Council on Energy, Environment and Water Integrated | International | Independent
System of rice intensification, or SRI, is a climate-smart agroecological methodology for increasing the productivity of rice and other crops by changing the management of the plant, soil, water, and nutrients. It was developed in Madagascar in the 1980s by French Jesuit Father Henri de Laulanié, not as an outcome of scientific research, but instead through personal experiments and observations. SRI is based on four main principles that interact with each other:
1. Early, quick, and healthy plant establishment
2. Reduced plant density
3. Improved soil conditions through enhancing soil organic matter
4. Reduced and controlled water application.
These principles give rise to a set of practices that farmers can adapt to their specific agroecological and socioeconomic conditions. The most common methods are summarised below.1 2 3
1. Transplanting of very young seedlings: Generally, between 8 and 15 days old to preserve the plant's inherent growth potential for rooting and tillering.
2. Planting seedlings singly: Transplanting a single seedling per mound instead of many seedlings often plunged into the soil, inverting and damaging the root tips.
3. Wider spacing: Reducing the plant population radically by spacing mounds further apart, at least 25 x 25 cm and in some cases even 50 x 50 cm, and in a square pattern rather than in rows, so that both the roots and canopy have room to grow and can have greater access to nutrients and sunlight.
4. Unflooded irrigation: Provide growing plants with sufficient water to meet the needs of roots, shoots, and soil biota, but never in excess during the plants’ vegetative growth phase (up to the stage of flowering and grain production), so that the roots do not suffocate and degenerate.
5. Inter-cultivation: Using a simple mechanical hand weeder (or a rotary hoe) to aerate the soil and control weeds. Active soil aeration improves rice crop growth by benefiting both roots and beneficial aerobic soil organisms.
6. Using more organic manure or compost: To improve the soil organic matter and support beneficial soil organisms.
In principle, System of Rice Intensification adheres to and promotes most of the agroecological elements as defined by the FAO
| ELEMENTS | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| Co-creation and sharing of knowledge | Unlike other farming methods, SRI is not based on material inputs. Instead, it evolved as a knowledge-based system, and hence knowledge sharing is crucial. In India, it was traditionally practiced in the southern states as single-seeding planting. Over the years, the practice has emerged as a technology through experimentation and knowledge exchange between farmers, civil society organizations, and the scientific community. |
| Synergies | The root and shoot elongations with SRI indicate the promising potential for biological synergy through the interaction of different elements. |
| Effeciency | Water efficiency is the most crucial aspect of SRI. The use of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) for crop management under SRI results in less water consumption. It increases yields, making the water-saving method profitable for farmers.*The practice also encourages less use of synthetic agro-inputs. |
| Recycling | Weeding in SRI is mostly mechanical — a simple push weeder. The incorporation of weeds into the soil enables nutrients to be recycled. |
| Resilience | Rice plants under SRI have larger, deeper, non-senescing, and stronger root systems, making the crop more resilient in water-stressed areas and to the pounding of rain and wind during storms.” The reduced cost of seeds (especially the expensive hybrids) and fertilizers, along with increased yields, build economic resilience. |
Research on SRI was promoted in 2002-03 by the state agricultural universities in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The extension of SRI techniques began slowly in India due to yield-loss apprehensions surrounding SRI principles. However, farmers’ success stories have enabled its adoption to be scaled up, especially in the last five years. Thus ‘seeing is believing’ has been a powerful prompt for SRI adoption. SRI's water-saving potential was one of the most important levers to convince many farmers and civil society organizations to adopt and experiment with SRI and its practices in India's southern states. Since then, many civil society organizations and institutional entrepreneurs have popularised SRI principles in different states of the country. At the policy level, SRI is considered a necessary means of boosting national rice production under India's National Food Security Mission (NFSM) in 133 food-insecure districts.
How much area in India is under SRI? There is increasing involvement by farmers, civil society organizations, government institutions, research agencies, and funders to promote SRI adoption in India. While there is no information on the area under SRI in India, the consultations suggested it could be anywhere between 3-4 million hectares across different states.
How many farmers in India are practicing SRI? There is no reliable recent information on the adoption rate of SRI in India. However, a National Consultative Meeting on upscaling SRI at the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) in New Delhi in 2016 suggested that more than three million farmers across the country have recognized SRI's benefits and adopted these practices. Consultations with civil society organizations hinted this number could be higher.6 Figure 1. 50-95% of the districts in highlighted states practice SRI
Where in India is SRI prevalent? The first few states to adopt SRI were Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, and Pondicherry. States such as Tripura, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat, Odisha, and Jharkhand are also actively engaged in SRI promotion (Figure 1). It is also being 9 promoted in other states by the Tata & Trusts.
Which are the major crops cultivated under SRI in India?
