helping to reduce labor requirements -- more innovations will come
Roller-marker devised by Lakshmana Reddy, East Godavari,AP, India, to save time in transplanting operations; his yield
in 2003-04 rabi season was 16.2 t/ha paddy (dry weight)
4-row weeder designedby Gopal Swaminathan,
Thanjavur, TN, India
AERATE SOIL at same time weeds are removed/incorporated
Motorizedweeder
developed byS. Ariyaratna
Sri Lanka
Seeder Developed in Cuba
Direct seeding will probably replace transplanting in futureEssential principle is to avoid trauma to the young roots
What Are Other ‘Negatives’?Water control is necessary for best results;
can be obtained through infrastructure or organization – SRI makes this economic
Farmer learning and skill are required -- but this is a benefit, not just a cost
Disadoption has been reported as problem but only in Madagascar (not in Cambodia, India)
Nematodes can be a problem (e.g., Thailand);
need to develop water management strategy
Golden snail – can be controlled (e.g., Philippines)
Chinese Adaptations• Triangular system of planting – Liu
Zhibin, Meishan, Sichuan – got 16 t/ha and award from prov. DOA
• 3-S system – uses 45 d seedlings because of cold temperatures, with single seedlings planted sparsely (10,000 plants/mou), and less water, more organic matter; but no active soil aeration yet -- using herbicides
Normal 3-S
Seedlings are started at the end of winter in plastic greenhouses
Seedling for Seedling for transplanting -- and transplanting -- and
resulting plantresulting plant
Wide Spacing of Plants
Average spacing 15 cm (13-17 cm) by 40 cm Average spacing 15 cm (13-17 cm) by 40 cm
(37-43 cm), 1-2 per hill (37-43 cm), 1-2 per hill
Vegetative Growth VigorouVigorous s
tilleringtillering
Vigorous roots
3-S roots on right
.
131131
3-S Field with Variety 131
3-S gives good grain quality
Effects of Different Treatments within 3-S System
Panicles/m2
Grains/ panicle
Seed set (%)
1000-grain wt
(g)
Yield (t/ha)
Change
Control (CK)
540.5 70.1 83.1 24.8 7,808.5 --
3-S METHOD
438.6 106.8 83.0 25.8 10,030.5 + 28.5%
VARIETIES
Dongnong 423
371 136.0 85.0 29.0 12,471.0 +28.6%
Xixuyan 1 375 131.0 90.0 27.3 12,020.5 +24.0%
Dongnong 9914
480 108.0 78.0 25.6 10,351.5 +6.8%
Kongyu 131
450 92.0 90.0 26.0 9,691.5 --
Chinese Results, 2004
• Heilongjiong Province: 10 t/ha in 2004 -- 44,000 ha under 3-S system
• Guizhou Province: high-altitude record set with SRI – 12.9 t/ha
• Zhejiang Province, Tian Tai County: 10.8 t/ha in 2003; 11-12.5 t/ha in 2004 set provincial records for yield– Farmer experimentation is occurring
SRI demonstration fields in Tian Tai, Zhejiang, China
Nie Fuqiu, Bu Tou village, Tian Tai, Zhejiang,describing his experiments within SRI system
CAU evaluation of SRIXinsheng Village, Dongxi Township,
Jianyang County, August 2004
• 2003 – 7 farmers used SRI (SAAS)• 2004 – 398 farmers used SRI (65%)• 2003 – SRI plot size average 0.07 mu• 2004 – SRI plot size average 0.99 mu• 86.6% of SRI farmers (65/75) said they would
expand their SRI area next year or keep their whole rice area under SRI
Xinsheng Village, Dongxi Township[N = 75] (20% sample of all users)
RICE YIELD (kg/mu) 2002 2003* 2004Standard 403.73 297.88 375.77 Methods
SRI -- 439.87 507.16-----------------------------------------------------------SRI Increase (%) +46.6% +34.8%
* Drought year [Water saving/mu = 43.2%]
Other Results Reported, 2004
Sichuan Province – 60+ trials showed 10.5 t/ha average vs. 7.5 t/ha usual (double usual increase with hybrid rice)SAU – 11.75 t/ha; Leshan – 12.1 t/ha (10
300 mu); Meishan – 13.4 t/ha; SAAS field demonstration (observed) – 11.64 t/ha
Hunan Province – 13.5 t/ha in field demonstration of CNHRRDC (‘SRI’)
Yunnan Province – 18 t/ha CNRRI trial 20.4 t/ha certified by Dept of S&T/SAU
Liu Zhibin, Meishan Inst. of Science & Technology, inraised-bed, no-till SRI field with certified yield of 13.4 t/ha
MEASURED DIFFERENCES IN GRAIN QUALITY Characteristic SRI (3 spacings) Conventional Diff.
