1310- Sustained adoption of SRI in Sri Lanka

533 views
434 views

Published on

Sri Lankan perspective on SRI and its applicability
Presented by:
G.A.S Ginigaddara,
A.P.S Fernando,
J.M.P.N Anuradha

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
533
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1310- Sustained adoption of SRI in Sri Lanka

  1. 1. Rice cultivation -- in crisis all over the world Sri Lanka -- no exception ,with its:  Shrinking cultivable area  Fluctuating annual production levels  Stagnant yield gains  Water scarcity  Escalating input costs Rice cultivation --under crisis
  2. 2.  Increasing input costs – keeping farmers interested in rice cultivation is itself a challenge  Aggravated agrochemical use – leads to risks for human health
  3. 3. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)  SRI -- eco-friendly, rice- growing technology  SRI rice – presents less risk to human health  Madagascar Rice Production System (MRP)  Developed in 1980’s
  4. 4. Major principles  Planting method – Wider spacing and single/double seedling  Soil fertility management – Plenty of organic matter addition  Water management – non-inundation or AWD  Weed control – non- chemical
  5. 5. Wider spacing Single seedling Non-chemical weed control Wider spacingNon-inundation See the difference
  6. 6.  SRI was introduced to SRI Lanka in the late 90’s  Still adoption by farmers is very low  Reasons could be either one or a complex mix of  Technical,  Social,  Economic, and  Policy-oriented factors
  7. 7.  Study was conducted to investigate  Biological feasibility of SRI management practices adopted by farmers at different locations  Economic viability of SRI  Social compatibility of SRI as perceived by Sri Lankan rice farmers Research Study
  8. 8. Methodology  Economical viability Pre-tested questionnaire survey among SRI and non-SRI farmer  Social acceptability categories  Biological feasibility  Collected soil samples from SRI and non SRI (conventional rice farming) fields and analyzed in laboratories  Soil penetration measurements in SRI and non-SRI fields  Questionnaire survey to collect farmer observation on soil health, crop health and resilience to climatic changes of SRI and non-SRI rice
  9. 9. District Village/Organization Number of Questionnaires Completed Number of Soil Samples Collected SRI Non SRI Total SRI Non SRI Total Hamban- thota Lunama, Miniethiliya, Ihalagama, Rotawewa, Thissa, Lunugamwehera, Thanamalwila, Hambantota, Bandagiriya, Gonnoruwa, Angunakolapalassa, Weerawila, Sooriyawewa, Pallemalla, Ranna, Ambalanthota, Badalangala 90 37 127 12 8 20 Anuradha- pura Thambuththegama (Makulewa, Nallachchiya, Galnewa, Thalakulama, Thalakolawewa, Meegalewa, Mudungoda, Thammannawa, Hureegaswewa, Thispanepura, Halambawewa, Samaneliya, Siyambalagaswewa, Kalankuttiya) 41 16 57 3 3 6 Putthalam Nawagaththegama (Amunuwewa, Tharanagahawewa, Nawagaththegama, Kuruluwewa) 12 8 20 3 3 6 Wanathawilluwa (Eluwankulama) 22 10 32 3 3 6 Kurunegala Rambukkana (Godagandeniya, Beligodapitiya, Weragoda, Medawala, Weralupotha) 16 9 25 3 3 6 Kegalle Warakapola ( Niwatuwa, Kukulpane, Nawgala, Warakapola, Gasnewa, Tholangamuwa, Pahala weligalla, Hingurupola) 27 14 41 3 3 6 Total 208 94 302 27 23 50
  10. 10. Questionnaire survey Questionnaire survey Key informant discussion
  11. 11. SRI soil SRI field SRI soil sampling Penetration measurements
  12. 12. BIOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY AND ADAPTABILITY OF SRI UNDER LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS
  13. 13. Results  There was enhanced soil fertility in SRI fields against non- SRI rice fields  Soil in SRI fields had enhanced physical and chemical properties  Farmers were adequately aware of the difference of crop health and soil health of SRI rice vs. non- SRI rice  Interviewed SRI farmers had awareness on the biological advantages and eco-friendly nature of SRI to a satisfactory level  Around 50 % of interviewed SRI farmers had recognized the various advantages and resilience to climatic change of SRI
  14. 14. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Organicmatter% Location SRI Non SRI
  15. 15. 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400Penetrationresistance(MPa) Location SRI NON SRI
  16. 16. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Healthy leaves Thick leaves Straight leaves Greenery Percentageofrespondents Leaf Characteristics
  17. 17. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Percentageofrespondents Soil Characteristics Hambanthota Rambukkana Wanathawillu Warakapola
  18. 18. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Drought Wind Flood occurrences Percentageofrespondents Climatic Characteristics Hambanthota Rambukkana Wanathawillu Warakapola
  19. 19. Rice yield (Tons/ha) in SRI and non SRI Production system Ham. Nawa. Ram. Tha. Wan. Wara. All SRI with traditional varieties 3.04 NA 3.12 3.39 3.79 2.88 3.24 SRI with improved varieties 4.73 5.92 5.26 5.11 3.12 4.6 4.98 Non – SRI 6.06 2.53 4.11 4.58 3.69 3.45 4.07
  20. 20.  System is biologically feasible  But still many of SRI farmers are shifting from SRI to conventional rice cultivation  Some didn't have intention to continue SRI due to some other reasons
  21. 21. Thank you

×