0726 SRI in Tamil Nadu: Current Scenario

2,432 views

Published on

Presenter: T. M. Thiyagarajan, Director, Rice Research Station, TNAU, Tirur

Audience: 2nd National SRI Symposium, Agartala, India

Subject Country: Tamil Nadu, India

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,432
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
71
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

0726 SRI in Tamil Nadu: Current Scenario

  1. 1. SRI in Tamil Nadu: Current Scenario T.M. Thiyagarajan
  2. 2. <ul><li>Policies </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Extension </li></ul><ul><li>Adoption </li></ul>
  3. 3. Policies : Tamil Nadu Agricultural University <ul><li>Has pursued a more scientific understanding of SRI </li></ul><ul><li>Now large scale of adoption of SRI within Tamil Nadu state </li></ul><ul><li>SRI is priority component in new 2007 World Bank-funded project on irrigated agriculture </li></ul>
  4. 4. Policies : Agricultural Department Govt. of Tamil Nadu <ul><li>Has undertaken popularization of SRI across TN state </li></ul><ul><li>Promoting large scale of adoption </li></ul>
  5. 5. TNAU : SRI RESEARCH <ul><li>Carried out in the research stations at Coimbatore, Aduthurai, Thanjavur, Kumulur, Killikulam, and Tirur </li></ul><ul><li>During the 2006-07: 7 research projects on agronomy of SRI, and 5 research projects in plant protection with SRI </li></ul>
  6. 6. Agronomy Research <ul><li>SRI with INM gave significantly higher </li></ul><ul><li>yield than SRI with fertilizers only </li></ul><ul><li>Hybrid rice yield was significantly higher </li></ul><ul><li>than variety with SRI methods </li></ul><ul><li>(Rajendran, Aduthurai & Anbumani, Thanjavur) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Effect of organic nutrient sources on SRI (Thiyagarajan & Gnanachitra, Tirur) Feb.- May. 2007
  8. 8. Nutrient management in SRI : Leaf folder damage Jul. – Oct. 2007 (Sumathi, Thiyagarajan & Gnanachitra, Tirur)
  9. 9. Nutrient management in SRI : Black bug populations (Sumathi, Thiyagarajan & Gnanachitra, Tirur) Jul. – Oct. 2007
  10. 10. Nematode populations with SRI (Seenivasan, Killikulam)
  11. 11. Plant protection research Application of Pseudomonas fluorescence as seed + soil treatment recorded 37.5% and 59.5% reduction of rice root nematode population, and 61.3% and 62.8 % reduction of root knot nematode population in both soil and roots, respectively. (Seenivasan, Killikulam)
  12. 12. Plant protection research <ul><li>In the reproductive phase (80 to 100 DAT), SRI </li></ul><ul><li>recorded significantly higher leaf folder incidence (2.95 </li></ul><ul><li>to 23.95%) than conventional method (1.21 to 13.98%). </li></ul><ul><li>At 100 DAT, stem borer incidence was less in SRI (2.24% WE) than with conventional method (5.6% WE) </li></ul><ul><li>ADT43 showed less incidence of pests compared to hybrids </li></ul><ul><li>SRI resulted in a significantly higher yield of 8,014 kg </li></ul><ul><li>ha -1 compared to standard methods (6,393 kg ha -1 ). </li></ul><ul><li>(Ravi & Karthikeyan, Aduthurai) </li></ul>
  13. 13. Plant protection research <ul><li>No significant variation was found in the incidence of blast and brown spot between SRI and non-SRI </li></ul><ul><li>False smut and sheath rot incidences were </li></ul><ul><li>significantly lower in SRI (6.3 and 21.7 PDI, </li></ul><ul><li>respectively) when compared to non-SRI </li></ul><ul><li>(9.9 and 34.8 PDI, respectively) </li></ul><ul><li>(Dinakaran, Trichirapalli) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Plant Protection Research (Nalini, Madurai) SRI Conventional Stem borer damage 4.68% 6.09% Leaf damage 2.76% 4.54% Silver shoot 9.43% 13.68% BPH 0.56 hill -1 0.68 hill -1 Spiders 1.24 hill -1 1.04 hill -1
  15. 15. SRI Extension : TNAU Major thrust in new World Bank-aided project : Irrigated Agricultural Modernization and Water-bodies Restoration and Management (IAMWARM), 2006-2010
  16. 16. IAMWARM project <ul><li>Development objectives: </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in area served by irrigation systems in 63 selected sub-basins that are to be rehabilitated and modernized </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in agricultural productivity -- net benefits per unit of water delivered in Rs. m -3 </li></ul>
  17. 17. SRI in IAMWARM project <ul><li>750 - 1000 ha of SRI in each basin </li></ul><ul><li>Rs. 10,000 subsidy for 1 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Women labourers also to be trained </li></ul>
  18. 18. IAMWARM project : Unit cost for 1 ha of SRI Rupees Seed + seed treatment 200 Nursery 1000 Marker 1000 Weeder (5 nos.) 2500 Fertilizers 4040 Pesticides 1640 Transplanting 4000
