Advertisement

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

Investing in rural people at International Fund for Agricultural Development
Feb. 14, 2009
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)(20)

Advertisement

More from IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Advertisement

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

  1. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) IFAD Presentation January 23, 2009 Norman Uphoff, CIIFAD
  2. Status of SRI: As of 1999 Known and practiced only in Madagascar
  3. SRI benefits have been demonstrated in 34 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America Before 1999: Madagascar 1999-2000: China, Indonesia 2000-01: Bangladesh, Cuba Cambodia, Gambia, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Thailand 2002-03: Benin, Guinea, Mozambique, Peru 2004-05: Senegal, Mali, Pakistan, Vietnam 2006: Burkina Faso, Bhutan, Iran, Iraq, Zambia 2007: Afghanistan, Brazil 2008: Egypt, Rwanda, Congo, Ecuador, Costa Rica > 1 million farmers/acres Now in 2009, SRI benefits have been validated in 35 countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America
  4. 47.9% 34.7% Non-Flooding Rice Farming Technology in Irrigated Paddy Field Dr. Tao Longxing, China National Rice Research Institute, 2004
  5. CAMBODIA: Rice plant grown from single seed in Takeo province
  6. NEPAL: Single rice plant grown with SRI methods in Morang district
  7. INDIA: Roots of a single rice plant (MTU 1071) grown at Agricultural Research Station Maruteru, Andhra Pradesh
  8. CUBA: farmer with two plants of same variety (VN 2084) and same age (52 DAP)
  9. IRAN: SRI roots and normal, flooded rice roots: note difference in color as well as size
  10. IRAQ: Comparison trials at Al-Mishkhab Rice Research Station near Najaf
  11. AFGHANISTAN : SRI field in Baghlan Province, supported by Aga Khan Foundation Natural Resource Management program
  12. Afghan farmer observing his SRI field at 30 days
  13. Afghanistan: SRI plant with 133 tillers at 72 days after transplanting Farmer’s yield was calculated as 11.56 t/ha
  14. MADAGASCAR: Rice field grown with SRI methods
  15. INDONESIA: Rice plants of same age and same variety in Lombok province
  16. INDONESIA: Rice plants in Nippon Koei office, Jakarta
  17. What Can SRI Do Specifically for the Poor?
  18. MYANMAR: Mean rice production increase per FFS household, Kachin and Shan States, 2002-2004 Year (N) Production of rice per family (kg) Before FFS After FFS Added yield 2002 202 2,188 4,152 1,964 2003 198 1,948 4,186 2,237 2004 212 1,995 4,218 2,185 2002-2004 612 2,043 4,186 2,129
  19. Costs of rice production & net returns in real terms (kg ha -1 ), 2002-2004 [Both costs of production and yields are expressed in same physical terms: kg of rice] Year (N) Production cost (kg ha -1 ) Rice yield (kg ha -1 ) Net income (kg ha -1 ) Before FFS After FFS % Change Before FFS After FFS Before FFS After FFS Incre-ment 2002 202 1,865 1,791 -4.0 2,084 4,271 219 2,480 2,261 2003 198 1,713 1,797 4.9 1,882 4,078 169 2,281 2,112 2004 212 1,794 1,798 0.2 2,249 4,764 455 2,966 2,511 Mean 612 1,791 1,795 0.2 2,076 4,379 285 2,584 2,299
  20. Incidence of Diseases and Pests Vietnam National IPM Program: average of data from trials in 8 provinces, 2005-06: * Insects/m 2 Spring season Summer season SRI Plots Farmer Plots Differ-ence SRI Plots Farmer Plots Differ-ence Sheath blight 6.7% 18.1% 63.0% 5.2% 19.8% 73.7% Leaf blight -- -- -- 8.6% 36.3% 76.5% Small leaf folder * 63.4 107.7 41.1% 61.8 122.3 49.5% Brown plant hopper * 542 1,440 62.4% 545 3,214 83.0% AVERAGE 55.5% 70.7%
  21. SRI LANKA: same rice variety, same irrigation system & same drought -- left, conventional methods; right, SRI
  22. VIETNAM: D ông Trù village, Hanoi province, after typhoon
  23. Measured Differences in Grain Quality Conv. Methods SRI Methods Characteristic (3 spacings) (3 spacings) Difference Paper by Prof. Ma Jun, Sichuan Agricultural University, presented at 10th conference on “Theory and Practice for High-Quality, High-Yielding Rice in China,” Haerbin, 8/2004 Chalky kernels (%) 39.89 – 41.07 23.62 – 32.47 -30.7% General chalkiness (%) 6.74 – 7.17 1.02 – 4.04 -65.7% Milled rice outturn (%) 41.54 – 51.46 53.58 – 54.41 +16.1% Head milled rice (%) 38.87 – 39.99 41.81 – 50.84 +17.5%
  24. Crop duration from seed to seed for different rice varieties using SRI vs. conventional methods, Morang district, Nepal, 2008 (in days) Data from Morang district, Nepal, 2008 main season Varieties Conventional duration SRI duration Difference Mansuli 155 136 (126-146) 19 (9-29) Swarna 155 139 (126-150) 16 (5-29) Radha 12 155 138 (125-144) 17 (11-30) Bansdhan/Kanchhi 145 127 (117-144) 18 (11-28) Barse 2014 135 127 (116-125) 8 (10-19) Barse 3017 135 118 17 Sugandha 120 106 (98-112) 14 (8-22) Hardinath 1 120 107 (98-112) 13 (8-22)
  25. SRI Ideas/Principles Are Now Being Applied to Other Crops : Indian farmers and NGOs are extrapolating SRI concepts and methods to: -- Wheat -- Millet and other cereals -- Sugar cane and mustard -- Vegetables (pulses,eggplant) Khmer farmers are even applying SRI concepts to chickens
  26.  