Chalky kernels (%)
23.62 - 32.47 39.89 - 41.07 - 30.7
General chalkiness (%)
1.02 - 4.04 6.74 - 7.17 - 65.7
Milled rice outturn (%)
53.58 - 54.41 41.54 - 51.46 + 16.1
Head milled rice (%)
41.81 - 50.84 38.87 - 39.99 + 17.5
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, 8/2004
LESS CAN PRODUCE MOREby utilizing biological potentials & processes• Smaller, younger seedlings become larger,
more productive mature plants• Fewer plants per hill and per m2 will give
higher yield if used with other SRI practices• Half as much water produces more rice because
aerobic soil conditions are better• Greater output is possible with use of fewer or even no external/chemical inputsChanges in management practices give different
phenotypes from rice genomes (cf. Kumar et al., PNAS, 2004)
THANK YOU
• Web page: http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/
• Email: [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]
• In China: [email protected]
Proposed/Possible/Probable EXPLANATIONS for
SRI Performance
1st Explanation?Above-Ground Environment
Create ‘the edge effect’ for the whole field• Avoid edge effect only for measurement;
promote it agronomically (triangle spacing)
• Too-close spacing affects photosynthesis within canopy: measurements at AARD (Sukamandi, Indonesia) found that with normal spacing, lower leaves were being ‘subsidized’ by the upper leaves; wider spacing enables whole plant to contribute
2nd Explanation?Nitrogen Provision
• Rice yields increased 40-60% when same amount of N provided equally in both NO3 and NH4 forms vs. when all N is provided as NH4 (Kronzucker et al., 1998)
• BNF increases greatly with alternated aerobic/anaerobic conditions (Magdoff and Bouldin, Plant and Soil, 1970)
• Contributions of protozoa to N supply• Also contributions from endophytes
AZOSPIRILLUM POPULATIONS, TILLERING AND RICE YIELDS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT CULTIVATION PRACTICES
AND NUTRIENT AMENDMENTSResults of replicated trials at the Centre for Diffusion of Agricultural Intensification,
Beforona, Madagascar, 2000 (Raobelison, 2000)
Azospirillum in the
CLAY SOIL Rhizosphere(103/ml)
Roots(103/mg)
Tillers/plant
Yield(t/ha)
Traditional cultivation,no amendments
25 65 17 1.8
SRI cultivation, withno amendments
25 1,100 45 6.1
SRI cultivation, withNPK amendments
25 450 68 9.0
SRI cultivation,with compost
25 1,400 78 10.5
LOAM SOILSRI cultivation,with no amendments
25 75 32 2.1
SRI cultivation,with compost
25 2,000 47 6.6
3rd Explanation? Phosphorus Solubilization
• This nutrient is often limiting factor, but• Large amounts of P in soil (90-95%) are
present in ‘unavailable’ form• Alternating wetting and drying of soil
increased P in soil solution by 85-1900% compared with soils just wet or just dry (Turner and Haygarth, Nature, May 2001)
• Aerobic bacteria acquire P from ‘unavailable’ sources during dry phase; during wet phase they lyse and release P into the soil solution
4th Explanation? Mycorrhizal Fungi
• 90+% of terrestrial plants derive benefits from and even depend on mycorrhizal associations (infections)
• Mycorrhizal hyphae extend into soil and expand volume accessible to the plant by 10-100x, acquiring water, P and other nutrients; they also provide protective/other services to plants
• Flooded rice forgoes these benefits
