0864 System of Rice Intensification (SRI): A Pro-Poor Option for Household Food Security and Resource Conservation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

0864 System of Rice Intensification (SRI): A Pro-Poor Option for Household Food Security and Resource Conservation

on

  • 1,747 views

Presenter: B.C. Barah

Presenter: B.C. Barah

Audience: 3rd National SRI Symposium,
TNAU, Coimbatore, India

Subject Country: Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, India

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,747
Views on SlideShare
1,746
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
31
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Adoption rate of SRI is better in well developed areas like Coimbatore and Tanjore as compared to drought prone districts of Ramnathapuram (rainfed area) and Kancheepuran. SRI yield is higher than that of normal rice ranging from 5 to 7 ton per hectare.
  • Women Labour out numbered. Large farmers spend more than other groups on both total cost of cultivation as well as at material inputs

0864 System of Rice Intensification (SRI): A Pro-Poor Option for Household Food Security and Resource Conservation 0864 System of Rice Intensification (SRI): A Pro-Poor Option for Household Food Security and Resource Conservation Presentation Transcript

  • System of Rice Intensification (SRI) : A pro-poor option for household food security and resource conservation B. C. Barah bcbarah@yahoo.com 3 rd National Seminar on System of Rice Intensification 1-3 December 2008 at Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore
    • Decline in per capita availability of rice will have serious implications for food and nutrition security
    • Water is the most limiting factor for rice, and this resource is under severe stress.
    • Irrigation infrastructure has not increased proportionately in recent years.
    The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is one such innovative practice. Rice is important component in national food basket The rice sector in India is characterized by decelerating productivity growth and stagnant production Alternative cultivation practices are required to enhance rice productivity and to ensure sustainable production.
    • SRI is not a technology, but an amalgamation of certain practices that generate synergistic effects
    • The novelty of SRI is its yield-enhancing capability while conserving resources
    • SRI converts neglected resources into wealth by:
    • Utilizing the vigour of young seedlings
    • Enhancing power of the plant due to lesser competition with a reduced plant population .
    • Developing healthy plant due to healthy root growth
    • Enriching soil health due to invigorating microbial activities
    • SRI is less expensive, with increased income and employment
    • SRI opens up opportunities for crop diversification
  • GENESIS of SRI
    • Developed in Madagascar over two decades ago at the initiative of Fr. Henry de Laulanié who originated this innovation by putting together a basic combination of several practices at his young farmers’ school.
    • Just since 2000, SRI has spread to many countries.
    • Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh are the two pioneer states in India for SRI, joined now by Tripura and a growing list of other states.
  • Pathway of SRI
    • Starting with a single country in the late 1990s, mounting evidence coming from more than 30 countries shows the validity of SRI methods, which farmers are adopting with growing interest.
    • Initial skepticism hindered acceptance of SRI as a possible option for breaking yield barrier in India. However, there is a welcome change in mind set. ICAR has reported a 48% yield gain due to SRI, and 3 state governments in peninsular India have already begun implementing programmes to promote SRI among farmers.
    • NFSM has launched a nation-wide campaign in 2008 to promote SRI in districts with concentrations of poverty.
  • SRI is a pro-poor rice improvement practice, which is environmentally benign
    • More accessible to the poor because les s need for external inputs; works with any variety (modern or local).
    • Reduced demand for water: A bout half as much water is required in alternate drying and wetting system compared to c ontinuously flooded fields.
    • Potentially can reduce negative environmental externalities (reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance soil health, conserve water and lands)
  • Research on SRI
    • Questions:
    • Does higher productivity translate into higher farmers’ income, particularly for small farmers?
