0702 SRI: Report of PRADAN Staff Working in Eastern India

1,007 views

Published on

Presenter: Binju Abraham, Nityananda Dhal, Prativa Sundaray

Audience: SRI Study Group at Cornell University: Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD)

Subject Country: India

Published in: Technology, Travel
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • this presentation is really true. Because i was working at PRADAN and practised SRI with 100 farmers and god excellent result out of that. It had totally changed the farming scenario of the rural farmer.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,007
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

0702 SRI: Report of PRADAN Staff Working in Eastern India

  1. 1. System of Rice Intensification (SRI) Report of PRADAN staff working in Eastern India ( 2007)
  2. 3. Presentation by: <ul><li>Binju Abraham </li></ul><ul><li>Nityananda Dhal </li></ul><ul><li>Prativa Sundaray </li></ul><ul><li>To SRI Study Group at Cornell University: Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), April 13, 2007 </li></ul>
  3. 4. Background Information: AREA APPEARANCE
  4. 5. Area Profile <ul><li>High concentration of Scheduled Tribes (STs) </li></ul><ul><li>Farm-based livelihoods, 1200-1300 mm rainfall </li></ul><ul><li>Mostly small and marginal farmers, with 20% having 1.25 ha of land and 71% only 0.47 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Low mechanization of production </li></ul><ul><li>Average income per family per day = $1 </li></ul><ul><li>Rice is the main staple crop </li></ul><ul><li>Average food security per household only 5 months so must seek outside employment to meet food needs year-round </li></ul>
  5. 6. PRADAN ROLE <ul><li>Working primarily for livelihood promotion </li></ul><ul><li>Began paddy intervention in 1990 </li></ul><ul><li>Promoting changes in traditional practices to attain higher yields </li></ul><ul><li>Introducing HYVs, pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation, services like credit, input supply, skill and know-how transfer, etc. – all conventional approaches </li></ul>
  6. 7. SRI first demonstrated and evaluated with 5 farmers in 2002
  7. 8. System of Rice Intensification <ul><li>At first, had nervous professionals and nervous farmers. </li></ul><ul><li>SRI use expanded from 5 farmers in 2002, to 6,200 farmers in 2006 (1550 acres) as good results came in </li></ul>
  8. 9. SRI practices promoted <ul><li>Seed selection and treatment: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Start with fresh seed stock </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use brine water treatment to select best seeds </li></ul></ul>
  9. 10. Nursery raising in beds
  10. 11. Transplantation of young seedlings <ul><li>♦ Transplant seedlings 9-15 days old </li></ul><ul><li>♦ Taking care not to disturb the roots </li></ul><ul><li>♦ Plant one seedling per hill. </li></ul><ul><li>♦ Spacing of 1ft row-to-row </li></ul><ul><li>♦ Spacing of 1ft plant-to-plant – greatly reduce plant population </li></ul>
  11. 12. Transplantation of young seedlings, one per hill, wide and regular spacing
  12. 13. Fertilizer application <ul><li>Reduced but not stopped (as with ‘organic SRI’) </li></ul><ul><li>Recommended application rates: </li></ul><ul><li>DAP 50 kg /ha </li></ul><ul><li>MOP 30 kg/ha </li></ul><ul><li>UREA 75 kg/ha </li></ul><ul><li>FYM 200 kg/ha </li></ul>
  13. 14. Urea applications split
  14. 15. Tillers per hill
  15. 16. Intermittent Water Management
  16. 17. Alternate drying and wetting
  17. 18. Patch promotion: needed to effect water savings
  18. 19. Lift irrigation as back up
  19. 20. Soil-aerating weeding 2 or 3 times
  20. 21. Comparison between SRI and conventional practices: <ul><li>C onventional SRI </li></ul><ul><li>Seed rate 30 kg/ha 5 kg/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Seedling age 21-35 days 9-15days </li></ul><ul><li>Nursery size 10,750 sq ft 800 sq ft </li></ul><ul><li>Spacing 6 inches 1ft x 1ft </li></ul><ul><li>Transplantation Random Square </li></ul><ul><li>Weeding Single time 2-3 times </li></ul><ul><li>Input cost High Low </li></ul><ul><li>Yield 2 t/ha 6 t/ha </li></ul><ul><li>Fodder Less More (50%) </li></ul>
  21. 22. CROP ECONOMICS and YIELD ANALYSIS Summary data on PRADAN experience to date
  22. 23. Paddy yield with SRI practice, 2006 Yield 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%
  23. 24. 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 5.37 2 to 4 58 14.83 4 to6 94 24.04 4 to 6 154 39.39 6 to 8 171 43.73 6 to 8 148 37.85 8 to 10 94 24.04 8 to 10 29 7.42 >10 10 2.56 >10 0 0.00 Total 391 100 Total 391 100
  24. 25. Comparative Analysis…
  25. 26. Comparative Analysis
  26. 27. Comparative Analysis
  27. 28. From: Sinha and Talati (2005), evaluation of rainfed SRI by team from IWMI-India Programme, from 2004 season (N=110)
  28. 29. Response to variety
  29. 30. Yield comparison in different land type
  30. 31. Input productivity
  31. 32. Crop economics comparison
  32. 33. Distribution of Labor Demand vs. Supply
  33. 34. COMPARISON OF LABOUR HOURS
  34. 35. Rainfall & practice/labour dynamics
  35. 36. 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
  36. 37. 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%
  37. 38. 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%
  38. 39. Trends in SRI adoption
  39. 40. Trends in SRI adoption <ul><li>50% farmers choose SRI in medium upland areas </li></ul><ul><li>25% each choose SRI in medium upland and lowland </li></ul>
  40. 41. Constraints in adopting SRI <ul><li>Lack of reliable irrigation can discourage farmers from going for full SRI </li></ul><ul><li>Difficulties in draining off standing water from some lowland areas </li></ul><ul><li>Cash-flow requirement in weeding period restricts poor </li></ul><ul><li>Social factors affecting self-replication </li></ul><ul><li>Timeliness of operations needed in SRI </li></ul><ul><li>Scaling-up of SRI would depend on land and water infrastructure development </li></ul>
  41. 42. Scope of SRI as a pro-poor intervention <ul><li>Attractive non-monetary intervention that can enhance food self-sufficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Provides fodder for cattle </li></ul><ul><li>Since the components of SRI are independent and flexible, this makes it very adaptable </li></ul><ul><li>Less technology-intensive and thus more self-spreading </li></ul><ul><li>Lower requirement of labour and possible staggering of labour demand </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to strategize to offset monsoon variations </li></ul>
  42. 43. Areas of Future Research and Action <ul><li>Need to standardize the fertilizer doses recommended with SRI package </li></ul><ul><li>Need to understand and explain why the fluctuations in SRI yield, and why the low conversion of tillers to panicles in some instances </li></ul><ul><li>Institutionalizing SRI among researchers, rural development practitioners, government agric. line departments needed for large-scale replication in zones of low food sufficiency </li></ul>

×