5th Explanation?Phytohormones
• Aerobic bacteria and fungi produce auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, etc. in the rhizosphere
• Huge literature has documented effects of microbially-produced phytohormones (e.g., Frankenberger and Arshad, 1995)
• Root growth in SRI plants probably is not due just to physiological processes within the plants --stimulated by aerobic microorganisms? Roots are key to SRI
Single Cambodian rice planttransplanted at 10 days
Dry Matter Distribution of Roots in SRI and Conventionally-Grown Plants at
Heading Stage (CNRRI research: Tao et al. 2002)
Root dry weight (g)
Table 13: Root Length Density (cm. cm-3) under SRI, ‘Modern’ (SRA) and Conventional Practice (from Barison, 2002)
Results from replicated on-station trials
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 0.23
SRI -- 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 practice 4.11 1.28 1.19 0.36 0.13 0.06
SRI R 2 =
0.6159 Conv
R
2 =
0.3144
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 100 200
N uptake (kg/ha)
Grain yield (kg/ha)
Grain yield SRI (kg/ha)
Grain yield Conv
(kg/ha)
Poly.:Grain yield
SRI (kg/ha)
Poly.: Grain yield
Conv. (kg/ha)
Rice grain yield response to N uptake
Figure 8: Linear regression relationship between N uptake and grain yield for SRI and conventional methods, using QUEFTS modeling (from Barison, 2002) Results are from on-farm comparisons (N = 108)
N Internal Efficiency
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300
N uptake (kg/ha)
Gra
in y
ield
(k
g/h
a)
SRI grain yield(kg/ha)
Conv. grain yield(kg/ha)
Figure 9: Estimation of balanced N uptake for given a grain yield for rice plants with the SRI and conventional systems, using QUEFTS modeling (same for P and K) (Barison, 2002)
Results are from on-farm comparisons (N = 108)
Emerging Benefits of SRI?1. Resistance to Abiotic Stresses –
climate becoming more ‘extreme’ and more unpredictable
• Observed resistance to drought (Sri Lanka, several years), hurricane (Sichuan – Sept. 2002), typhoon (AP, India – Dec. 2003), cold spell (AP, India – February 2004)
• Resistance to lodging due to roots?
Two rice fields in Sri Lanka -- same variety,same irrigation system, and same drought :
conventional methods (left), SRI (right)
Emerging Benefits of SRI?2. Resistance to Pests and Diseases –
widely reported by farmers – probably reflecting the protective services of soil microorganisms
3. Higher Milling Outturn ~ 15%: SRI paddy raises outturn in India from 66 to 75%; in Cuba, from 60 to 68-71%; adds to paddy yield
• Fewer unfilled grains (less chaff)
• Fewer broken grains (less shattering)
Emerging Benefits of SRI?4. Higher Nutritional Value of Rice?
• SRI can be ‘organic rice’ that is free from agrochemical residues
• Possibly SRI has higher nutritional quality in terms of micronutrients – needs to be evaluated scientifically
• Larger root system gives higher grain weight and greater grain density also greater nutrient density?
Emerging Benefits of SRI?5. Conservation of Rice Biodiversity?
• Highest SRI yields come with HYVs and hybrids (all SRI yields >15 t/ha)
• But traditional/local varieties respond very well to SRI practice, can produce yields of 6-10 t/ha, and even more
• Traditional rices receive higher price
• Higher SRI yields make them popular
• Get an organic premium for export?