    • • How much resources are conserved?
    • • If benefits can be achieved, will SRI be adopted? Or what constraints will limit it?
    • Public policy on up-scaling/governance
  • On-farm surveys: Tamilnadu (4 districts) & Andhra Pradesh (3 districts) BCB HYperlink on AP and Taminadu.pptx
  • Rice bowl is shrinking in Tamilnadu Inverted Pyramid of Growth Rates of Rice Yield (%) 1965 to 1979 2.37 1980 to 1989 4.69 1990 to 2002 1.01
  • Economic Impact Indicators
    • More (output) with less (inputs)
      • Activities for save inputs and use neglected resources (on-farm orientation)
    • Empower rural communities
      • Augment farm income
      • Food & nutritional security
      • Ownership (land & assets)
    • Entrepreneurship ability
      • Small farmer-orientated technology
      • Capacity strengthening
  • RESULTS Pro-poor and small farmer orientation of Indian agriculture Farmer category % of total % rice farmers Small, Marginal, Very Marginal Farmers (No.) > 82% >84% Small, Marginal, Very Marginal Farmers (Area) < 39% 54% Medium Farmers (No.) 17% 15.6% Medium Farmer (Area) 48% 40% Large Farmers (No.) 1% 0.7% Large Farmers (Area) 13% 6%
  • Water Saving
  • Relative Gains due to SRI (per hectare) Tamilnadu Particular Coimbatore Kanchipuram Ramanathapuram Tanjore SRI Non -SRI SRI Non -SRI SRI Non -SRI SRI Non -SRI Seed cost in Rs. 504 1,800 187 2,250 562 2,160 217 1,575 Labour use (hrs) 192 267 242 216 182 226 179 236 Labour cost (Rs.) 9,546 12,705 7,988 11,990 4,960 9,111 10,715 11,524 Yield (tons/ha) 6.52 6.07 6.54 5.41 5.10 4.25 5.06 4.76 Total cost (Rs/ha) 16,774 20,283 16,604 18,938 11,589 15,953 16,699 19,010 Gross income (Rs.) 33,329 34,848 34,233 32,325 27,745 25,216 31,575 31,653 Net income (Rs.) 16,555 14,564 17,629 13,386 16,155 9,263 14,875 12,643 Cost (Rs./q) 261 335 257 350 229 376 331 400 B:C Ratio 1.99 1.72 2.06 1.71 2.39 1.58 1.89 1.67 No. of irrigations 24.73 34.33 24.73 34.07 25 32.07 20.27 32.67 % Saving 28% 27% 22% 38% % Adoption of SRI 45% 18% 20% 59%
  • Comparison across 4 Districts Conventional SRI Difference Average yield (t/ha) 5.12 5.65 +10% Net income (Rs./ha) 12,466 16,363 +31% Water (no. irrigations) 33.3 23.7 -29% Labor inputs (hrs/ha) 235 199 -15% Costs (Rs./ha) 18,400 15,400 -17% Costs (Rs./quintal) 428 303 -29% Net returns (Rs./ha) 9,263 12,984 +41%
  • SRI adoption relative to yield difference and cost reduction with SRI in Tamilnadu District % SRI area to total rice area Yield (t/ha) % Cost saving SRI Normal % per acre per quintal Coimbatore 48.8 6.52 6.15 6.1 22.3 29.9 R amnath-pu ram 29.2 5.51 4.71 17.0 19.7 41.4 Kanchi-puram 20.5 6.50 5.45 19.3 23.7 47.5 Tanjore 59.4 5.06 4.75 6.7 81.9 94.2
  • Adoption and cost reduction by farm size under SRI in Tamilnadu District Farm size % SRI area to total rice area Yield (t/ha) % cost saving per SRI Normal % acre quintal Coimbatore   Marginal Small Medium Large 54.2 50.3 51.9 38.8 6.20 6.48 6.42 7.00 5.85 6.09 6.01 6.65 6.0 6.3 6.8 5.3 25.9 24.6 27.3 11.6 33.5 32.5 36.0 17.4 Ranathapuram   Marginal Small Medium 33.3 22.8 11.8 5.25 5.09 5.16 4.20 4.20 4.29 25.0 21.3 20.4 14.8 24.4 17.4 43.5 51.0 41.4 Kanchipuram   Marginal Small Medium Large 33.3 22.6 14.9 11.1 6.83 6.48 6.42 6.30 5.78 5.43 5.37 5.25 18.2 19.4 19.6 20.0 18.0 21.4 25.0 30.3 39.4 44.9 49.5 56.3 Tanjore   Marginal Small Medium Large 50.0 65.6 63.7 58.3 5.10 5.18 4.95 5.03 4.65 4.85 4.68 4.80 9.7 6.7 5.8 4.7 79.8 77.5 102.5 68.0 97.5 89.5 114.1 75.6
  • Factors of production and cost in SRI at different location s, by farm size category
  • Net return and cost of production District Net return/ha Cost of production/qtl SRI Non-SRI % SRI Non-SRI % Coimbatore 12,413 10,748 15 314 397 -21 Kanchipuram 15,313 10,431 47 266 404 -34 Ramanathapuram 13,112 6,170 113 256 449 -43 Tanjore 11,098 9,703 14 376 461 -19
  • Net return and cost of production of rice under SRI in Tamilnadu District Farm size SRI Non-SRI % Change Coimbatore Marginal 11,327 9,942 14 Small 10,824 11,140 -3 Medium 9,980 10,567 -6 Large 17,524 n.a. n.a. Kanchipuram Marginal 18,168 n.a. n.a. Small 16,514 10,388 59 Medium 16,557 11,108 49 Large 10,013 8,150 23 Ramanathapuram Marginal 12,914 4,238 205 Small 14,149 6,256 126 Medium 12,273 6,988 76 Tanjore Marginal 11,689 10,342 13 Small 10,730 12,613 -15 Medium 10,929 8,820 24 Large 11,046 7,475 48
  • Comparison across Farmer Size *No data were reported from Kanchipuram; also the low average yield (4,238) reported from Ramananthapuram suggests some failures of marginal farmers’ conventional crops. Size of farming operation SRI (Rs.) Conventional (Rs.) SRI Advantage Marginal farmers (< 1ha) 14,466 8,174* 77%* Small farmers (1-2 ha) 13,053 10,100 29% Medium farmers (2-4 ha) 12,345 9,371 32% Large farmers (>4 ha) 11,030 7,813 41%