  27. Sugar cane grown with SRI methods (left) in Andhra Pradesh Reported yields of 125-235 t/ha compared with usual 65 t/ha
  28. Extensions of SRI to Other Crops: Uttarakhand / Himachal Pradesh, India Rajma (kidney beans) Manduwa (millet) Crop No. of Farmers Area (ha) Grain Yield (t/ha) % Incr. 2006 Conv. SRI Rajma 5 0.4 1.4 2.0 43 Manduwa 5 0.4 1.8 2.4 33 Wheat Res.Farm 5.0 1.6 2.2 38 2007 Rajma 113 2.26 1.8 3.0 67 Manduwa 43 0.8 1.5 2.4 60 Wheat (Irrig.) 25 0.23 2.2 4.3 95 Wheat (Unirrig.) 25 0.09 1.6 2.6 63
  29. MADAGASCAR: This all starts with the careful transplanting of single, young seedlings, widely spaced
  30. CHINA: innovation with raised-bed, zero-till SRI field; measured yield 13.4 t/ha; Liu’s 2001 yield (16 t/ha) set provincial yield record and persuaded Prof. Yuan Longping
  31. Careful transplanting of single, young seedlings, widely spaced COSTA RICA: Mechanized version of SRI produced 8 t/ha yield in first season
  32. Factorial Trial Evaluations in Madagascar, 2000 and 2001: Effects of SRI vs. conventional practices comparing varieties and soil differences at Morondava [N=288] and Anjomakely [N=240], not evaluating spacing or weeding (active soil aeration)
  33. CONVENTIONAL Clay Soil Loam Soil Average SS / 20 / 3 / NPK 3.00 (6) 2.04 (6) 2.52 (12) 1 SRI Practice SS / 20 / 3 / C 3.71 (6) 2.03 (6) SS / 20 / 1 / NPK 5.04 (6) 2.78 (6) SS / 8 / 3 / NPK 7.16 (6) 3.89 (6) AS / 20 / 3 / NPK 5.08 (6) 2.60 (6) 5.25 (24) 2.83 (24) 4.04 (48) 2 SRI Practices SS / 20 / 1 / C 4.50 (6) 2.44 (6) SS / 8 / 3 / C 6.86 (6) 3.61 (6) AS / 20 / 1 / NPK 6.07 (6) 3.15 (6) AS /20/ 3 / C 6.72 (6) 3.41 (6) SS/ 8 / 1 /NPK 8.13 (6) 4.36 (6) AS / 8 /3/NPK 8.15 (6) 4.44 (6) 6.74 (36) 3.57 (36) 5.16 (72) 3 SRI Practices SS / 8 / 1 / C 7.70 (6) 4.07 (6) AS / 20 / 1 / C 7.45 (6) 4.10 (6) AS / 8 / 3 / C 9.32 (6) 5.17 (6) AS / 8 / 1 / NPK 8.77 (6) 5.00 (6) 8.31 (24) 4.59 (24) 6.45 (48) ALL-SRI PRACTICE AS / 8 / 1 / C 10.35 (6) 6.39 (6) 8.37 (12)
  34. Average super-rice yields (kg/ha) with new rice management (SRI) vs.standard rice management at different plant densities ha -1
  35. Average super-rice yields (kg ha -1 ) with new rice management (SRI) vs. standard rice management at different N application rates ha -1
  36. CUBA: SRI field at CFA Camilo Cienfuegos, Bahia Honda, 14 t/ha – Los Palacios 9 cv. -- 2003
