The System of Rice Intensification (SRI):

An Opportunity for Raising Productivity in the 21st Century

International Year of Rice Conference

FAO, Rome, Feb. 12-13, 2004

Norman Uphoff, CIIFADCornell University, USA

The System of Rice Intensification • Was developed in Madagascar over 20-yr

period by Fr. Henri de Laulanié, S.J. thru working with farmers, observing, doing experiments, and some serendipity (luck)

• SRI is now about 20 years old (1983-84) and beginning to spread in last 4 years

• Association Tefy Saina established 1990• CIIFAD has worked with ATS since 1994

– First verifications: China, Indonesia in 1999– Then: Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Nepal,

Philippines, Sierra Leone, Cuba, etc.

Fr. Henri de Laulanié, SJ

Sebastien Rafaralahy and Justin Rabenandrasana

SRI In Summary:A set of principles/methods for getting

more productive PHENOTYPES from existing GENOTYPES of rice.

SRI changes the management of plants, soil, water, and nutrients to

(a) induce greater ROOT growth and

(b) nurture more abundant and diverse populations of SOIL BIOTA.

Plant Physical Structure and Light Intensity Distribution

at Heading Stage (CNRRI Research --Tao et al. 2002)

Single Cambodian rice planttransplanted at 10 days

Starting Points for SRI:• Transplant young seedlings (<15 days) --

though direct seeding is an alternative• Set out plants singly with wider spacing

– In a square pattern (25x25cm or more) and– Planted shallow, gently, and quickly

• No continuous flooding during the period of vegetative growth, with (a) minimum applications, or (b) alternate wetting/drying

• After panicle initiation, thin layer of water (1-2 cm) on field until 10 d before harvest

Results from These Practices• Increased TILLERING: 30-50 tillers/plant, or more • Larger ROOT SYSTEMS: 5-6x more resistance to

uprooting (28 kg for 3 plants vs. 53 kg for 1 SRI plant)

• Bigger PANICLES: 200-300 grains/panicle, or more

Positive correlation between the panicle number and panicle size -- contrary to the negative relationship which is reported in the literature (Ying et al. 1998)

• GRAIN QUALITY: fewer unfilled and broken grains

• RESISTANCE to pests, diseases, storms and drought

• NO LODGING: ratoon crop possible, with 70% yield

• HIGHER YIELDS: ave. 8 t/ha, even up to 15-20 t/ha

• PRODUCTIVITY gains -- more important than yield

SRI Results Are Achieved with:• NO CHANGE of varieties -- HYVs and hybrids give

the highest yields with SRI methods, but local varieties can produce 6-12 t/ha with SRI methods

• NO NEED for chemical fertilizers -- while these raise yield with SRI, the best results are with compost

• NO NEED to apply agrochemicals -- pesticides, fungicides, etc. -- farmers say not economical

• SIGNIFICANT WATER SAVINGS -- irrigation water can reduce by 50% -- need good water control

• MORE LABOR -- at first, but as SRI methods are mastered, SRI can become labor-saving over time

• MORE SKILL and management effort -- SRI is intended to improve farmers’ capabilities

SRI sounds ILLOGICALHOW CAN LESS PRODUCE MORE? by

utilizing biological potentials & processes1. Smaller, younger seedlings become larger,

more productive mature plants2. Fewer plants per hill and per m2 give

higher yield if used with other SRI practices3. Using half as much water can give farmers

more rice, and4. With fewer or even NO external inputs,

greater output is possible --- WHY?Get a different phenotype from rice genome

How Can LESS Produce MORE?• Transplanting young seedlings (still before their 4th

phyllochron) will maintain the potential of rice plants for massive tillering and root growth

• Fewer plants per hill/m2 create “the edge effect” for the whole field; with more light in the canopy photosynthesis in all leaves

• Less water means that roots are not hypoxic; 3/4 of flooded roots can degenerate by PI (Kar et al. 1974)

• Chemical inputs reduce or inhibit soil organisms so that they cannot provide nutrients and protection to plants -- even promotion of root growth

These are four reasons why it is possible to get different phenotypes with SRI

SRI Experience Is SpreadingComparison Yields (t.ha-1) vs. SRI Average and Max.Country Comp. Yields Ave. SRI Yields Ave. SRI Maximum