SRI STILL RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN WE HAVE ANSWERS FOR
• This should please scientists – lot of interesting new work ahead
• We are linking with researchers and practitioners around the world
• Two-pronged strategy: research and practice proceed in tandem -- ‘walking on both legs’ as Mao advised
SRI Experience Could Help to Us to Improve
21st Century Agriculture• Nurturing of roots and soil biota is
relevant for much of agriculture• We need an agriculture that is
– Less ‘thirsty’ -- better roots will help– Less dependent on fossil-fuel energy
sources -- fertilizer, mechanization– Less dependent on agrochemicals -- for
sake of soil & water quality, for health
SRI plant with 87 fertile tillers atCFA Camilo Cienfuegos, Cuba
SRI Data from Sri Lanka SRI Usual
• Yields (tons/ha) 8.0 4.2 +88%• Market price (Rs/ton) 1,500 1,300 +15%• Total cash cost (Rs/ha) 18,000 22,000 -18%• Gross returns (Rs/ha) 120,000 58,500 +105%• Net profit (Rs/ha) 102,000 36,500 +180%• Family labor earnings Increased with SRI• Water savings ~ 40-50%
Data from Dr. Aldas Janaiah, IRRI agric. economist, 1999-2002; now at Indira Gandhi Development Research Institute in Mumbai; based on interviews conducted with 30 SRI farmers in Sri Lanka, October, 2002
IWMI Data from Sri LankaIWMI Evaluation (Namara, Weligamage, Barker 2003)
60 SRI and 60 non-SRI farmers randomly selected:
YIELD -- increased by 50% on average (not doing full SRI)
WATER PRODUCTIVITY -- increased by 90%
COST OF PRODUCTION (Rs./kg) -- lower by 111-209% with family labor, 17-27%at standard wage rate
LABOR PRODUCTIVITY (kg/hr) -- up 50% in yala (dry) season, up 62% in maha (wet) season
PROFITABILITY -- increased by 83-206%, depending on the wage assumed (family labor vs. paid labor)
RISK REDUCTION -- conventional farmers had net losses in 28% of seasons, SRI farmers in only 4%
PHILIPPINES DATA: AGRICULTURAL TRAININGINSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,COTOBATO, SRI Field Day, October 28, 2002
Production Analysis PSB Rc 72H PSB Rc 82 PSB Rc 18Plants/m2 = Hills/m2 16 16 16Panicles/hill 20 25.8 31Grains/panicle 191 155 159Grains/hill 3,825 4,822 4,921Yield/m2 1.16 1.25 1.2Yield (t/ha) 11.6 12.5 12.0
Economic Analysis Pesos/ha Pesos/ha Pesos/haInputs: seeds, org. fertilizer. 3,700 3,320 3,320Other expenses 5,830 5,830 5,830Harvesting, threshing 14,848 16,000 15,360 Cost of Production in P/ha
24,378 25,150 24,510
Income from Production @ 8 P/kg
93,800 100,000 96,000
NET PROFIT P/ha 68,422 74,850 71,490 Rate of Return 280% 298% 292%
SRI CONCEPTS CAN BE EXTENDED TO UPLAND PRODUCTION
Results of trials (N=20) by Philippine NGO, Broader Initiatives for Negros Development,
with Azucena local variety (4,000 m2 area)-- using mulch as main innovation, not young plants
Spacing Tillers/Hill
PanicleLength
Grains/Panicle
Yield(t/ha)
Net Return(P)
15x40 7.2 30.4 331.2 7.4 2.520x40 9.9 29.4 338.1 7.7 2.925x40 10.2 28.2 315.5 7.4 2.730x40 9.7 29.8 374.9 7.0 2.635x40 11.4 29.2 364.5 6.7 2.4
ROOT SYSTEM PROMOTION • SRI is becoming referred to in India (AP)
as ‘the root revolution’ -- key factor• Roots benefit from wider plant spacing,
aerated soil, more soil organic matter --from both compost and root exudation
• Roots are supported by more abundant and diversified populations of soil biota -- bacteria and viruses produce PGRs
• Plants are two-way streets, coevolved w/ microorganisms, dependent on them
Root Research Reported by Dr. Ana Primavesi (1980)
Shoot and root growth of maize (in g) grown in hydroponic solutions (14 days), with varying nutrient concentrations
Shoot Root100% concentration 44 7
200% concentration 34 7
2% concentration 33 23
2% concentration when 43 56 changed every other day
Contribution of SOIL MICROBIAL PROCESSESMicrobial activity is known to be
crucial factor in soil fertility
“The microbial flora causes a large number of biochemical changes in the soil that largely determine the fertility of the soil.” (DeDatta,1981, p. 60, emphasis added)
Bacteria, funguses, protozoa, amoeba, actinomycetes, etc.