  19. 19. IAMWARM Project : SRI in Cooum Basin Rice area 89,092 ha Area of implementation 750 ha Period 3 years Outcome Area spread 5,000 ha Increased productivity 1,200 kg ha -1 Additional revenue Rs. 30 million
  20. 20. SRI Extension : TN State Agricultural Department <ul><li>Implementation of Integrated Cereal Development </li></ul><ul><li>Programme – Paddy (ICDPP) </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation of National Food Security Mission – Rice (NFSM-R) </li></ul><ul><li>Covering 25 % of 1st season (June – Oct. 07) rice </li></ul><ul><li>area -- 1.88 lakh ha </li></ul><ul><li>Covering 40 % of 2nd season (Aug.07 – Jan.08) rice area -- 5.45 lakh ha </li></ul>
  21. 21. National Food Security Mission - Rice <ul><li>Increase rice production by 10 million tons by the end of 11 th Plan (2007-08 to 2011-12) </li></ul><ul><li>SRI to be implemented in 133 districts across the country (5 districts in Tamil Nadu) </li></ul><ul><li>Target area for SRI: 5 million ha </li></ul><ul><li>Rs. 3,000 per SRI demonstration allocated </li></ul><ul><li>50,000 demonstrations; 1 demo of 0.4 ha for every 100 ha of rice area </li></ul>
  22. 22. Integrated Cereal Development Programme : Paddy <ul><li>Cluster approach </li></ul><ul><li>1,132 villages in Tamil Nadu </li></ul><ul><li>1 cluster = 10 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Demo in each cluster : Rs.20,000 (10 ha) </li></ul><ul><li>Training in each cluster : Rs.5,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Budget : Rs.283 lakhs </li></ul>
  23. 23. Survey on farmers’ opinion on SRI techniques in comparison with conventional cultivation <ul><li>50 farms in Thamirabarani Basin </li></ul><ul><li>25 farms in Cauvery Delta Basin </li></ul>Note different opinions among farmers between the two basins
  24. 24. Thamirabarani Basin (farmers’ opinions %) SRI technique Hard Normal Easy Not adopted Land preparation 6 92 2 0 Modified nursery preparation 56 12 30 2 Square planting 68 10 20 2 Mechanical weeding 12 4 78 6
  25. 25. Cauvery Basin (farmers’ opinions %) SRI technique Hard Normal Easy Not adopted Land preparation 36 64 0 0 Modified nursery preparation 32 28 20 20 Square planting 28 48 24 0 Mechanical weeding 40 4 56 0
  26. 26. Thamirabarani Basin (farmers’ opinions %) Factor/constraint Good Normal Bad Not applicable Availability of mechanical weeder 82 10 2 6 Timely reach of inputs 72 10 18 - Plant population maintenance 90 8 2 -
  27. 27. Cauvery Delta Basin (farmers’ opinions %) Factor/constraint Good Normal Bad Not applicable Availability of mechanical weeder 92 8 0 - Timely reach of inputs 28 20 52 - Plant population maintenance 80 20 0 -
  28. 28. Thamirabarani Basin (farmers’ opinions %) Farmers here have not found weed control to be difficult, by using cono-weeders As seen above, farmers have not experienced any difficulty in accessing weeders Higher Normal Less Pest and disease problems 2 24 74 Weed problems 10 50 40
  29. 29. Cauvery Basin (Farmers’ opinion %) Farmers here take a very positive view of the cono-weeder to control weeds Farmers here have not experienced any real difficulty in accessing weeders Higher Normal Less Pest and disease problems 4 46 50 Weed problems 4 28 68*
  30. 30. Problems in adoption (farmers’ opinions %) Farmers that in the two basins have very different assessments of SRI labor requirements Thamirabarani Basin Cauvery Basin SRI requires more labour for transplanting 68 24 Women labourers reluctant to do square transplanting 36 12
  31. 31. Survey on social suitability of SRI
  32. 32. Survey on social suitability of SRI <ul><li>Farmers who tried SRI for the first time were generally surprised and positive about the method and its results: higher yield with reduced water usage. </li></ul>
  33. 33. Survey on social suitability of SRI <ul><li>Despite the positive reactions and awareness of the advantages, relatively few farmers practice SRI or are motivated to switch over fully to SRI. </li></ul><ul><li>Many remain skeptical and perceive SRI practices as relatively difficult compared to conventional rice cultivation practices. </li></ul><ul><li>Most farmers say that they are not familiar enough with SRI techniques to practice the system independently. </li></ul><ul><li>They feel insecure about the practices and fear that poor implementation of the practice could lead to crop failure. </li></ul>
  34. 34. <ul><li>SRI is not popular in areas of labour shortage </li></ul><ul><li>Drum seeding + partial SRI adoption may be successful </li></ul><ul><li>Nursery and transplanting are to be avoided </li></ul>
  35. 35. Drum Seeder
  36. 44. Grain yield comparisons (t ha -1 )

×