Field Research Report

Preparatory work for Carbon Financing

through System of Rice Intensification in

Khagaria District, Bihar

Field Research Report Submitted By: Debotosh Mahato

PPrreeppaarraattoorryy wwoorrkk ffoorr CCaarrbboonn FFiinnaanncciinngg tthhrroouugghh SSyysstteemm ooff RRiiccee

IInntteennssiiffiiccaattiioonn iinn KKhhaaggaarriiaa DDiissttrriicctt,, BBiihhaarr 2

Acknowledgments:

At the outset, we feel great pleasure to pronounce our gratitude to Management Trainee Segment

(MTS) Coordinator, Prof. Prasun Kr.Das, KSRM, KIIT University, for giving us the opportunity

to participate in the MTS program. We are thankful to his for his guidance and constant

observation throughout the program. We also express our immense gratitude to Prof. L. K.

Vaswani, Director, KSRM, KIIT University, for his able guidance. We are particularly thankful

to Prof. Prasun Das for their sincere guidance, constructive criticism and valuable suggestions in

every step of this work.

This report could not have been prepared without the committed support of JEEVIKA staffs

those who are related to the preparatory work for carbon financing project. In particularly, we

gratefully acknowledge time and effort invested by the local committee of khagaria block, Bihar

VRP (village resource parson) and SRI farmers to share their views and provided the valuable

feedback on the program through the preparation of this report.

Special thanks to Mr. Debaraj Behera (SPM Livelihood BRLPS)(Reporting Officer), Mr. Samir

Kumar (Livelihood Manager), Mr. Kshovan Guha (CEO of JWAPCL) and Ms. Dipa

Gupta(BPM),who have provided input on SRI to this study.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The percentage of green house gases in our atmosphere is increasing at an alarming rate which

caters to further global warming and climate change which affects the livelihood of the bottom of

pyramid. In the context of India the industrialization started after our independence which had

made India today as one of the fastest growing economies, but on the other side we are one of the

countries which emit most of the green house gases.

From the Kyoto protocol, the developed countries can invest in projects that reduce the carbon

emission in developing countries through World Bank. Jeevika, BRLPS is an NGO started with

the help of Bihar government and World Bank with commitment to bring changes in the lives of

the poor people. From 2007 Jeevika is working in six districts of Bihar reaching more the five

lakh poor families. Its main projects are promoting SWI and SRI method of cultivation to

increase the rice production among farmers. So, Jeevika has recognized the livelihood project

that they promote can take as means to create carbon credit through which can be sold in world

market.

This report involves the preparatory phase of farmers of Khagaria district, who cultivate rice

through SRI method which reduces the green house gas emission which high in the traditional

paddy cultivation. This study also brings out the farmers perception regarding the SRI

methodology adoption and their view regarding the organic farming and fertilizer usage. VRP

(village resource person) who acts as ground level motivator of farmers to adopt SRI is

interviewed and their views are shown in the report with regard to difficulties at the ground level

in SRI adoption. The preliminary emission estimation from the traditional and SRI method of

paddy cultivation has been calculated and the potential of credit that can be generated in the area

for the study was conducted had been shown in the monetary terms. Finally this report shows the

preparatory phase at the ground level to generate carbon credit through enhancing the livelihood

of marginal farmers for whom SRI practice has been introduced through BRLPS.

Findings and Analysis:

Though the farmers and SHG members are aware about SRI, but they have the mindset

that use of more fertilizers increases the yield. They are not aware about the harmful

effects of fertilizer.

High yield, less seed requirement, less water requirement and less fertilizer requirement

are the motivating factor behind adoption of SRI. SRI means low investment and high

yield to the farmers, but high labour cost is a big challenge for them.

On an average a farmers are using 21% of their land for SRI therefore there is a vast

scope for the expansion of SRI.



Conclusion:

In SRI farmers are able to increase their yield(2500kg/acre) and income

For reducing GHG(CO2,N2O,CH4) emission is necessary to produce organic fertilizer in

domestic level

Organic fertilizer plays a vital role in restoring fertility and organic matter in the soil.

It helps in keeping agricultural production at a higher level and makes it sustainable.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ____________________________________________________ 3

CHAPTER 1: [INTRODUCTION] ______________________________________________ 8

1.1 ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE: _________________________________________________ 8

1.2. BACKGROUND OF STUDY ____________________________________________________ 8

1.2.1. SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION _____________________________________ 8

1.2.2. BENEFITS OF SRI _________________________________________________________ 8

1.2.3 SRI ENHANCE FARM HOUSEHOLD RESILIENCE PRODUCTION AND CLIMATE CONDITION: _ 10

1.2.4 CARBON FINANCE _____________________________________________________ 10

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: ____________________________________________ 13

CHAPTER 2: [METHODOLOGY] ____________________________________________ 13

2.1. SAMPLE DESIGN__________________________________________________________ 13

2.2. DATA COLLECTION _______________________________________________________ 14

2.2.1. PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION: ______________________________________________ 14

2.2.2. SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION: ____________________________________________ 14

2.3. FLOW CHART FOR METHODOLOGY __________________________________________ 15

2.4. PROJECT LOCATION ______________________________________________________ 15

2.5. GANTT CHART REPRESENTING TIME FRAME OF THE STUDY _______________________ 16

2.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY: ________________________________________________ 16

CHAPTER 3: [FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS]____________________________________ 17

A. SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION: ___________________________________________ 17

3. A.1 FIELD DATA ___________________________________________________________ 17

3.1.2 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE ACCORDING TO FARM SIZE: ___________________________ 18

3.1.3 APPLICATION OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZER IN CONTROL PLOT: _______________________ 18

3.1.4 APPLICATION OF ORGANIC FERTILIZER IN TREATMENT PLOTS: ______________________ 19

3.1.5 COST BENEFITS ANALYSIS: _________________________________________________ 21

3.1.6 VILLAGE ORGANIZATION (VO) WISE SCORE CARD: ______________________________ 22

3.2.1 ANALYZING THE FARMERS PERCEPTIONS: ___________________________________ 24

FARMER’S PERCEPTION ABOUT THE TREATMENT PLOTS ____________________________ 24

3.2.2 FARMERS PERCEPTION TOWARDS FERTILIZER: __________________________________ 25

3.2.3 FARMER’S PERCEPTION TOWARDS VERMIN COMPOST: ____________________________ 26



3.2.4 THE PERCEPTION OF VRP ON SRI AND FOLLOWING ORGANIC METHODS OF SRI: ________ 27

3.3 BEST PRACTICES VIS-À-VIS CURRENT PRACTICES ________________________________ 28

3.3.1 YIELD DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SRI AND CONVENTIONAL METHOD ___________________ 28

B. CARBON FINANCING ____________________________________________________ 29

CARBON EMISSION____________________________________________________________ 29

CHAPTER 4: [SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION] _____________________________ 32