• Decompose organic matter, making nutrients available
• Acquire nutrients otherwise unavailable to plant roots
• Improve soil structure and health -- water retention, soil aggregation, aeration, pathogen control, etc.
Effect of Young Seedlings@ Anjomakely Clay Soil Loam Soil
SS/20/3/NPK 3.00 2.04
SS/ 8 /3/NPK 7.16 3.89
SS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.13 4.36
AS/ 8 /3/NPK 8.15 4.44
AS/ 8 /3/Comp 6.86 3.61
SS/ 8 /1/Comp 7.70 4.07
AS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.77 5.00
AS/ 8 /1/Comp 10.35 6.39Note: All of these averages are for 6 replicated trials
Effects of SRI vs. Conventional PracticesComparing Varietal and Soil Differences
0
2
4
6
8
10
12C
onv.
Pra
ctic
e
1/4
SRI
2/4
SRI
3/4
SRI
All
SR
I
Local-ClayLocal-LoamHYV -SandLocal-Sand
Spread of SRI in Asia National Natl. Network Summary of SRI Results to Date
Workshops & CoordinationBangladesh 9/02, 12/03 BRAC 30-50% average increase,
up to 12 t/haCambodia 1/03 CEDAC Doubling from 2 to 4+ t/ha;
from 28 to 10,000 in 3 yearsChina 3/03 CNRRI 12-13 t/ha with hybrids;
up to 16 t/ha (Sichuan)India 8.5-12.2 t/ha results in AP vs.
4.3-6.3 t/ha; even 15.7 vs. 7.5Indonesia 7/02 AARD ADRA results 8.0-11.7 t/ha,
IPM program ave. 9.25 t/haLaos 4/02 IRRI/Laos Mixed results; up to 6-7 t/haMyanmar 5.5 t/ha > 2x average yieldsNepal 6/03 NGOs/
CIMMYTInitially mixed results; now8 t/ha average achieved by FFS
Philippines 4/02, 3/03 PhilippineGreens
Widely varying results;ATI/DOA got 12 t/ha
Sri Lanka 12/03 7-8 t/ha ave. yields; up to 13 t/hawith traditional varieties
Thailand 6/03 NGOs 30-60% increases reportedInterest: Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan
Spread of SRI in Africa• Madagascar: now 50,000-100,000 farmers,
average about 6-8 t/ha, some double or more• Sierra Leone: 2.5 5.3 t/ha for 160 farmers• The Gambia: 2.5 7.4 t/ha for 10 farmers• Benin: 1.6 7.5 t/ha in controlled trial• Guinea: 2.5 9.4 t/ha (hybrid + SRI)• Mozambique: good soils 3 saline soils 3-8 t/ha• Senegal: 4-5 9-11 t/ha (FAO trials)• Interest in, but no results yet from: Ethiopia, Ghana,
Mali, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda
Spread of SRI in Latin America
• Cuba: average 8-9 t/ha; INCA trial 12 t/ha; a number of farmers have reached 14 t/ha
• Peru: initial problems with drought, frost; 2003 results 9-11 t/ha vs. current average of 6 t/ha (not profitable given costs of production)
• Interest in, but no results yet from: Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti, and Venezuela