In addition to rice, the SRI principles are now applied to other crops as well. This includes wheat, sugarcane, pulses, finger millets, and mustard. When applied to other crops, the practice is referred to as the System of Crop Intensification.
Since 2008, a Tata Trust project has been promoting SRI with a consortium of NGOs across several states in India. Thus far, the program has covered over 170,000 farmers in 3,500 villages, spread across 104 districts in Odisha, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. In Odisha, NGOs like Sambhav and PRADAN have been spreading SRI in different parts of the state.7
The SRI website of Cornell University (SRI-Rice), the SRI website of the Watershed Support Services and Activities Network (WASSAN), and popular journals have all documented SRI's impact on various indicators in India. At the close of 2019, the number of items in the India SRI research collection maintained by SRI-Rice was 648, of which 548 journals address SRI in India.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
There is substantial evidence documenting an increase in yields for various paddy varieties under SRI in different parts of the country than conventional rice systems. The basis for this increase is visible in larger root systems, the greater number of tillers, and more and longer panicles.”!*The papers suggest the average increase in yields can vary anywhere between 20-50 percent (and more in a few cases). This variation in yields depends on many factors — the rice variety, climatic conditions, how well the SRI practices are implemented and managed, and the crops’ biological dynamics.11
The efficient use of natural resources under SRI, when compared to conventional agriculture, is also well documented. Under SRI, paddy nursery is raised using 5-8 kgs of seeds per hectare on average, compared with the usual 40-50 kgs. This saves input costs for farmers and reduces workloads, especially for women. However, drudgery in the weeder operation is a significant constraint. The direct and indirect input requirements for rice cultivation using an input-output model decreased when cultivation shifted from traditional to SRI.12 Another benefit of SRI, which is less frequently documented, is that improved grain quality causes less breakage of grains during milling, resulting in about 10-15 percent more edible rice produced per bag of harvested paddy than conventional methods.13 More research is required on this subject.
Despite the improved yields and low-cost benefits of SRI, India's adoption rate is still very low. One of the significant challenges highlighted in the literature and our interviews was the labour-intensive nature of the practice and the lack of a skilled workforce available at the right time for planting operations.14 15 However, with experience and knowledge, the labour requirement per hectare can decline. In the absence of a wide range of appropriate equipment, especially seed drills, transplanters, weeders, and markers, many farmers (especially large farmers) do not find SRI an efficient and feasible rice cultivation method.
Increased net income and greater profitability are the quantifiable benefits of SRI. However, these economic impacts are “very context-specific and depend on micro-level socioeconomic and agroecological conditions.” One of the significant savings under SRI is the reduction in seed costs. Since it requires only a single seedling to be transplanted per hill at a wider spacing, fewer seeds are needed in SRI than in conventional rice cultivation, resulting in lower production costs. The savings are even more significant for hybrid seeds, which are usually more expensive than the other traditional varieties. Similarly, there is evidence of reduced nursery preparation costs under SRI.
Simultaneously, the need for higher and more skilled labour (initially) is considered a significant constraint under SRI. Being a knowledge- rather than input-intensive innovation, the lack of skilled labour hinders its adoption. On the other hand, some studies indicate that SRI is not any more labor demanding for countries like India, where labour-intensive rice cultivation already happens. Instead, SRI methods have substantially reduced farmers’ need for hired labour as family members now manage many operations. In this case, low-caring opportunities for agricultural labourers could be a social cost of the system.16
SOCIAL IMPACT
There is a scope for more research to develop the methodology for studying SRI's impact on health outcomes.
SRI reduces the workload and drudgery for women farmers. As mentioned before, seed requirements are reduced significantly due to wider spacing. This reduces women’s workload as they now have smaller nurseries to manage. Similarly, traditionally weeding is done by hand, mainly by women. However, using a mechanical hand weeder saves time and, most importantly, improves the working posture. This lighter workload gives women time for other things, allowing them to generate more income (stakeholder consultation).
In India, many NGOs engage especially with women farmers in SRI as part of their development programs. The training and skill enhancement women receive empowers them, builds grassroots leadership, and in some cases, has also resulted in women starting to exert their influence on sustainable farming policies (stakeholder consultation).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The impact of SRI practices on root development and functioning is a growing area of research in India, with several studies documenting the positive effects. The use of single young seedlings reduced plant densities, mechanical weeders, and AWD helps in soil aeration, enhances organic matter, and improves soil physio-chemical and biological properties.
One of the criticisms of SRI has been the exploratory nature of evidence. Given that soil biological parameters vary greatly and are sensitive to different soil chemical, physical, and hydrological conditions, there is a need for more systematic research into these specific causes.