  • Benefit – cost ratio in Tamilnadu SRI farmers Non-SRI farmers Total cost (Rs./ha) 21,637 25,778 Total income (Rs./ha) 30,371 27,603 BCR 1.43 1.07 Gains due to SRI in Tamilnadu 1. Land 2. Labour 3. Water 4. Seed 5. Income 6. Cost of production 7. Perception 1. More rice produced from less land 2. Provides more employment (prominently family labour) 3. Alternate drying and wetting system saves substantial water 4. Phenomenal saving in seed (important for hybrid seed) 5. Increase in crop income and yields (income & food security) 6. Reduction in cost, due to saving on inputs 7. In the changing circumstances and eroding resource base, there is overwhelming response from farmers
  • Gains in SRI (selected parameters)
  • Farmers’ perception on SRI usefulness (% respondents) Perception on SRI advantages ( preference ) (% respondents) District Useful ( %) Coimbatore 73 Thanjavur 80 Ramanathapuram 54 Kanchipuram 100 Overall 78 Reason Coimbatore Thanjavur (Tanjore) Ramnatha- Puram Kanchi- puram Water scarcity 100 100 100 100 Clear yield advantage with SRI 100 100 100 100 Decline in yield of normal rice 26 53 0 0 Personal interest 80 80 46 67 Use of less seed 33 100 46 80 Neighbour success 53 40 0 0
  • Encouraging features of SRI
    • The field-level survey reveals and revalidates the following encouraging features for SRI in India.
    • Average yield of rice under SRI is clearly higher than conventional practice.
    • SRI helps conserve resources, both material inputs as well as natural resources.
    • SRI is a pro-poor cultivation practice with the pro-small farmer orientation being a key feature of SRI.
    • SRI ensures household food security as the increased production can meet the food needs of small-farm family members from their own farm resources.
    • Since SRI is most suitable in the post-monsoon rabi season, it generates opportunities for off-season employment and contributes to gender equity.
    • SRI potentially maximizes the utilization of biological potential of the plant (soil microbiology, soil micronutrients, and aeration apart from solar energy), resulting in healthy plants that give better grain yield.
    • Most important, the water saving in rice cultivation with SRI is substantial.
  • Advantages of SRI quantified (i) Less seed in SRI (5 to 8 kg/ha as compared to 40 to 50 kg under conventional practices) reduces cost substantially. (ii) Uniformly high yield across the farm-size categories. Yields vary from about 5 to 7.5 ton/ha, as compared to 1.88 to 3.85 tons/ha under conventional practice across the four Tamilnadu districts (iii) Substantial water-saving due to alternate wetting and drying system, means that even with no improvement in yield, SRI is socially beneficial in areas where water is at a premium. Average water-saving varies from 16 to 49% in Andhra Pradesh, and 22 to 38% in Tamilnadu. The figure is identical across farm size, representing equity in water use. These savings can lead to substantial water economy at the state level, which is of societal relevance. (iv) Use of organic manure, green manure and biological fertilizers and less need to use fertilizer and other agro-chemicals enables SRI to be produced as an organic product . (v) Incidence of pest and diseases is less with SRI management due to sturdy and hardier stems and leave which resist specific insects.
  • SRI governance in India
    • On account of its pro-farmer orientation, resource-conserving properties, and yield-enhancing capabilities,
    • Government of India has accepted SRI as a useful practice in rabi paddy: NFSM envisaged a target of 5 million hectares of rice land under SRI during the XIth Five-Year Plan. Field demonstrations will be funded @ Rs.3000 per demonstration, with 50,000 demonstrations of 0.4 ha per 100 ha planned in 110 selected backward districts.
    • Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu are implementing programmes of SRI promotion aggressively in all districts and blocks (allocation in each state of Rs. 4 crores during 2008-09). Government of Karnataka has allocated Rs. 3.75 crores for this purpose and will use NGO media to popularize SRI in dryland areas.
    • Many State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) and coordinated schemes and projects have been conducting SRI experiments in various ecosystems.
    • ICAR has reported a 48% yield advantage of SRI over normal rice methods.