4.1 SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVING ORGANIC SRI: __________________________________ 32

4.2 CONCLUSION: ____________________________________________________________ 32

REFRENCE________________________________________________________________ 34

ANNEXURE:_______________________________________________________________ 35

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND APPENDIX: __________________________________ 41



LIST OF TABLE

Table 1: SRI enhances farm resilience production and Climate Change .............................. 10

Table 2: Timeline of Study ......................................................................................................... 16

Table 3: Village wise data........................................................................................................... 17

Table 4: village wise land holding capacity .............................................................................. 18

Table 5: Application of chemical fertilizer in SRI plots .......................................................... 19

Table 6: Application of organic fertilizer in SRI plots ............................................................ 20

Table 7: Cost Benefits Analysis ................................................................................................. 21

Table 8: Number Distribution Pattern ..................................................................................... 22

Table 9: Detail analysis of village organization ........................................................................ 23

Table 10: Rank Card (Farmer’s Perception) ........................................................................... 26

Table 11: Rank Card .................................................................................................................. 27

Table 12: Yield different between conventional and SRI method/acre of Paddy Cultivation

............................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 13: Calculation of Methane Emission ............................................................................. 30

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1: Emission reductions purchase agreements by sector .............................................. 12

Figure 2: Map of Bihar ............................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3: Farmers following the SRI manual........................................................................... 25



CHAPTER 1: [INTRODUCTION]

1.1 Organizational Profile:

Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (BRLPS) is an independent society set up by the

Government of Bihar and supported by the World Bank. BRLP (Bihar Rural Livelihood Project)

also Known as JEEVIKA working with the poor and. BRLP was established in 2007 with the

support of World Bank and Bihar Government for poverty alleviation in the state and

livelihood. The word jeevika is derived from the word ‘life’ or ‘life source’. So much in the

name of globalization is happening which is not just indifferent to those life processes, but

against them. India is seeing the increased polarization of wealth. The jeevika of rural

communities is under threat because the source of their livelihood is ecological wealth.

Ultimately humans can only work with what nature has given them—work is a partnership

between humans and nature. The issues of poverty and ecology were always the same thing —

rebuilding nature means rebuilding people – and if we want sustainability then the resources of

the Earth have to stay in the hands of the people. To enhance the livelihood option for the poor

people the BRLPS is implementing JEEVIKA Bihar Rural Livelihoods Project with the objective

of enhancing the social and economic empowerment of the rural poor in Bihar particularly

women. The BRLP intervenes with the community through the following four themes or

programs: institution and capacity building, social development, microfinance.

{Annexure 1: Organogram of BRLPS}

1.2. Background of Study

1.2.1. SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION

System of Rice Intensification or SRI as it is popularly called; is a fascinating case of rural

innovation that has been developed outside the formal rice research establishments both in India

and the rest of the world. It was developed in Madagascar by Fr. Henri De Laulanié a French

priest with a background in agriculture and passion for rural development. SRI method is

emerging as a potential alternative to traditional way of flooded rice cultivation and is showing

great promise to address the problems of water scarcity, high energy and chemical usage, thus

offers a noble breakthrough in the way of growing more rice with fewer inputs. It requires less

water and less expenditure yet gives more yields, so is highly beneficial for small land marginal

farmer.

1.2.2. Benefits of SRI

Farmers, with less expense, are able to produce more rice to eat or sell, improving both

their food security and income.

It also benefits their health and the environment by using less water and agrochemicals.



SRI increases the productivity of resources used in rice cultivation, reducing

requirements for water, seed, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides etc

SRI represents an unprecedented opportunity for developing economies to enable these

households to be more secure, and self-reliant, while buffering and even reversing the

trends that contribute to climate change.

The SRI can also reduce GHG (green house gas) Emission and improves soil health. A study at

Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi showed that the global warming potential

(GWP) in the SRI was only 28.9% over the conventional method. It increased the water

productivity by 44% compared to conventional planting method. Even though the yield was

same but the seed rate in SRI was much lower which reduced the input cost. The SRI, therefore,

seems to be a ‘win-win’ method.



1.2.3 SRI Enhance Farm Household Resilience Production and Climate Condition:

Table 1: SRI enhances farm resilience production and Climate Change

1.2.4 CARBON FINANCE

Rice is the staple food on earth and it is grown on 140 million hector of the whole world. To

enhance the rice production SRI technique has been developed. Most of the lands are being used

for rice production which is the major reason for the emission of greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O

and CO2). It will directly affect in the soil condition. Due to which it is very necessary to

mitigate green house gases. The emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4 are discussed but most focus

Reported and Validated Benefits Contribution to Resilience and Climate Change Adaptability

Higher yields per unit of land,

labor and capital invested Grain yields are increased on average by 300%, but often more. This not only generates more food,

but releases some land and labor for other productive activities. Higher productivity per unit of land reduces pressure to expand cultivated area at the expense of other ecosystems.

Lightened workload for women Women farmers widely report that SRI methods save them time and reduce the drudgery of rice cultivation, due to less time for nursery management and transplanting, ease of working with

Smaller seedlings and less time laboring in standing water. It frees their time for activities of their

choice (such as vegetable growing for profit or improved family diet) and enables other family

Members to seek non-farm employment, thereby diversifying household income. Reduced requirements for irrigation water With SRI, irrigation water use is generally reduced by 25-50%, as water is managed to maintain

mostly aerobic soil conditions. Farmers can continue to cultivate rice where water is becoming Scarcer or rains unpredictable, and can mitigate losses from late monsoons or less rainfall. Less

water used at the head of canals means more water is available for farmers at the end. Water can

Be freed up for other crops and people, and for the maintenance of natural ecosystems. Reduced seed rate Since farmers need 80-90% fewer seeds for transplanting, they need much less space to sow the

seed nurseries.