BANGLADESH 4.9 6.3 7.1CAMBODIA 2.1 4.4 8.5CHINA (hybrids) 10.9 12.8 14.8CUBA 6.2 9.8 12.7GAMBIA 2.3 7.1 8.8INDONESIA 4.8 8.2 9.0LAOS 3.3 3.3 7.0MADAGASCAR 2.6 7.2 13.9NEPAL 4.4 8.1 11.1PHILIPPINES 3.0 6.0 7.4SIERRA LEONE 2.6 5.3 7.4SRI LANKA 3.6 7.8 14.3

Average 3.9 7.0 10.1

Most Recent Spread is to Andhra Pradesh, India

Summer season -- first 12 results:

• Comparison yields 4.3 - 6.3 t/ha

• SRI yields 8.5-12.2 t/ha (short-maturing varieties; with medium-term, up to 15.75 t/ha; good results in all districts)

Winter season -- about 10,000 acres planted with SRI methods; higher price for SRI rice; even 44 ha field

Average SRI Yields Impressive --But Big Increases Are Remarkable Indonesia -- West Timor (ADRA) • Yield with current methods -- 4.4 t/ha• Yield with SRI methods -- 11.7 t/haPeru -- Pucallpa, jungle area• Previous yields -- 2 t/ha, with more labor• SRI yield -- 8 t/ha, with less labor, and ratoon crop of 5.5 t/ha = 70% of first cropBenin -- controlled trials: 1.6 vs 7.5 t/ha

Increases due to Changes in SOIL BIOLOGY?

SRI field in Sri Lanka -- yield of 13 t/hawith panicles having 400+ grains

SRI plant with 87 fertile tillers atCFA Camilo Cienfuegos, Cuba

CFA Camilo Cienfuegos, Cuba14 t/ha -- Variety Los Palacios 9

Two rice fields in Sri Lanka -- same variety,same irrigation system, and same drought :

conventional methods (left), SRI (right)

SRI Data from Sri Lanka SRI Usual

• Yields (tons/ha) 8.0 4.2 +88%• Market price (Rs/ton) 1,500 1,300 +15%• Total cash cost (Rs/ha) 18,000 22,000 -18%• Gross returns (Rs/ha) 120,000 58,500 +105%• Net profit (Rs/ha) 102,000 36,500 +180%• Family labor earnings Increased with SRI• Water savings ~ 40-50%

Data from Dr. Aldas Janaiah, IRRI agric. economist, 1999-2002; now at Indira Gandhi Development Research Institute in Mumbai; based on interviews conducted with 30 SRI farmers in Sri Lanka, October, 2002

SRI Data from Sri LankaIWMI Evaluation (Namara, Weligamage, Barker 2003)

60 SRI and 60 non-SRI farmers randomly selected:

YIELD -- 50% increase on average (not doing full SRI)

WATER PRODUCTIVITY -- increased by 90%

COST OF PRODUCTION (Rs./kg) -- lower by 111-209% with family labor, by 17-27%at agricultural wage rate

LABOR PRODUCTIVITY (kg/hr) -- 50% higher in yala (dry) season, 62% higher in maha (wet) season

PROFITABILITY -- increased by 83-206%, depending on the wage assumed (whether paid or family labor)

RISK REDUCTION -- conventional farmers had net losses in 28% of seasons; SRI farmers in only 4%

PHILIPPINES DATA: AGRICULTURAL TRAININGINSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,COTOBATO, SRI Field Day, October 28, 2002

Production Analysis PSB Rc 72H PSB Rc 82 PSB Rc 18Plants/m2 = Hills/m2 16 16 16Panicles/hill 20 25.8 31Grains/panicle 191 155 159Grains/hill 3,825 4,822 4,921Yield/m2 1.16 1.25 1.2Yield (t/ha) 11.6 12.5 12.0

Economic Analysis Pesos/ha Pesos/ha Pesos/haInputs: seeds, org. fertilizer. 3,700 3,320 3,320Other expenses 5,830 5,830 5,830Harvesting, threshing 14,848 16,000 15,360 Cost of Production in P/ha

24,378 25,150 24,510

Income from Production @ 8 P/kg

93,800 100,000 96,000

NET PROFIT P/ha 68,422 74,850 71,490 Rate of Return 280% 298% 292%

SRI CONCEPTS CAN BE APPLIED TO UPLAND PRODUCTION

Results of trials (N=20) by Philippine NGO, Broader Initiatives for Negros Development,

with Azucena local variety (4,000 m2 area)-- using mulch as main innovation, not young plants

Spacing Tillers/Hill

PanicleLength

Grains/Panicle

Yield(t/ha)

Net ReturnRatio

15x40 7.2 30.4 331.2 7.4 2.5 : 120x40 9.9 29.4 338.1 7.7 2.9 : 125x40 10.2 28.2 315.5 7.4 2.7 : 130x40 9.7 29.8 374.9 7.0 2.6 : 135x40 11.4 29.2 364.5 6.7 2.4 : 1

Different paradigms of production

• The GREEN REVOLUTION paradigm:(a) Changed the genetic potential of plants, and

(b) Increased the use of external inputs -- more water, fertilizer, insecticides, etc.

