System of Rice Intensification

(SRI)

Report of PRADAN staffworking in Eastern India

( 2007)

Presentation by:

• Binju Abraham

• Nityananda Dhal

• Prativa Sundaray

To SRI Study Group at Cornell University: Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), April 13, 2007

Background Information:AREA APPEARANCE

Area Profile

• High concentration of Scheduled Tribes (STs)• Farm-based livelihoods, 1200-1300 mm rainfall• Mostly small and marginal farmers, with 20% having

1.25 ha of land and 71% only 0.47 ha• Low mechanization of production• Average income per family per day = $1 • Rice is the main staple crop• Average food security per household only 5 months so

must seek outside employment to meet food needs year-round

PRADAN ROLE

• Working primarily for livelihood promotion

• Began paddy intervention in 1990

• Promoting changes in traditional practices to attain higher yields

• Introducing HYVs, pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation, services like credit, input supply, skill and know-how transfer, etc. – all conventional approaches

SRI first demonstrated and evaluated with 5 farmers in 2002

System of Rice Intensification

•At first, had nervous professionals and nervous farmers.

•SRI use expanded from 5 farmers in 2002, to 6,200 farmers in 2006 (1550 acres) as good results came in

SRI practices promoted

• Seed selection and treatment:

– Start with fresh seed stock

– Use brine water treatment to select best seeds

Nursery raising in beds

Transplantation of young seedlings

♦ Transplant seedlings 9-15 days old

♦ Taking care not to disturb the roots

♦ Plant one seedling per hill.

♦ Spacing of 1ft row-to-row

♦ Spacing of 1ft plant-to-plant – greatly reduce plant population

Transplantation of young seedlings,

one per hill, wide and regular spacing

Fertilizer application

Reduced but not stopped (as with ‘organic SRI’)

Recommended application rates:

• DAP 50 kg /ha

• MOP 30 kg/ha

• UREA 75 kg/ha

• FYM 200 kg/ha

Urea applications split

Tillers per hill

Intermittent Water

Management

Alternate drying and

wetting

Patch promotion: needed to effect water savings

Lift irrigation as back up

Soil-aerating weeding

2 or 3 times

Comparison between SRI and conventional practices:

Conventional SRI• Seed rate 30 kg/ha 5 kg/ha

• Seedling age 21-35 days 9-15days

• Nursery size 10,750 sq ft 800 sq ft

• Spacing 6 inches 1ft x 1ft

• Transplantation Random Square

• Weeding Single time 2-3 times

• Input cost High Low

• Yield 2 t/ha 6 t/ha

• Fodder Less More (50%)

CROP ECONOMICS and YIELD ANALYSIS

Summary data on PRADAN

experience to date

Paddy yield with SRI practice, 2006Yield range (t/ha) No. of farmers % of farmers

0-2 7 0.6

2-4 82 7.5

4-6 278 25.3

6-8 425 38.6

8-10 267 24.3

> 10 41 3.7

Total 1,100 100%

Comparative Analysis – same farmers, same farms, different results: 6.88 t/ha vs 5.78 t/ha

SRI Conventional

Range Farmers %   Range Farmers %

0-2 1 0.26 0-2 2 0.51

2 to 4 21 5.372 to 4 58 14.83

4 to6 94 24.044 to 6 154 39.39

6 to 8 171 43.736 to 8 148 37.85

8 to 10 94 24.048 to 10 29 7.42

>10 10 2.56 >10 0 0.00

Total 391 100 Total 391 100

Comparative Analysis…

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10Yield of conventional rice (t/ha)

Yie

ld o

f S

RI rice (

/ha)

Comparative Analysis

Yield Response to the Introduction of SRI Rice (t/ha)

y = -0.3546x + 3.2396

R2 = 0.1504 (P<0.05)

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

Conventional rice yield (t/ha)

Yile

d c

ha

ng

e w

ith

SR

I 9

t/h

a)