Reduced reliance on chemical fertilizers

herbicides, and pesticides The high and rising cost of fertilizer and other inputs is one of the main attractions for farmers to

use SRI as it allows them to reduce chemical applications without loss of yield. Fewer chemical around farmsteads has health benefits for people and their livestock. Reduced chemical loads and

better soil and water quality has beneficial effects throughout the environment.

Resistance to lodging and storm damage

(possibly also cold spells) Climate change is contributing to more frequent and more severe storms, which cause rice plants to fall over or lodge. This can be devastating to farmers. A fallen crop is vulnerable to rotting and

also more difficult to harvest. SRI practices produce stronger straw (tillers) and larger, deeper root

systems that make rice plants less susceptible to being blown down or pushed over.

Increased resistance to pest damage Climate change is expected to increase the prevalence and distribution of pest species as

temperatures and rainfall patterns change. With SRI management, farmers observe less loss to

pests and diseases even though they use fewer agrochemicals. Increased drought tolerance SRI rice plants exhibit stronger root systems that grow deeper into the soil profile. At greater depth

they can access deeper reserves of soil moisture (and nutrients). This is particularly important given the increasing risk of rainfall variation during the growing season.

Shorter growing season SRI crops can often be harvested 1-2 weeks, even sometimes 3 weeks earlier than the same variety

conventionally grown. A shorter growing period reduces water needs and the crop’s exposure to pests and storms that arrive late in the season.

Fewer seeds and faster time to planting give

more flexibility If a farmer’s crop succumbs to adverse weather patterns, farmers can more easily find the seed sand

time to replant the nursery and replant the crop since SRI requires only one-tenth of the seeds, and seedlings can be planted within 8-14 days of sowing,

Improved farmer knowledge,

experimentation and innovation Good SRI extension promotes farmer initiative and evaluation. It encourages farmers to take more

responsibility for adaptation and innovation, contributing to human resource development in rural Areas and the prospect of farmers being able to identify and exploit other innovations as they

emerge.



will be put on methane as it is the most dominant gas emitted from flooded rice fields. The

general causes why these three GHGs are produced will be introduced, but the focus lies on the

potential of SRI to mitigate CO2, N2O and CH4. Other GHGs are not included.

Due to which carbon financing a new project has been started by World Bank to mitigate GHG

gases emission in whole world to reduce the effect of global warming. A carbon project helps to

mitigate climate change and thus to safeguard the planet. Through the establishment of carbon

markets, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions became a tradable commodity. Tackling climate

change is widely acknowledged as one of the biggest challenges of this century and its negative

effects will disproportionately affect poor countries, which make it even more urgent to act.

Emissions of various gases that arise from industrial activities and the burning of fossil fuels and

biomass need to be reduced in order to limit the negative impacts of climate change. The most

important of these so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is CO2. Transport is responsible for 14% of

greenhouse gas emissions. It is the only sector of the world economy in which carbon emissions

have risen consistently since 1990.The cement production industry alone represents about 5% of

total carbon dioxide emissions.

Key elements of carbon finance projects:

Available only for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions

They must contribute to the sustainable development of the host country

These emission reductions need to be measured and verified before they can be sold as carbon

credits

The link between Climate Change, GHG emissions, Carbon and Carbon Finance:

Climate change is one of the biggest threats we face. Everyday activities like driving a car or a

motorbike, using air conditioning and/or heating and lighting houses consume energy and

produce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), which contribute to climate change. When the

emissions of GHGs are rising, the Earth’s climate is affected, the average weather changes and

average temperatures increase.

Types of GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

2006-2007: Emission Reductions Purchase

Agreements by Sector:



Figure 1: Emission reductions purchase agreements by sector

Sources: Indian Council for Climate Change Assessment Report

Agriculture is a major contributor to emissions of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N

2O), and

carbon dioxide (CO2). On a global scale, agricultural land use in the 1990s has been responsible

for approximately 15% of all GHG emissions. One third of all carbon dioxide emissions come

from changes in land use (forest clearing, shifting cultivation and intensification of agriculture).

Approximately two thirds of methane and most of nitrous oxide emissions originate from

agriculture.

At the same time, agriculture offers options to reduce GHG significantly. One is to reduce

emissions and, thereby, to minimize the production of atmospheric CO2, CH

4 and N

2O.

Agriculture shares this emission reduction potential with industry and other sectors. The second

option consists in systematically sequestering carbon dioxide in soils and in plant biomass. It is

unique for all types of land use. Mainly from rice cultivation the amount of GHG gas emission is

higher than other because maximum land is used Organic Agriculture can significantly reduce

carbon dioxide emissions. As a viable alternative to shifting cultivation, it offers permanent

cropping systems with sustained productivity. For intensive agricultural systems, it uses

significantly less fossil fuel in comparison to conventional agriculture. rganic fertilizers can be a

source of essential nutrients for plants as well as for the improvement of soil productivity. On the

other hand, use of chemical fertilizers has been blamed relentlessly for the deterioration of soil

and water resources and the environment as a whole.

Chemical fertilizers have been generally considered a bane in farming. Pollution of groundwater

and of bodies of waters like rivers and lakes has been caused by irresponsible application of

fertilizers. Besides the deleterious effect on our waters, fertilizer use has caused the decline in of

soil productivity.

Land-use,Land-use change and Forestry:26%

Renewable Energy: 41%

Waste Management:21%

Energy Efficiency:9%



The deterioration is not due to the material itself but is due to improper use of chemical

fertilizers. The harmful consequences of applying fertilizers can be eliminated or minimized if

only we follow this cardinal rule: application has to be based mainly on the need of the crop and

on the capacity of the soils to store and provide the essential nutrient.

As a consequence, the organic variants have in most cases a more favorable energy balance.

Nevertheless there are reasons for organic farmers to do more to further reduce their dependency

on fossil fuel and there are reasons to pay attention to the energy use on the food distribution

system.

Organic Agriculture has a very important role to reduce the emission of green house gases.

Through the promotion of aerobic microorganisms and high biological activity in soils, the

oxidation of methane can be increased. Secondly, changes in ruminant diet can reduce methane

production considerably. However, technology research on methane reduction in paddy fields –

an important source of methane production - is still in its infancy. Nitrous oxides are mainly due

to overdoses and losses on nitrogen. These are effectively minimized in Organic Agriculture.

