0723 System of Rice Intensification. Group II Field Report. Tripura, India - Presentation Transcript
Field Trip Report – Group II October 5, 2007 Chairman: Dr. L.G. Giri Rao Rapporteur: Dr. R. Rajendran Liaison Officer: Mr. Ashish Saha Co-ordinator: Mr. Chakraborthy Officer – in- charge: Mr. P.K. Datta
S.No. Villages Location Farmer interviewed 1 Bagabasa GP Melaghar RD Block, West Tripura Mr. Vallab Debnath 2 Sonapur Bosh Nagar RD Block, West Tripura Mr. Chowdhary 3 Indiranagar Melaghar RD Block, West Tripura Mr. Amirthalal Das
2. Mr. Chowdhary (Sonapur) Aman rice – planted with SRI methods Seed rate – 2 kg/ac (conv. 25 kg/ac) Seedling – single (conv . 5-6/hill), 10 d old seedlings (conv. 30 days) NPK fertilizer – 65 kg/ac (conv. 175 kg/ac) Three rotary weedings – 12, 24 and 36 DAT (conv. 2 hand weedings); AWD irrigation No lodging; reach maturity 5-7 days earlier, but pest attack is more in SRI
Paddy yield expected from present aman crop:
40 mond/kani - 3.8 t/ac (9.5 t/ha)
Constraints:
Labour problem especially for weeding
Time-bound operations
3. Mr. Amirthalal Das, Indhiranagar 10 d old seedlings, single seedlings, square planting, 25 x 25 cm spacing Rice yield 40 panicles/hill, 38 mond/kani – 3.8 t/ac (conv. yield 1.8 t/ac -- 9.5 vs. 4.5 t/ha) Yield >doubled; cost reduced; 15 days earlier maturity; low pest pressure; good grain filling; low chaff (few unfilled grains); maximum tillering; only labour is a problem
After the field visit, 6 presentations were made by delegates S.No Name of delegate Topic 1 Dr. V. Ravindra Babu, DRR, Hyderabad
Grain quality assessment in SRI
BPT 5204, DRRH-2, Swarna
Eco-SRI, SRI and Traditional
Only varietal difference in grain quality
No influence by management effect except few parameter, viz., amylose content
Results need to be confirmed
S.No Name of delegate Topic 2 Dr. K. Surekha, DRR, Hyderabad
Nutrient uptake and soil mining study in SRI
Low NUE and yield in Eco-SRI
SRI & conventional NPK uptake on par
SRI & conventional yields -- no difference
No soil depletion after 2 seasons of SRI
No clear varietal difference exists on NUE
Soil-available K more in Eco- SRI
Results need to be confirmed
S.No Name of delegate Topic 3 Dr. K. Karthikeyan, Kerala
Pest incidence in SRI
Jyothi & KRH–2 evaluated
Stem borer moderate level
Rice blue beetle - more under SRI
Leaf folder and whorl maggot reduced in SRI
Increased activity of natural enemies, viz., spiders and larval parasites
Only one season of data, results need to be confirmed
S.No Name of delegate Topic 4 Dr. G. Ravi, TNAU, Tamil Nadu
SRI and IPM
Stem borer, BPH, whorl maggot, gall midge reduced under SRI
Only leaf folder is more under SRI
Increased activity of predatory spiders
IPM fits very well with SRI
S.No Name of delegate Topic 5 Sardar Iqbal Singh, Farmer, J & K Used marker, 25x25 cm spacing, 15 d seedlings, pulling out of nursery very easy, conventional method laborious, AWD irrigation, full NPK applied, cono weeder 20 th day Variety: PC 19 35-55 tillers/hill Ave. yield: 4.5 to 5.0 t/ha
S.No Name of delegate Topic 6 Mr. Gopal Swaminathan Agricultural graduate cum farmer Shared his experiences on: Double transplanting technique with SRI to mitigate extremely hot climate in Cauvery Delta Innovative method of planting rice on ridges (direct seeding) in ridge-furrow system
Field study ….
Serious discussions going on …..
Field view & view of rotary weeder in Bagabasa village
Field study …. Seeing the difference between SRI & conventional practice
0 comments
Post a comment