Comparative Analysis

Relative yield response to SRI across 27 villages(The village conventional yield is taken as a benchmark for potential yield at that

village given climate, soil and other resources)

y = -0.12x + 0.94

R2 = 0.34 (P<0.001)

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

Village-wise yield in conventional rice (t/ha)

Re

lati

ve

yie

ld r

es

po

ns

e t

o S

RI

From: Sinha and Talati (2005), evaluation of rainfed SRI by team fromIWMI-India Programme, from 2004 season (N=110)

Response to variety

7.36.26.46.96.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 M

TU

1001

Lal

at

Lal

swar

na

Nila

nja

na

No

tkn

ow

n

Yield comparison in different land type

Input productivity

Crop economics comparison

Distribution of Labor Demand vs. Supply

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Total demand /week

Supply/ week (considering 1.5persons/day with60% availability forfield work)

COMPARISON OF LABOUR HOURS

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

SRI CONVENTIONAL

Rainfall & practice/labour dynamics

3568

143

60

171 181

72

205

130

223

22 60

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1-15

May

16-3

1 M

ay

1-15

Jun

e

16-3

0 Ju

ne

1-15

Jul

y

16-3

1 Ju

ly

1-15

Aug

ust

16-3

1A

ugus

t

1-15

Sep

t

16-3

0 Se

pt

1-15

Oct

16-3

1 O

ct

No.

Of f

arm

ers

Rainfall(mm)No. of farmers raised nurseryNo. of farmers transplanted

Trends in SRI adoption

Area Range (Decimal)

% Last year (05-06) % This year (06-07)

(163 farmers) (1,565 farmers)

<16 54 32

16-32 24 27

32-48 12 22

48-64 3 2

64-80 3 7

>80 4 10

TOTAL 100 100

Trends in SRI adoption

Category of farmer Same year

1-year lag 2-years or more lag

Drop-outs 45 --  -- 

Conv. yields > SRI yields 21 7 4

SRI yields > Conv. yields 34 48 26

TOTAL 54% 30% 16%

Trends in practice adoption

Table 1: SRI practices in Purulia (N=110) in 2005 and (N=391) in 2006 

Practice N=110 N=391

Early transplant (<14 days) 48% 75%

Single seedling per hill 97% 98%

Wide spacing 100% 100%

Alternate wetting and drying 12% 3%

Weeding (2 or more times) 54% 16%

Mechanical weeding 0% 86%

Trends in SRI adoption

% of farmers confirming

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Requires less seeds

Seed selection and treatment

Wet bed nursery prepared after onset of monsoon

Young seedling transplanting

Scooping and transplanting of seedlings

Single seedling transplanting

Square grid planting and wide spacing

Drainage channels

Alternate wetting and drying

Application of fertiliser in splits

Multiple weeding

% of farmers confirming

Trends in SRI adoption• 50% farmers choose

SRI in medium upland areas

• 25% each choose SRI in medium upland and lowland

Constraints in adopting SRI• Lack of reliable irrigation can discourage

farmers from going for full SRI

• Difficulties in draining off standing water from some lowland areas

• Cash-flow requirement in weeding period restricts poor

• Social factors affecting self-replication

• Timeliness of operations needed in SRI

• Scaling-up of SRI would depend on land and water infrastructure development

Scope of SRI as a pro-poor intervention

• Attractive non-monetary intervention that can enhance food self-sufficiency

• Provides fodder for cattle

• Since the components of SRI are independent and flexible, this makes it very adaptable

• Less technology-intensive and thus more self-spreading

• Lower requirement of labour and possible staggering of labour demand

• Ability to strategize to offset monsoon variations

Areas of Future Research and Action

• Need to standardize the fertilizer doses recommended with SRI package

• Need to understand and explain why the fluctuations in SRI yield, and why the low conversion of tillers to panicles in some instances

• Institutionalizing SRI among researchers, rural development practitioners, government agric. line departments needed for large-scale replication in zones of low food sufficiency