• SRI changes certain management practices for plants, soil, water and nutrients so as to:

(a) Promote root growth, and(b) Increase the abundance and diversity of

soil microbial populations, also soil fauna

(1) ROOT SYSTEM PROMOTION • SRI is becoming referred to in India (AP)

as ‘the root revolution’ -- key factor• Roots benefit from wider plant spacing,

aerated soil, more soil organic matter --from both compost and root exudation

• Roots are supported by more abundant and diversified populations of soil biota -- bacteria and viruses produce PGRs

• Plants are two-way streets, coevolved w/ microorganisms, dependent on them

A SRI Rice Plant Root at MaruteruRice Research Station, AP

Cuba -- Variety 2084 (Bollito) -- 52 DAP

Dry Matter Distribution of Roots in SRI and Conventionally-Grown Plants at

Heading Stage (CNRRI research: Tao et al. 2002)

Root dry weight (g)

Root Oxygenation Ability with SRI vs. Conventionally-Grown Rice

Research done at Nanjing Agricultural University,Wuxianggeng 9 variety (Wang et al. 2002)

0

100

200

300

400

500

N-n n-2 Heading Maturity

Development stage

Ox

yg

en

ati

on

ab

ilit

y o

f α -

NA

(ug

/h.g

DW

)

W

S

SRI farmer in Cambodia

SRI farmer in Cuba -- 14 t/ha

Root Research Reported by Dr. Ana Primavesi (1980)

Shoot and root growth of maize (in g) grown in hydroponic solutions (14 days), with varying nutrient concentrations

Shoot Root100% concentration 44 7

200% concentration 34 7

2% concentration 33 23

2% concentration when 43 56 changed every other day

(2) Contribution of SOIL MICROBIAL PROCESSESMicrobial activity is known to be

crucial factor in soil fertility

“The microbial flora causes a large number of biochemical changes in the soil that largely determine the fertility of the soil.” (DeDatta,1981, p. 60, emphasis added)

Bacteria, funguses, protozoa, amoeba, actinomycetes, etc.

• Decompose organic matter, making nutrients available

• Acquire nutrients otherwise unavailable to plant roots

• Improve soil structure and health -- water retention, soil aggregation, aeration, pathogen control, etc.

Known Processes• Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) ** -- also

productivity from mix of NO3 > all NH4

• Phosphorus (P) solubilization **• Mycorrhizal fungi associations with roots

increase nutrient and water acquisition• Bacteria and fungi produce hormones that

promote root growth - increase yield, protein

• Protozoa ‘grazing’ on bacteria on roots and excrete excess N -- because of lower C:N ratio

** Both are increased by wetting and drying of soil

AZOSPIRILLUM POPULATIONS, TILLERING AND RICE YIELDS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT CULTIVATION PRACTICES

AND NUTRIENT AMENDMENTSResults of replicated trials at the Centre for Diffusion of Agricultural Intensification,

Beforona, Madagascar, 2000 (Raobelison, 2000)

Azospirillum in the

CLAY SOIL Rhizosphere(103/ml)

Roots(103/mg)

Tillers/plant

Yield(t/ha)

Traditional cultivation,no amendments

25 65 17 1.8

SRI cultivation, withno amendments

25 1,100 45 6.1

SRI cultivation, withNPK amendments

25 450 68 9.0

SRI cultivation,with compost

25 1,400 78 10.5

LOAM SOILSRI cultivation,with no amendments

25 75 32 2.1

SRI cultivation,with compost

25 2,000 47 6.6

(3) Impact of Transplanting YOUNG SEEDLINGS

• Big effect from transplanting seedlings 8-12 days old = during the 2nd or 3rd phyllochron, before 4th phyllochron (explained by T. Katayama, 1920s-30s)

• Avoid trauma to rice plant, especially to its roots, for maximum growth trajectory

• DIRECT SEEDING is possible, however -- being experimented with to save labor

Seeder Developed in Cuba

What speeds up the biological clock?