SRI's positive impact on water productivity is well established in the literature worldwide, including in India. At an individual plant level, phenotypes from SRI practice are "physiologically more water-efficient, synthesizing more carbohydrates in their leaves per unit of water taken up by their roots.” Areas where water constraints have become more challenging, such as a phenotypic increase in water use efficiency, will benefit.
A meta-analysis of water productivity under SRI management reviewed 29 published studies with 251 comparison trials conducted across eight countries that reported lower total water requirements per hectare (irrigation and rainfall) under SRI. This averaged 12.03 million liters, compared with 15.33 million liters under the best non-SRI management practices in those areas.18 Further, with alternate wetting and drying (AWD) practices, not only is less water consumed, but yields also increase, making water-saving more profitable.19
However, efficient water control, both for irrigated and rainfed conditions, is frequently mentioned as an SRI challenge. It is difficult to have young seedlings ready for transplanting in rainfed areas due to a lack of control over the water supply. It is also not easy to fix a schedule for AWD and have an in-field irrigation water application. In the irrigated areas, farmers can have difficulties “controlling the timing and volumes of water applied as they depend on field-to-field flows or have to work within fixed and uniform water distribution schedules. In areas where irrigation is free of charge, there is no incentive to economize on water applications.”20
Conventional rice cultivation demands a large amount of water, which is a highly energy-intensive resource. SRI reduces the water demand significantly; it could be superior in energy consumption, net energy, energy use efficiency, energy productivity, energy intensity, and energy profitability. However, there is very little research done in India on this indicator.
A field experiment conducted in the Red Lateritic zone of West Bengal to compare the energy use and energy input-output relationship of SRI with conventional transplanting (CT) showed that CT consumed almost 62 percent more energy than SRI. Maximum energy input was associated with non-renewable and indirect sources. Higher doses of nitrogenous fertilizer contributed 32.35 percent and 26.26 percent to the total input energy in CT and SRI, respectively.21
Many studies document the lower methane (CH4) emissions from SRI globally. In India, however, there is still scope for creating such evidence in different climatic conditions.
Reductions in CH: Emissions under SRI are often less marked for rainfed areas than for irrigated production. Still, they could be reduced further by avoiding rainwater as possible on lowland rice paddies during and after rain22 However, while SRI rice paddies with less flooding would produce less CHy, they may produce more N2O. “Compared to soils that are always saturated and thus hypoxic, acrobic soils have a greater supply of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3s—N) through the process of nitrification.23
At the Indian Agricultural Research Institute site in New Delhi, SRI methods were found to reduce CHy emissions by 62 percent but to increase N2O emissions by 23 percent compared to conventional irrigated rice crop management with the same integrated nutrient management.24 Considered together, these effects amounted to a 28 percent net reduction in global warming potential (GWP) per hectare.25 A life-cycle assessment of total Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Andhra Pradesh reported that SRI reduced total GHG emissions by more than 25 percent per hectare. In addition to the increased yield, net emissions per kgs of rice were lowered by more than 60 percent.26
Nonetheless, the long-term carbon sequestration effects of growing rice plants with SRI methods remain to be evaluated more systematically.
No literature available.
State of available research discussing the impact of conservation farming on various outcomes.
|
Evidence type |
Yield |
Income |
Health |
Gender |
Soil & nutrients |
Water |
Energy |
GHG emissions |
Bio-diversity |
|
Journals |
34 |
10 |
1 |
2 |
12 |
36 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Reports |
6 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Articles/Case Studies |
7 |
7 |
0 |
15 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Others** |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
50 |
28 |
1 |
21 |
15 |
52 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
** Thesis, guidelines, conference papers, etc Source: Authors' compilation
Note — The evidence is from the first 75 results examined in Google Scholar Advanced search and the first 30 results from Google Advanced Search. Only those papers which clearly established the evidence for different indicators were selected.
The following institutions are involved in the research and promotion of conservation farming; a few were consulted for this research:
|
Government institutions |
Research/implementation institutions |
NGOs/Civil society organisations |
|
Indian Institute of Rice Research (IRR) - Hyderabad |
SRI - an initiative of ICRISAT - WWF project |
Watershed Support Services and Activities Network (WASSAN) |
|
Krishi Vigyan Kendra |
ICRISAT - Patancheru |
AME Foundation |
|
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) |
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) |
VOICE Trust |
|
Indian Council of Research (ICAR) |
M S Swaminathan Research Foundation |
PRADAN |
Source: Authors' compilation
Note — The stakeholders list is indicative and not exhaustive
1 SRI-International Network and Resources Centre. 2017. “Journal articles about the system of rice intensification”, webpage, SRI International Network and Resources Center, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/research/journalArticles.html (accessed 20 Oct 2020).
2 Directorate of Rice Development, P. 2010. "System of Rice Intensification (Sri) - Principles and Methods.” In Directorate of Rice Development, Patna (pp. 1-6).