  37. Pest incidence in nursery (TNAU) Figures in parentheses transformed values ** Significant difference (P<0.001) Insects (their damage or population) SRI cultivation (mean ± SE) Conventional cultivation (mean ± SE) t value (difference) (SRI reduction) Cut worm (% damaged leaves per seedling) 0.0 ± 0.0 (0.0) 20.4 ± 4.8 (19.1) 16.1** ∞ Thrips (per seedling) 0.5 ± 0.2 (0.9) 6.1 ± 0.5 (2.5) 19.3** - 92% Green leaf hopper (per seedling) 0.1 ± 0.0 (0.8) 0.4 ± 0.1 (0.9) 14.8** - 75% Brown plant hopper (per seedling) 0.0 ± 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 ± 0.0 (0.8) 11.5** ∞ Whorl maggot (% damaged leaves per seedling) 0.8 ± 0.2 (0.9) 9.3 ± 2.6 (9.1) 12.5** - 91%
  38. Pest incidence in main field (TNAU) Figures in parentheses are transformed values ** significant difference (P<0.001) Insects (their damage or population) SRI cultivation (mean ± SE) Conventional cultivation (mean ± SE) t value (difference) (SRI reduction) Cut worm (% damaged leaves per hill) 17.9 ± 1.9 (18.0) 23.2 ± 2.0 (19.1) 6.6** - 23% Thrips (per hill) 6.6 ± 0.1 (2.2) 20.2 ± 2.0 (4.1) 12.2** - 67% Green leaf hopper (per hill) 0.6 ± 0.1 (1.0) 1.1 ± 0.2 (1.2) 10.7** - 45% Brown plant hopper (per hill) 1.1 ± 0.2 (1.2) 2.7 ± 0.2 (1.8) 14.4** - 60% Whorl maggot (% truncated leaves per hill) 5.6 ± 1.8 (5.9) 8.8 ± 1.4 (9.1) 4.5** - 36%
  39. Fig 1 Trasplantadora motorizada AP100 Yanmar
  40.  
  41. Mechanization of weeding, i.e., soil aeration , is also possible
  42. Yield x Age of Seedlings Used with SRI Methods, Morang district, Nepal, 2005 (conventional average yield: 3.1 t/ha) Range of seedling ages: 8-21 days; average seedling age: 11.4 days Seedling age (in days) Number of farmers Percent of Farmers Average yield (t/ha) Range of yields (t/ha) 8 22 5.4 6.94 4.0 - 9.0 9-10 123 30.0 6.32 3.6 - 11.0 11-12 169 41.3 6.41 2.5 - 11.0 13-14 64 15.6 5.77 3.0 - 9.0 15 and above 32 7.8 5.52 3.7 - 7.0 Total 410 100.0 6.3 2.5 - 11.0
  43.  
  44. Main shoot stem emerges during 1 st phyllochron; no further tillering until 1 st primary tiller emerges in the 4 th phyllochron
  45. Impact of Weedings on Yield with SRI Methods Ambatovaky, Madagascar, 1997-98 Mechanical Weedings Farmers (N) Area (ha) Harvest (kg) Yield (t/ha) None 2 0.11 657 5.973 One 8 0.62 3,741 7.723 Two 27 3.54 26,102 7.373 Three 24 5.21 47,516 9.120 Four 15 5.92 69,693 11.772
  46. Microbial populations in rice rhizosphere Tamil Nadu Agricultural University research T. M. Thiyagarajan, WRRC presentation, Tsukuba, Japan, 11/04 Microorganisms Conventional SRI Total bacteria 88 x 10 6 105 x 10 6 Azospirillum 8 x 10 5 31 x 10 5 Azotobacter 39 x 10 3 66 x 10 3 Phosphobacteria 33 x 10 3 59 x 10 3
  47.  
