System of Rice Intensification

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a methodology aimed at increasing the yield of rice produced in farming. It is a low water, labor-intensive, method that uses younger seedlings singly spaced and typically hand weeded with special tools. It was developed in 1983 by the French Jesuit Father Henri de Laulanié in Madagascar. However full testing and spread of the system throughout the rice growing regions of the world did not occur until some years later with the help of Universities like Cornell. Assembly of the practices that culminated in SRI began in the 1960s based on Fr. de Laulanie's observations. Principles included applying a minimum quantity of water and the individual transplanting of very young seedlings in a square pattern. SRI concepts and practices have continued to evolve as they are being adapted to rain-fed (unirrigated) conditions and with transplanting being superseded by direct-seeding sometimes. The central principles of SRI according to Cornell University, New York are: The spread of SRI from Madagascar to around the globe has been credited to Norman Uphoff, former director of the Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York from 1990 to 2005. In 1993, Uphoff met officials from Association Tefy Saina, the non-governmental organisation set up in Madagascar in 1990 by de Laulanie to promote SRI. After seeing the success of SRI for three years when Malagasy farmers previously averaging 2 tons/hectare averaged 8 tons/hectare with SRI, Uphoff became persuaded of the merits of the system, and in 1997 started to promote SRI in Asia. Uphoff estimates that by 2013 the number of smallholder farmers using SRI had grown to between 4 and 5 million. The rapid spread of SRI around the globe and especially in India can be partially attributed to the smart communication strategies by its proponents in which several newspapers in India disproportionately provided coverage on SRI and effective coalition building among several national and international organisations. Proponents and critics of SRI debate the claimed benefits and many questions about it remain unresolved. Wageningen University has also published an article discussing the challenges of evaluating SRI in which one concluding sentence read: 'Although the technical aspects of SRI have been contested, it clearly exists as a real social phenomenon'. The question at hand seems to be: is SRI better at delivering increased yield and other benefits to rice farmers, such as healthier soils, when compared with established recommended best management practices for rice production? A review of the extensive literature led researchers at Cornell to conclude SRI on average increased yields 20–200%, improved resistance to environmental stresses, and both increased carbon sink activity while reducing emissions, making it a triple-win situation for agriculture, climate security, and food security. Proponents of SRI claim its use increases yield, saves water, reduces production costs, and increases income and that benefits have been achieved in 40 countries. Uphoff published an article in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability that states that SRI 'can raise irrigated rice yields to about double the present world average without relying on external inputs, also offering environmental and equity benefits'. A special issue on SRI in the non-SCI scientific journal Paddy and Water Environment collected recent findings in support of SRI. In 2011 five farmers reported that they had beaten the old yield record, the best was a young farmer named Sumant Kumar, who reported setting a new world record in rice production of 22.4 tons per hectare using SRI, beating the existing world record held by the Chinese scientist Yuan Longping by 3 tons. In 2014 S Sethumadhavan from Alanganallur, India reported a record yield of nearly 24 tonnes of paddy rice per hectare using SRI. These reported records were not obtained under audited supervision nor under standard methods for measuring yields. They were not subjected to peer review, being reported only in the popular press, and are suspected to be physically impossible in the localities where they were obtained.