WWF has a news release today announcing the publication of a study on the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), a set of practices initially developed in Madagascar in the 1980s. ((If you’re wondering why WWF is publishing a report on agriculture: “WWF is focusing on sustainable agriculture efforts for cotton, sugar and rice, some of the most consuming crops for which alternative techniques can result in a strong yield and water savings.”))
The system is based on eight principles which are different to conventional rice cultivation. They include developing nutrient-rich and un-flooded nurseries instead of flooded ones; ensuring wider spacing between rice seedlings; preferring composts or manure to synthetic fertilizers; and managing water carefully to avoid that the plants’ roots are not saturated.
The WWF study says SRI is more water-efficient and productive: in India, yields have apparently risen by 30%, while water use has decreased by 40%. No word on its effects on local agrobiodiversity. Yet. But methane emissions are supposed to go down. Nevertheless, there has been some criticism of SRI in the past.
In 2004, the International Year of Rice, a thoughtful news item in Nature set out the two sides of the debate, including a dismissive paper in Field Crops Research by US and Chinese scientists ((J. E. Sheehy, S. Peng, A. Dobermann, P. L. Mitchell, A. Ferrer, Jianchang Yang, Yingbin Zou, Xuhua Zhong and Jianliang Huang, Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy?, Field Crops Research, Volume 88, Issue 1, 10 June 2004, Pages 1-8.)) and retorts from SRI practitioners:
In some ways, the debate resembles that currently raging over organic agriculture. For advocates, SRI is a grassroots movement to resist the influence of global agribusiness by reducing dependence on chemical inputs. Detractors call it a waste of time that is diverting resources from more promising approaches such as genetic engineering.
Despite the doubts, the method seems to have spread, for example in India. So is it that it works in some places (e.g., Madagascar, although…) and not others? Or in some years and not others? Or on some varieties and not others? The WWF study says it works fine on traditional landraces:
In 2006, Kishan Rao, an enthusiastic SRI Farmer from Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh, tried SRI method to grow rakthasaali, an indigenous variety of rice common in Puri district of Orissa. The variety is so named because the grains are red in colour, and locally it is believed that regular consumption of the grains would enrich blood quality. Cultivated for hundreds of years, it had remained untouched by modern-day breeders. About 400 grams of pre-germinated seed was sown on a piece of land measuring 685 sq. m. Only well-composted manure was liberally applied one month after transplantation. The crop grew vigorously and reached a height of 5 feet 9 inches. With healthy and profuse tillering, it yielded about 270 kg or 3.938 tonnes per ha in a crop period of 130 days. Disease incidence was not observed at all. This initiative demonstrates amply that even indigenous varieties perform well if SRI methodology is used and that SRI is ideal in giving impoverished rural communities the much-needed food and health security, while conserving scarce natural resources, particularly water.
WWF has been collaborating with ICRISAT, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU), the Directorate of Rice Research (DRR), the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), NGOs and farmers to evaluate and publicise SRI in India since 2000. Not a great deal in the way of data is presented in the report published today, but the conclusion it comes to is a pretty strong one:
The System of Rice Intensification has shown convincingly that it can increase farmers’ rice yields, while using less water and lowering production costs.
But why is IRRI not included in the project? Are there still some reservations in that quarter, I wonder? ((Googling “system for rice intensification” gives over 33,000 hits. Add IRRI and that goes down to 500.)) They’re the rice experts, after all.
4 Replies to “Intensifying rice”