  48. ‘ Ascending Migration of Endophytic Rhizobia, from Roots and Leaves, inside Rice Plants and Assessment of Benefits to Rice Growth Physiology’ Feng Chi et al., Applied and Envir. Microbiology 71 (2005), 7271-7278 Rhizo-bium test strain Total plant root volume/ pot (cm 3 ) Shoot dry weight/ pot (g) Net photo-synthetic rate (μmol -2 s -1 ) Water utilization efficiency Area (cm 2 ) of flag leaf Grain yield/ pot (g) Ac-ORS571 210 ± 36 A 63 ± 2 A 16.42 ± 1.39 A 3.62 ± 0.17 BC 17.64 ± 4.94 ABC 86 ± 5 A SM-1021 180 ± 26 A 67 ± 5 A 14.99 ± 1.64 B 4.02 ± 0.19 AB 20.03 ± 3.92 A 86 ± 4 A SM-1002 168 ± 8 AB 52 ± 4 BC 13.70 ± 0.73 B 4.15 ± 0.32 A 19.58 ± 4.47 AB 61 ± 4 B R1-2370 175 ± 23 A 61 ± 8 AB 13.85 ± 0.38 B 3.36 ± 0.41 C 18.98 ± 4.49 AB 64 ± 9 B Mh-93 193 ± 16 A 67 ± 4 A 13.86 ± 0.76 B 3.18 ± 0.25 CD 16.79 ± 3.43 BC 77 ± 5 A Control 130 ± 10 B 47 ± 6 C 10.23 ± 1.03 C 2.77 ± 0.69 D 15.24 ± 4.0 C 51 ± 4 C
  49. Functioning of ROOTS Is Key Evaluation of roots of rice plants growing under continuously flooded vs. well-drained soil conditions (Kar et al., 1974) By flowering, 78% of the roots of rice growing under anaerobic soil conditions had degenerated , while few of the rice roots growing under aerobic soil conditions were affected
  50. Root length density (cm cm -3 ) under SRI, SRA and conventional systems (Barison, 2003) Soil layers (cm) Treatments 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 SRI with compost 3.65 0.75 0.61 0.33 0.30 0.23 SRI without compost 3.33 0.71 0.57 0.32 0.25 0.20 SRA with NPK and urea 3.73 0.99 0.65 0.34 0.18 0.09 SRA without fertilization 3.24 0.85 0.55 0.31 0.15 0.07 Conventional system 4.11 1.28 1.19 0.36 0.13 0.06
  51. Comparison of root pulling resistance (RPR), in kg, different stages of plant growth (Barison, 2003) Treatments (plants per hill) RPR at panicle initiation RPR at anthesis RPR at maturity Decrease from anthesis to maturity SRI with compost (1) 53.00 77.67 55.19 28.7% SRI without compost (1) 61.67 68.67 49.67 28.3% SRA with NPK + urea (2) 44.00 (22.00) 55.33 (27.66) 34.11 (17.06) 38.3% SRA without fertilization (2) 36.33 (18.16) 49.67 (24.88) 30.00 (15.00) 39.4% Conventional system (3) 22.00 (7.33) 35.00 (11.67) 20.67 (6.89) 41.0%
  52. Regression relationship between nitrogen uptake and grain yield for SRI and conventional methods (Barison, 2003) – same relationship for P and K
  53. Why WIDER SPACING ? To get what is known as ‘the border effect ’ or ‘the edge effect ’ for the whole field !
  54. Radiation intercepted (lux) at heading stage with different spacings and Ciherang variety, dry season, Sukamandi, Indonesia, 2002 Radiation intercepted above and below canopy was averaged for 8 points measured in each plot , observed at 9:24-10:40 am, 14 July 2002. Values in column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% with Tukey test. Spacing 20x20 30x30 40x40 50x50 Radiation above canopy 235 a 235 a 243 a 254 a Radiation below canopy 78 a 88 ab 127 c 153 c % of radiation below canopy 33.2 37.4 52.3 60.2 % of radiation intercepted 66.8 62.6 47.7 39.8
  55. Grains characteristics at different spacings, with Ciherang variety, dry season, Sukamandi, Indonesia, 2002 Values are averages for 12 hills per plot . Values in a column followed by same letter are not significantly different at 5% with Tukey test. Spacing 20x20 30x30 40x40 50x50 1000-grain weight (g) 26.27 a 26.70 ab 27.13 ab 27.53 b Total grains (per plant) 1432 a 3050 b 4829 c 6158 d Filled grains (per plant) 1153 a 2454 b 4098 c 5298 d Empty grains (per plant) 279 a 596 b 731 bc 860 c Empty grains (%) 19.4 19.5 15.1 13.9 Whole rice (%) 90.38 91.32 96.54 96.96 Broken rice (%) 9.37 8.41 3.31 2.93
  56. Results of NARROW SPACING * Lower leaves that do not get enough sunlight are below the threshold for photosynthesis – as a result they become parasitic ’ * Lower leaves are a main source of photosynthate for rice root systems (Yoshida, 1981) - so crowding can starve the roots
Advertisement