Mainly in Paddy cultivation the methane emission is much higher. Due to which SRI has been

implemented to reduce the emission of green house gases. Now organic SRI has been introduced

to reduce the emission of gases and also enhance the production.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

The objective of the study is as follows

1. Compilation of hundred acres of Treatment plot1 of SHG members.

2. Compilation of hundred acres of Control plot2 of SHG members.

3. Validation of 100 acres of control and treatment plot through continuous field visit.

4. Farmer’s perception behavior study on chemical or organic agriculture.

5. Study of farmer’s perception on only organic agriculture.

CHAPTER 2: [Methodology]

2.1. Sample Design

The data collected represents the population of the farmers as designated by field team members

of BPIU and DPCU. The focus was to collect data of farmers constituting 200 acre of land. Total

number of Farmers included in the database is 824.

1 Treatment plot: only using vermin compost or organic manure

2 Control plot: using chemical fertilizers and organic manure.



2.2. Data Collection

2.2.1. Primary data collection:

1. Structured questionnaire

Data on the number of farmers practicing SRI by using vermin compost was collected through

structured questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of general questions on family background,

about the SHG and VO name, land under SRI and the total own land etc.

2. Field visit

Field visit was done to validate the farmers practicing SRI. The focus was to check whether the

farmers are following the methodologies as per the SRI manual.

3. SHG/VO meeting

To understand the working of the organization at the grass root level and to get information

about the knowledge among the SHG members about SRI, SHG/VO meeting was attended.

4. Focused group discussion with the farmers

FGD was conducted in different villages to understand the farmer’s perception and behavior

toward SRI, towards use of Vermin compost etc.

5. On farm meeting with the farmers

To understand the adoptively level of SRI and the process followed by them in paddy cultivation.

6. Direct observation

2.2.2. Secondary data collection:

Information on the working of the organization, about the SRI methodology and carbon

financing was collected through the following sources:

1. Through internet

2. Through the manuals provided by host organization



2.3. Flow chart for Methodology

2.4. Project Location

Figure 2: Map of Bihar

Methodology

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Secondary Data

Collection

Study of

Organization

Study of SRI Manual

Preparatory Work

Research Design

Framing of

questions

Field visit

Data Collection

Validation of

Farmers

Focused group

discussion

On farm meetings

Study of farmers

perceptions

Data

interpretation

Data Analysis

Draft report

Presentation

The project area

falls under 8

Villages of Khagaria

block of Khagaria

district,Bihar.



2.5. Gantt Chart representing time frame of the Study

Table 2: Timeline of Study

2.6 Limitation of the Study:

Although most of the objectives of the study were fully covered during the project period, a few

limitations were identified in the course of this study. They are -

Data is collected for one season (Kharif). To analyze the data for two month is not sufficient.

Delayed monsoon may also affect the overall outcome of the project.

Data collected as per farmer’s recall. Farmers are not able to remember exact information

related to dose and time of application of agro.- input, net working hour of wage labour etc.

Sample size – there is a difference between sample size of treatment and control area.

Time Frame (in Days)

Act

ivit

y

4-8 9-

13

14-

18

19-

23

24-

28

29-2 3-7 8-

12

13-

17

18-

22

23-

26

Attend VO and SHG

meetings

Inception report

submission and

discussion with RO

Interaction with farmers

(SHG Members)

Attending SHG/VO

meetings and sharing the

concept of carbon credit

and its importance

Preparation of farm wise

database

Mobilizing identified

farmers to adopt and

follow the instructions as

per SRI

Preparation of draft report

Final presentation

Total Period 52 Days



CHAPTER 3: [FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS]

A. System of Rice Intensification:

3. A.1 Field Data

3.1.1 Village wise complied data:

The study was conducted in one block of Khagaria district. In the block 7 villages were selected

randomly for our analysis of treatment and control area. From each village the data of treatment

and control area have been taken by VO (village organization) wise. It is helping us to analyze

how much treatment area and how much control area exiting in that Village Organization.

Table 3: Village wise data

VILLAGE

NAME

VILLAGE

ORGANIZATION

TREATMENT

AREA(acre)

CONTROL

AREA(acre)

Total

Farmers(No.)

CHANDRAPURA Narishakti,Ujala & Tulsi 27.15 - 187

CHAKKIPAR Akta & Yadav - 8.26 23

OLAPUR Jyoti. - 6.66 8

GANGIA Sitara,Azad,Kamal &

Bharat

19.73 33.31 206

BHADASH Pragati,Maa Bhuban,Jyoti,

Sagar & Tulsi

3.82 33.82 205

MARAR Suraj,Radha

Krishna,Deepak,Amar

Jyoti,Roshni,Sabitri,Pragati

& Milan

21.46 63.46 173

SIMRA &

RAMUNIA

Chandni 8.22 - 22

GRAND

TOTAL(acre)

225.89 Acre 80.38 145.51 824

(Source: Structure Questionnaires)



3.1.2 Distribution of Sample According To Farm Size:

The table below is shown about the distribution of land according to farm size. Mainly here three

pattern of land has been shown here own land, lease land, share cropping. Through our analysis

we have seen that most of the farmers do not have their own land and they are using lease land

and share cropping. But still the percentage of own land is higher than lease land and share

cropping. Most of the farmers are cultivating corn, wheat, rice, mung etc.

Table 4: village wise land holding capacity

(Source: Structure Questionnaires)

3.1.3 Application of Chemical Fertilizer In Control Plot:

Urea, DAP, Zinc and MP are chemical fertilizers most commonly applied by rice farmers. There

is a difference between the amounts of recommended and actual dose of fertilizers for rice

production.

A Quantitative Analysis has given in the table. Urea (nitrogen) is a major component of

proteins, hormones, chlorophyll, vitamins and enzymes, essential for rice. Rice plants require a

large amount of nitrogen at the early and mid-till ring stage to maximize the number of panicles.

The recommended doses of other nutrients are also necessary for potential rice yield. But use of

Chemical fertilizer in the SRI is responsible for the reduce the production .In control are of our

analysis which has been taken is 100 acre. Here SRI is being done by using chemical fertilizer

totally which will affect their production. Mainly three times chemical fertilizer is being given in

the field and the total cost incurred for it is Rs 1615.