(adapted from Nemoto et al. 1995)

Shorter phyllochrons Longer phyllochrons• Higher temperatures > cold temperatures• Wider spacing > crowding of roots/canopy• More illumination > shading of plants• Ample nutrients in soil > nutrient deficits• Soil penetrability > compaction of soil• Sufficient moisture > drought conditions• Sufficient oxygen > hypoxic soil conditions

Effect of Young Seedlings@ Anjomakely Clay Soil Loam Soil

SS/20/3/NPK 3.00 2.04

SS/ 8 /3/NPK 7.16 3.89

SS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.13 4.36

AS/ 8 /3/NPK 8.15 4.44

AS/ 8 /3/Comp 6.86 3.61

SS/ 8 /1/Comp 7.70 4.07

AS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.77 5.00

AS/ 8 /1/Comp 10.35 6.39Note: All of these averages are for 6 replicated trials

Effects of SRI vs. Conventional PracticesComparing Varietal and Soil Differences

0

2

4

6

8

10

12C

onv.

Pra

ctic

e

1/4

SRI

2/4

SRI

3/4

SRI

All

SR

I

Local-ClayLocal-LoamHYV -SandLocal-Sand

Conclusions• SRI taps available genetic potentials

• The methods can be most accessible to the poor to improve food security, but gaining with large farmers (44 ha)

• The methodology is environmentally friendly and economically profitable

• SRI still raises more questions than answers -- contribute to new paradigm?

• SRI is still evolving, through farmer innovation and research evaluations

Conclusions (continued)• SRI work proceeding on 2 tracks:

– Farmer/NGO experimentation/extension– Scientific investigations/evaluations

• SRI experience may have implications for improving other crop production:– Improve the ROOT GROWTH of crops– Support SOIL BIOTA for plants’ benefit

• SRI can contribute to a ‘post-modern agriculture’ -- most modern agriculture because based on biological science

Conclusions (continued)• SRI is ‘not finished’ -- still evolving,

changing, spreading, so it is premature to make final judgment or evaluation

• SRI methods will not be suitable everywhere -- but not a ‘niche’ innovation; suitable in all 22 districts of Andhra Pradesh, and in north, south, east and west of China

• SRI is not speculation -- not ‘wishful thinking’ -- but a FACT

• Question is: what use will be made of these new insights and opportunities?

Spread of SRI in Asia National Natl. Network Summary of SRI Results to Date

Workshops & CoordinationBangladesh 9/02, 12/03 BRAC 30-50% average increase,

up to 12 t/haCambodia 1/03 CEDAC Doubling from 2 to 4+ t/ha;

from 28 to 10,000 in 3 yearsChina 3/03 CNRRI 12-13 t/ha with hybrids;

up to 16 t/ha (Sichuan)India 8.5-12.2 t/ha results in AP vs.

4.3-6.3 t/ha; even 15.7 vs. 7.5Indonesia 7/02 AARD ADRA results 8.0-11.7 t/ha,

IPM program ave. 9.25 t/haLaos 4/02 IRRI/Laos Mixed results; up to 6-7 t/haMyanmar 5.5 t/ha > 2x average yieldsNepal 6/03 NGOs/

CIMMYTInitially mixed results; now8 t/ha average achieved by FFS

Philippines 4/02, 3/03 PhilippineGreens

Widely varying results;ATI/DOA got 12 t/ha

Sri Lanka 12/03 7-8 t/ha ave. yields; up to 13 t/hawith traditional varieties

Thailand 6/03 NGOs 30-60% increases reportedInterest: Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan

Spread of SRI in Africa• Madagascar: now 50,000-100,000 farmers,

average about 6-8 t/ha, some double or more• Sierra Leone: 2.5 5.3 t/ha for 160 farmers• The Gambia: 2.5 7.4 t/ha for 10 farmers• Benin: 1.6 7.5 t/ha in controlled trial• Guinea: 2.5 9.4 t/ha (hybrid + SRI)• Interest in, but no results yet from: Ethiopia, Ghana,

Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda

Spread of SRI in Latin America

• Cuba: average 8-9 t/ha; INCA trial 12 t/ha; a number of farmers have reached 14 t/ha

• Peru: initial problems with drought, frost; 2003 results 9-11 t/ha vs. current average of 6 t/ha (not profitable given costs of production)

• Interest in, but no results yet from: Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guyana, and Venezuela

Thank You for Opportunityto Share Ideas With You

• More information can be obtained from SRI web site:

– http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/• Or from Association Tefy Saina:

– tefysaina.tnr@simicro.mg• Or from CIIFAD/Norman Uphoff:

– ntu1@cornell.edu