The System of Rice Intensification (SRI): Understanding How and

Why It Raises Productivity

Norman Uphoff, CIIFADCornell University, USA

The System of Rice Intensification • Was evolved in Madagascar over 20-year

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

• SRI is now about 20 years old (1983-84), spreading but still not always fast

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

– First verifications: China, Indonesia in 1999– BD, SL, Phil, Cambodia started 1999-2000

Fr. Henri de Laulanié, SJ

Sebastien Rafaralahy and Justin Rabenandrasana

SRI In Brief:SRI is a methodology for getting

more productive PHENOTYPES from existing GENOTYPES of rice

by changing the management of plants, soil, water, and nutrients to

(a) induce greater ROOT growth and

(b) nurture more abundant and diverse SOIL BIOLOGICAL populations

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) --

direct seeding is an alternative• Plants set out singly with wider spacing

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

• With no continuous flooding during the period of vegetative growth -- minimum applications, or alternate wetting/drying

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

Results from Such 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 number of tillers/plant and number of grains/panicle -- contrary to the negative relationship reported in the literature (Ying et al. 1998)

• More RESISTANCE to pests, diseases, and drought

• No LODGING -- possible ratoon crop = yielding 70%

• Higher YIELDS -- 7-8 t/ha, even up to 15-20 t/ha

• Productivity gains are more important than yield --intensification diversification of farming systems

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

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

• NO NEED for chemical fertilizers -- these raise yield with SRI, but 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, these can become labor-saving over time

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

SRI sounds ILLOGICALHOW CAN LESS CAN PRODUCE MORE?• By utilizing biological potentials & dynamics• Smaller, younger seedlings can grow larger,

more productive mature plants• Fewer plants per hill and per m2 can give

higher yield if used with other SRI practices• Half as much water produces more rice• Greater output is possible when using fewer or even no external inputsGet a different phenotype from rice genome

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 Expansion 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 (all short-maturing varieties so far)

Winter season -- expecting 10,000 ha to be planted with SRI methods

[ Learned SRI from Sri Lankan farmers ]

Average 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 + ratoon crop 5.5 t/ha = 70% of first cropBenin -- controlled trials = 1.6 vs 7.5 t/ha

WHAT IS GOING ON? Δ 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, Mumbai; based on interviews with 30 SRI farmers in Sri Lanka, October, 2002

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 IDEAS CAN BE EXTENDED 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 Return(P)

15x40 7.2 30.4 331.2 7.4 2.520x40 9.9 29.4 338.1 7.7 2.925x40 10.2 28.2 315.5 7.4 2.730x40 9.7 29.8 374.9 7.0 2.635x40 11.4 29.2 364.5 6.7 2.4

Different paradigms of production • The GREEN REVOLUTION paradigm:

(a) Change plants’ genetic potential, and

(b) Provide chemical-based external inputs -- fertilizer, biocides, 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 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 + root exudation)

• Roots are supported by more abundant and diversified populations of soil biota

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

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 (in g) of maize 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 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 **

• Nutrient acquisition increases through mycorrhizal fungi associations with roots

• Rhizobia bacteria produce hormones promoting root growth - increase yield, protein

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

** Both 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, withcompost amendmts

25 1,400 78 10.5

LOAM SOILSRI cultivation, withno amendments

25 75 32 2.1

SRI cultivation, withcompost amendmts

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

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

Seeder Developed in Cuba

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• The methodology is environmentally

friendly and economically profitable • SRI still raises more questions than

answers -- may lead to new paradigm?• SRI is still evolving, through farmer

innovation and research evaluations -- in 10 years, have ‘many SRIs’? (no IPR)

Conclusions (continued)• SRI work should proceed 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 could lead to a transformation of agriculture for the 21st century -- to a ‘doubly green revolution’ (G. Conway)

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

changing, spreading

• It is premature to make any final judgment or evaluation of SRI

• SRI methods will not be suitable everywhere -- but not a ‘niche’ innovation

• SRI is not speculation, 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 Average > double -- 5.5 t/haNepal 6/03 NGOs/

CIMMYTInitially mixed results; now8 t/ha ave. 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 13t/ha with 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 but no results yet: 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 but no results yet: 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