Village Name Land ( In Acre)

Own land Lease land & Share cropping

Chandrapura 65 35.5

Chakkipar 25.5 5

Olapur 10 5.5

Gangia 106 39

Bhadash 216 110

Marar 52.4 97

Simra & Ramania 9 20

Total 483.9 316.5



Table 5: Application of chemical fertilizer in SRI plots

(Source: FGD, discussion with VRP)

3.1.4 Application of organic fertilizer in treatment Plots:

35%- 40% of the farmers are being applied green manure(GM) that is vermin compost and

compost to their SRI fields while 50% of farmers applied both chemical fertilizer and vermin

compost because in most of the village do not have vermin compost pit due to which vermin

compost is being supplied from put side. No correlation is found between the different kinds of

fertilizers and the C and N content in the soil which is not surprising as only long term

experiments can identify such correlations. In table the details on application rates and cost have

given. Average application rates for green manure and compost were 400 kg to 425 kg per acre.

The vermin compost is given three times in the land in an equal quantity. The total application

rate and cost of vermin compost has given below.

Application

Period

Chemical

fertilizer

Application Rate Unit Price Total Cost

1st Application Urea 20kg/acr Rs.120

DAP 27kg/acr Rs.320

MOP 25kg/acr Rs.175

Zinc 5kg/acr Rs.200 Rs.815

2nd

Application Urea 40kg/acr Rs.240

DAP 27kg/acr Rs.320

MOP - -

Zinc - - Rs.560

3rd

Application Urea 40kg/acr Rs.240

DAP - -

MOP - -

Zinc - - Rs.240

Rs.1615



Table 6: Application of organic fertilizer in SRI plots


APPLICATION

PERIOD

ORGANIC

FARTILIZER

USED IN SRI

APPLICATION

RATE

UNIT PRICE

@Rs4

TOTAL COST

1st Application Vermin compost 155kg/acre Rs.620

2nd

Application Vermin compost 135kg/acre Rs.540

3rd

Application Vermin compost 135kg/acre Rs.540

TOTAL COST Rs.1700



3.1.5 Cost benefits analysis:

Here the importance of analyzing the Cost benefit analysis in both treatment area and control

area is to find out the difference between the costs of production of both and also to find out the

enhancement in production by using organic manure instead of chemical fertilizers. In SRI the

use of chemical fertilizer is partly substituted and complemented by application of organic

manures. Vermin compost is only being adopted by farmers in SRI in the village and the data

shown there is highest gap between the productions of SRI by using vermin compost.

Table 7: Cost Benefits Analysis


Input Cost/acre

Control Area(Chemical

fertilizer)

(@Rs.)

Treatment Area(Organic

manure)

(@Rs.)

Land Preparation 900 900

seed(@Kg) 60 60

Fertilizer 1615 1700

Transplantation cost 1320 1320

Pest and disease

management

120 120

Irrigation 400 400

Harvesting 900 900

Total Cost 5315 5400

Yield 2000 KG 2500KG

Total Sale Rs 40000 Rs 50000

Profit 34685 44600



3.1.6 Village Organization (VO) wise Score Card:

We have selected 7 villages of Khagaria block for our survey. Each village organization of each

village has been analyzed during our survey by taking certain parameter into consideration. The

parameter are equipment (cone weedier, pump set etc), input supply (seed, fertilizer, pesticides

etc) vermin compost supply, awareness of SHG member, knowledge of VRP (village resource

person) and rapport of VRP. In each parameter we have given certain rank and after that total

score have been given to each VO. By analyzing this we found out the best VO in the Khagaria

block. From this table given below we have found out that the Ujala and Tulsi have performed

well as compared to others.

Table 8: Number Distribution Pattern

PARTICULAR

NUMBER

EQUIPMENT

YES=1 & NO=0

INPUT ON TIME =1 & DELAY=0

VERMIN COMPOST

SUPPLY

ON TIME =1 & DELAY=0

AWARNESS OF SHG

MEMBER

HIGH=3,MIDDLE=2 & LOW=1

KNOWLEDGE OF

VRP

HIGH=3,MIDDLE=2 & LOW=1

RAPPORT OF VRP HIGH=3,MIDDLE=2 & LOW=1



Table 9: Detail analysis of village organization

V.O. VILLAGE EQUI

P-

MEN

T

INPUT VERMIN

COMPOST

SUPPLY

AWARN

ESS OF

SHG

MEMBE

R

KNOWLE

DGE OF

VRP

RAPPO

RT OF

VRP

TOT

AL

SCO

RE

Y N T D T D H M L H M L H M L

UJALA CHANDR

APURA

YES ON

TIME

ON TIME HIGH HIGH HIGH 12

NARIS

AKTI

CHANDR

APURA

YES ON

TIME

ON TIME HIGH MIDDLE HIGH 11

TULSI CHANDR

APURA

YES ON

TIME

ON TIME HIGH HIGH HIGH 12

CHAD

NI

SIMRA&

RAMUNIA

YES ON

TIME

ON TIME MIDDLE HIGH HIGH 11

SITAR

A

GANGIA NO DELA

Y

ON TIME MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDL

E

7

PRAGA

TI

BARARA YES DELA

Y

DELAY MIDDLE MIDDLE MIDDL

E

7

SURAJ MARAR YES DELA

Y

DELAY MIDDLE LOW LOW 5

RADH

A

KRISH

NA

MARAR YES DELA

Y

DELAY MIDDLE LOW MIDDL

E

6

UJALA BHADAS YES DELA

Y

DELAY LOW MIDDLE LOW 5

AKTA CHAKKIP

AR

YES DELA

Y

DELAY LOW MIDDLE HIGH 7

YADAV CHAKKIP

AR

YES DELA

Y


JYOTI OLAPUR YES DELA

Y


DEEPA

K

MARAR YES DELA

Y

DELAY LOW LOW MIDDL

E

5

AMAR

JYOTI

MARAR YES DELA

Y

DELAY LOW LOW MIDDL

E

5

MILAN MARAR YES DELA

Y

DELAY LOW LOW MIDDL

E

5

ROSHN

I

MARAR YES DELA

Y

DELAY LOW LOW LOW 4

SABIT

RI

MARAR YES DELA

Y

DELAY MIDDLE LOW MIDDL

E

6

PRAGA

TI

MARAR YES DELA

Y




3.2.1 Analyzing the Farmers Perceptions:

Farmer’s Perception About the treatment plots

The villages have been covered up during our analysis were 7 villages. From which in

Chandrapura village was the best. This is the completely treatment area and the treatment area in

this village is 27.15 acre. They have their own 8 vermin compost pit in the village. They totally

use vermin compost in SRI. In this village all the farmers following the instruction required for

treatment area. Generally they use 18kg vermin compost per katha. In Simra also farmer have

given exact proportion of both chemical and organic fertilizer. They give it in three applications.

But in other villages (treatment area) Gangia, Marar have not followed the instruction required

for treatment area because of delay of supply of vermin compost and 25% farmers found in

Marar and Gangia who did not follow the instruction as because they think that SRI production

can be enhanced in by using more chemical fertilizer than organic manure like vermin compost.

In Bhadash only 3.5 acre SRI land is coming under treatment area.

AZAD GANGIA NO DELA

Y


KAMA

L

GANGIA NO DELA

Y

DELAY MIDDLE MIDDLE HIGH 7

BHARA

T

GANGIA NO DELA

Y

DELAY MIDDLE MIDDLE HIGH 7

MAA

BHUBA

N

KASHIM

PUR

YES DELA

Y

DELAY LOW LOW MIDDL

E

5

SAGAR BHADAS YES DELA

Y

DELAY HIGH HIGH MIDDL

E

9

JYOTI BHADAS YES DELA

Y

DELAY HIGH HIGH HIGH 10

TULSI VACHOTA YES DELA

Y

DELAY HIGH HIGH HIGH 10



Figure 3: Farmers following the SRI manual

(Source: FGD)

3.2.2 Farmers Perception towards Fertilizer:

In control area:

Marar ,Bhadash , Olhapur, Gangia are the control area. Here farmers have wrong perception that

by using chemical fertilizer. 5 farmers have been selected in each village to know the perception

of farmers about chemical fertilizer. Farmers also said that the cost of production in SRI by using

chemical fertilizer is more than organic manure but due to lack of awareness about the organic

manure they chemical fertilizer is being used. Based on the interview with the farmers their

perception and our observation we tried to identified some observation adoption by the farmers

and rank them according to their severity. These are presented in the table below.

according to instruction

56%

not according to instruction

44%

Farmers working According to SRI Manual



Table 10: Rank Card (Farmer’s Perception)

Farmer’s Perception Rank Percentage

Production Enhancement 1. 90%

Lack Of Faith Over Using Of

Vermin Compost

2. 85%

Easily Available 3. 70%

High Cost Of Fertilizer 4. 62%

Cost of Production Increased

Due To High Dose Of

Fertilizer

5. 55%

Affect on The Soil health 6. 42%

Affect on human health 7. 35%


3.2.3 Farmer’s Perception towards Vermin Compost:

Mainly in Chandrapura vermin compost is being used totally. Some other villages like Simra,

few farmers of Gangia, Bhadash and Marar are also giving vermin compost in their land. In

Chandrapura FGD has organized to interact with farmers to know the farmer’s perception. First

is good for the soil quality and also less expensive than chemical fertilizer. During interaction the

farmers also told that they will also get poison food and also there production is being increased

by 20 kg per katha. Based on the interview with the farmers their perception and our observation

we have tried to identified some observation adoption by the farmers. These are given in the

table below.



Table 11: Rank Card

Farmer’s Perception Rank Percentage

Yield In Production 1. 95%

Improve Soil health 2. 82%

Less Expensive 3. 68%

Inferior Quality Of Fertilizer 4. 55%

Easily Available 5. 45%

(Source: FGD, discussion

with VRP)

3.2.4 The perception of VRP on SRI and following organic methods of SRI:

In khagaria district’s farmer mainly cultivated corns because of irrigation .and so many farmers

do not have own land. Through the SRI technique farmers are interest to cultivate paddy because

here seeds, water, fertilizer are easily available. The supply of organic manure should be in time

so that the outcome of the project is much better.

1. Production of the paddy day by day increased in khagaria.

2. In SRI technique labour charges are high but farmers were not ready for cultivated paddy

through chemical fertilizer. Because farmers more awareness of poison free food.

3. Reducing the recovery time seedling need after transplantation.

4. Optimizing soil and water condition.

5. Less time before transplanting, as seedling can be ready in 8-14 days instead of one

month.

6. 80-90% fewer seeds, due to much lower plant populations.

7. 60-70% less water, as the field in not continuously flooded.

8. Farmers, with less expanse, are able to produce more rice to eat or sell, improving both

their food security and income, while further benefiting their health and environment by

using less water and agrochemicals.

9. More and more pit should be increased to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.



10. By using vermin compost in their land improve their soil health and also enhance

production.

3.3 Best practices vis-à-vis current practices

3.3.1 Yield difference between SRI and Conventional Method

From the field observation the difference between the best practices and current practices are

listed as below, The below table show SRI practice variation starts from seed treatment which

involves treatment of seed with fungicide which increases the germination and gives rise to

healthy seedlings.

Table 12: Yield different between conventional and SRI method/acre of Paddy Cultivation

(Source: SRI manual of jeevika)

INPUT CONVENTIONAL

Method

SRI Method

Seed 40kg 2kg

Transplanting of seedlings After 25-35 days After 8-14 days

Number of seedling 3 or more 1

Seed Treatment 0 5 gram

Fertilizer

DAP 27kg 27kg

MOP 0 27kg

URIA 54kg 39kg

ZINC 0 2kg

COMPOST 0 400kg

Water management Continuous flooding Keep soil moist but not

saturated.

Yield difference 900kg/acre 2500kg/acre



When we compare the inorganic fertilizer there is a complete reduction in usage which in turn

not only reduces the emission of green house gases but also the cost factor involved in it.

Systems of rice intensification or SRI is a methodology rather than a technology, in which the

management of soil, water, plant and nutrients is altered for greater root growth and nurturing

microbial diversity resulting in healthier soil and plant conditions.

In SRI, practices like seed rate, method of rising of seedlings in nursery, transplantation, control

of water in the main field, weeding / hoeing are modified to ensure higher ratios of tillers to

mother seedling, increased number of effective tillers per hill, enhanced panicle length and

bolder grains, or in short enhanced.

B. CARBON FINANCING

Carbon Emission

India emitted 3.3 million tons of CH4 in 2007 from 43.62 million ha cultivated for this

purpose (MOA, 2008). Of the total rice area cultivated, 52.6% was irrigated 32.4% was rain-

fed lowland, 12% was rain-fed upland and 3% was deepwater rice (Huke at el., 1997; WRS,

2008). The annual amount of CH4 emitted from a given area of rice is a function of the crop

duration, water regimes and organic soil amendments. The CH4 emissions from rice

cultivation have been estimated by multiplying the seasonal emission factors by the annual

harvested areas. The total annual emissions are equal to the sum of emissions from each sub-

unit of harvested area using the following equation.

CH4 Rice = ∑ (EFi, j, k x Ai, j, k x 10-6)

Where CH4 Rice = annual methane emissions from rice cultivation, Gg CH4/yr;

EFijk = a seasonal integrated emission factor for i, j, and k conditions, kg CH4/ha;

Aijk = annual harvested area of rice for i, j, and k conditions, ha /yr;

i j, and k = represent different ecosystems, water regimes, type and amount of organic

amendments, under which CH4 emissions from rice may vary.

Separate calculations were undertaken for each rice ecosystems (i.e., irrigated, rain fed, and

deep water rice production).



Before method adaption:

Table 13: Calculation of Methane Emission

Area Ecosystem Water regime Rice area

(ha)

Emission

factor(Kg/ha)

Methane

emission(tons)

Khagaria Rain fed Flood prone 90 190 17.1

After method adaption:

Area Ecosystem Water

regime

After

technology

adaption

Rice

area

(ha)

Emission

factor(Kg/ha)

Methane

emission(tons)

Khagaria Rain fed Flood

prone

Single

aeration

90 66 5.94

Source: moef.nic.in

Data source: Majumdar et al. (2000), Pathak et al. (2002; 2004), Bhatia et al. (2005), Malla et

al. (2005), Jain et al. (2009)

Percentage reduction in methane emission = [(17.1-5.94) / 17.1]* 100

= 65.26%

1 metric ton methane = 21 metric carbon dioxide

After adapting new technology we reduce methane emission by 11.16 metric ton

Or 11.16 X 21 = 234.36 metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent

Nitrous oxide emission factor for Bihar region having the range from 0.8Kg/ha to 1.3Kg/ha

For estimated nitrous oxide emission we take average value i.e. 1.05Kg/ha

Nitrous oxide emission = 1.05x90

= 94.5 Kg or 0.094 ton

= 0.094 X 310

= 29.36 (carbon dioxide-equivalent)

(1 metric ton of nitrous oxide =310 metric ton of CO2 equivalent)



Nitrous oxide emission from agricultural soil due to fertilizer uses having 70% proportions in

total emission. By reducing fertilizer doses to half of conventional cultivation method, 35%

decrease in nitrous oxide emission.

Therefore we reduce nitrous oxide emission by= (29.36 X35) /100

=10.276 ton CO2-eq

Total reduction = 234.36 + 10.276

= 244.636 metric tonne CO2-eq (Credit).

As we know from the World Bank data that one carbon credit is sold for 11 euro in

international market we can arrive to estimate of Rs .885 per acre worth of carbon credit can

be generated per season. Total worth of Carbon credit that can be generated in Bihar by

BRLPS: Rs 2, 45, 53,800 (Approx.).



CHAPTER 4: [SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION]

4.1 Suggestion for Improving Organic SRI:

More and more organic pit should be established in the village so that they can use only

vermin compost in the cultivation which will reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.

Training program should be give to the farmers to use vermin compost in their land who

are generally used chemical fertilizers

Exposure visits should be organized to any organization who is being involved in

preparation of organic manure.

Certain training program should be provided to prepare organic manure and also organic

pesticides.

Organic pesticides should be prepared by using cow urine and neem leafs which will

increase the yield.

It is also possible to tie up with an agricultural university in Bihar to provide and share

knowledge to the VRP about SRI technology.

4.2 Conclusion:

The farmers participating in the present study have successfully obtained a significant increase in

their rice yields by growing SRI on a small piece of their land. The main management difference

seems to be the use of one single transplant per hill and not several as in traditional growing. The

wider spacing will provide less competition for nutrients in the low fertility soils and hence a

higher yield. The farmers did not possess the equipment to control the water level in the fields,

but they were still able to increase their yields significantly. This would imply that SRI works

properly when farmers just use some of the concepts.SRI has been through many controversial

discussions about its potential in rural areas of the rice growing world. This study indicates that

by following only a few of the SRI concepts, farmers are able to increase their rice yields and

SRI could then be considered very appropriate for the poorest farmers groups with few

resources. In a world with a growing population and risks of food shortages, SRI can provide

security for the poorest groups and it should therefore receive more attention in the future

regarding research projects and recognition Nutrient balance for rice production system is very

useful in developing nutrient management strategies for sustainable production. But most of our

farmers do not know the recommended dose for SRI. The continuous and unbalanced use of the



chemical fertilizers under intensive cropping systems is one of the main causes for declining crop

yield. Moreover, the organic fertilizers can play a vital role in restoring fertility as well as

organic matter status of the cultivating soils.

The study shows that the demand of fertilizers would become significant in near future.

Therefore, it is necessary to increase the production organic fertilizer in domestic level. Under

such situations, there is no alternative but to add organic fertilizer in the soils to sustain crop

productivity and to increase fertility. The prices of the imported fertilizers will continue to

increase in the coming years due to high price of oil in internal market and raw materials for

fertilizer production. Therefore, mobilization of all organic resources and recycling them into

soil fertilization program must be considered. From this it can emphasize the use of organic

fertilizer for SRI.



REFRENCE

1. National colloquium on system of crop intensification.

2. Indian Council for Climate Change Assessment Report

3. Financial Express

4. Majumdar et al. (2000), Pathak et al. (2002; 2004), Bhatia et al. (2005), Malla et al.

(2005), Jain et al. (2009)

5. Annual Report 2009-2010 of Jeevika

6. Carbon finance guide

7. SRI manual of Jeevika

8. http://etd.uasd.edu/ft/th8678.pdf

9. www.krishiseva.com

10. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2002/04/04/stories/2002040400120400.htm

11. www.moef.nic.in

12. www.mohfw.nic.in

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may252003/1317.pdf

http://etd.uasd.edu/ft/th8678.pdf

http://www.krishiseva.com/

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2002/04/04/stories/2002040400120400.htm

http://www.moef.nic.in/

http://www.mohfw.nic.in/

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may252003/1317.pdf



Annexure:

Annexure 1:

Organogram of BRLPS



Annexture 2

SYSTEM OF RICE INTESIFICATION METHOD

In SRI technique frequent

weeding Is required and some weedier Machine is operated within an time Interval of 10-15 days.

Transplantation should take place after the seedlings are 10-12 days. It is very necessary maintain ten inch of space.

Where possible, small

applications of water, or

alternate wetting and drying

during the growth period.

just 1-2 cm of water on fields

after the plants flower.

After 8-14 the seedling is ready to transplant in the field. 1 -2 seedlings transplanted with shallow depth 1-2 cm in the soil.

To maintain the moisture level

of land SRI technique requires

leveling and ranking Land.

In SRI it is necessary to

prepare six seedbeds for

1acre land and it should be

nutrient rich.



Annexure 3:

Basic SRI Management Practices

Rice plants -- Seedlings are transplanted:

very young -- usually just 8-12 days old, with just two small leaves

carefully and quickly to have minimum trauma to the roots

singly, only one per hill instead of 3-4 together to avoid root competition

widely spaced to encourage greater root and canopy growth

in a square grid pattern, 25x25 cm or wider in good quality soil

Some farmers are experimenting with direct-seeding adaptations of SRI principles, and even

with mechanized transplanting. So these recommendations concern how to transplant rice most

productively if transplanting is done. SRI is not a recipe of precise things to do, but rather a

menu for bringing out rice plants’ potential.

Soil -- This is kept moist but well-drained and aerobic, with good structure and enough organic

matter to support increased biological activity. The quality and health of the soil is the key to

best production.

Water -- Only a minimum of water is applied during the vegetative growth period, and thereafter

only a thin layer of water is maintained on the field during flowering and grain-filling.

Alternatively, to save labor time, some farmers flood and drain (dry) their fields in 3-5 day

cycles with good results. Best water management practices depend on soil type, labor availability

and other factors, so farmers should experiment on how best to apply the principle of having

moist but well-drained soil while their rice plants are growing.

Nutrients -- Soil nutrient supplies should be augmented, preferably with compost, made from

any available biomass. Better quality compost such as with manure can give additional yield

advantages. Chemical fertilizer can be used and gives better results than with no nutrient

amendments, but it does not enhance soil structure and microbial communities in the rhizosphere

as applying organic matter accomplishes. At least initially, nutrient amendments may not be

necessary to achieve higher yields with the other SRI practices, but it is desirable to build up soil

fertility over time. Root exudation, greater with SRI, enhances soil fertility.

Weeds -- Since weeds become a problem in fields that are not kept flooded, weeding is

necessary several times, starting 10-12 days after transplanting, and if possible, every 10-12 days



until before the canopy closes. Using a rotary hoe -- a simple, inexpensive, mechanical push-

weeder -- has the advantage of aerating the soil at the same time that weeds are eliminated. (They

are left in the soil to decompose so their nutrients are not lost.) Additional weedings beyond two

can increase yield more than enough under most conditions to more than justify the added labor

costs.

Advantages of SRI

Plants get proper environment to grow at an appropriate stage resulting in more number

of productive tillers and synchronous flowering.

Since 8-12 days old seedlings are planted, main field leveling becomes a necessity.

Proper leveling helps in water saving and better use of other inputs.

It helps in maintaining adequate plant population per unit area.

Timely weeding with cono- weeder makes more nutrients available to plants.

Proper spacing allows more sun light and aeration to the lower leaves, making them

active for a longer period.

This results in sturdy stem, active leaves, more number of filled grains per panicle and

more grain weight.

With proper sun light and aeration, micro-climate is not formed which helps in

minimizing incidence of insect-pests and pathogens.

SRI can increase both land and labour productivity compared to conventional practice.

An average paddy yield of 8-9 tons per hectare is possible with high yielding varieties.

Mechanical weeding adds about 2 t/ha weed- bio-mass during the whole crop season

thereby improves the soil health.

The cost of seeds is reduced drastically because only about 2.0 kg of seeds per acre is

required in this method.

It is a good method for organic farming as high-yield can be achieved by green manuring

and compost application.

Total water requirement for rice production is also reduced as continuous submergence is

not needed.

With large number of tillers the rice- bio-mass is also increased. Rice straw has multiple

uses to the farming families.

It is a very valuable alternative for small farmers with limited land endowment.

Higher yield: The yield of paddy by SRI is found to be two to three times higher than by

traditional method.



Annexure 5:

List of Identified Land (In Acre) For The Purpose Of Carbon Credit

Farmers Data base:

DATA BASE OF KHAGARIA.

Annexure 6:

Format of structured Questionnaire:

SHG

Name

SHG

Member

Husband

Name

VO

Name

Village

Name

Block

Name

District

Name

Total

Land

SRI

Land

Own

land

Lease

land

FGD Questionnaire

1. How you feel about the SRI technique?

2. Comparative analysis of cost between TM and SRI Method?

3. What are the major differences between TM and SRI Method?

4. What are the major reasons for the difference in production?

5. How much more is the average increase in grain production?

6. What are the difficult aspects of SRI?

7. Do you have any alternative method of weeding?

8. What and when the risks are if field cannot be moisten in short of irrigation?

9. How difficult is to control water during monsoon in water logging area to dry the land?

10. What age of seedling did you find better?

11. In future what do you prefer, Traditional method with hybrid variety or SRI with local

variety?

12. Do you think production will be more in SRI with hybrid seed?

13. Use of chemical fertilizer or compost: In which you think production will be more?

14. What are the advantages of getting more tillers?

15. What are the difference in the productive tillers between the traditional method and SRI?

16. How do you perceive water saving in SRI compare to TM?



17. Disease and pest resistant capability of SRI?

18. What would be the appropriate spacing for SRI?

19. What you have observed on the lodging of the rice plants?

20. What do you think about vermi compost usage?

21. Is vermi compost easily available?

22. Do you think the usage of vermi compost increases the yield?

23. Can you convince others easily about SRI?



LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND APPENDIX:

1. BRLPS - BIHAR RURAL LIVELIHOOD PROMOTION SOCIETY

2. BPIU - BLOCK PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT.

3. CER - CERTIFIED EMISSION REDUCTION.

4. CDM - CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM.

5. DAP - DI - AMMONIUM PHOSPAHATE

6. DPCU - DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATION UNIT.

7. SRI - SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION.

8. SWI - SYSTEM OF WHEAT INTENSIFICATION.

9. GHG - GREEN HOUSE GAS.

10. VRP - VILLAGE RESOURCE PERSON.

11. VO - VILLAGE ORGANIZATION

12. HA- HECTARE

13. CO2: CARBON DIOXIDE

Date post:	07-Aug-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	debotosh-mahato
View:	42 times
Download:	11 times

Field Research Report

Documents