3 Thakur, A.K., Singh, R. and K. Ashwani. 2014. "The science behind the system of rice intensification (SRI)." Research Bulletin No. 69, Directorate of Water Management (ICAR), Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
4 Thakur, AK, RK. Mohanty, D.U. Paul, and A. Kumar. 2014. “Impact of water management on yield and water productivity with system of rice intensification (SRI) and conventional transplanting system in rice”. Paddy Water Environ. 12:413-424. doi:10.1007/5s10333-013-0397-8.
5 Thakur, AK, Singh, R. and K. Ashwani. 2014. "The science behind the system of rice intensification (SRI)." Research Bulletin No. 69, Directorate of Water Management (ICAR), Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
6 National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and the National Consortium on SRI. 2016. Summary of the Proceedings & Recommendations of the National Consultative Meeting on Upscaling SCI/SRI, 10 September 2016, NAAS, New Delhi. http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/countries/india/India_Natl_Consult_on_Upsc...
7 Tata Trusts. 2020. “System of rice intensification initiative”. Webpage. Tata Trusts, Mumbai. https://www.tatatrusts.org/our-work/livelihood/agriculture-practices/sys...(accessed 12 Nov 2020).
8 SRI-International Network and Resources Centre. 2017. “Journal articles about the system of rice intensification”, webpage, SRI International Network and Resources Center, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/research/JournalArticles.html (accessed 20 Oct 2020).
9 Gopalakrishnan, S., R. Mahender Kumar, P. Humayun, V. Srinivas, B.R. Kumari, and R. Vijayabharati et al. 2013. “Assessment of different methods of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation affecting growth parameters, soil chemical, biological and microbiological properties, water saving, and grain yield in the rice-rice system”. Paddy Water Environ 12, 79-87 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/5s10333-013-0362-6
10 Thakur, A.K., N. Uphoff, and W.A. Stoop. 2016. “Scientific underpinnings of the system of rice intensification (SRI): What is known so far?” Adv. Agron. 135:147-179. doi: 10.1016/bs.agron.2015.09.004.
11 Thakur, A.K., and N. Uphoff. 2017. “How the system of rice intensification can contribute to climate-smart agriculture”. Agron. J. 109:1-20 (2017) doi:10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162.
12 Vasishth, M. 2014. “Input use and agriculture in India: an analysis of system of rice intensification using I/O approach”, unpublished Master's Dissertation, TERT University, New Delhi.
13 Thakur, A.K., and N. Uphoft. 2017. “How the system of rice intensification can contribute to climate-smart agriculture”. Agron. J. 109:1-20 (2017) doi:10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162.
14 Palanisami, K., K.R. Karunakaran, U. Amarasinghe, and C.R. Rangamuthu. 2013. “Doing different things or doing it differently? Rice intensification practices in 13 states of India”. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 48:51-58
15 Thakur, A.K., and N. Uphoff. 2017. “How the system of rice intensification can contribute to climate-smart agriculture”. Agron. J. 109:1-20 (2017) doi:10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162.
16 Gathorne Hardy, A., D. Narasimha Reddy, M. Venkatanarayana, and B. Harriss-White. 2016. “System of rice intensification provides environmental and economic gains but at the expense of social sustainability- A multidisciplinary analysis in India”. Agric. Syst. 143:159-168. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.012
17 Thakur, A.K., and N. Uphoff. 2017. “How the system of rice intensification can contribute to climate-smart agriculture”. Agron. J. 109:1-20 (2017) doi:10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162.
18 Jagannath, P., H. Pullabhotla, and N. Uphoff. 2013. “Meta-analysis evaluating water use, water saving, and water productivity in irrigated production of rice with SRI vs. standard management methods”. Taiwan Water Conserv. 61:14-49.
19 Thakur, A.K., and N. Uphoft. 2017. “How the system of rice intensification can contribute to climate-smart agriculture”. Agron. J. 109:1-20 (2017) doi:10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162.
20 Ibid
21 Ibid
22 Ibid
23 Jain, N., R. Dubey, D.S. Dubey, J. Singh, M. Khanna, H. Pathak, and A. Bhatia. 2014. “Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission with system of rice intensification in the Indo-Gangetic Plains”. Paddy Water Environ. 12:355-363. doi:10.1007/s10333-013-0390-2
24 Thakur, A.K., and N. Uphoff. 2017. “How the system of rice intensification can contribute to climate-smart agriculture”. Agron. J. 109:1-20 (2017) doi:10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162.
25 Jain, N., R. Dubey, D.S. Dubey, J. Singh, M. Khanna, H. Pathak, and A. Bhatia. 2014. “Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission with system of rice intensification in the Indo-Gangetic Plains”. Paddy Water Environ. 12:355-363. doi:10.1007/s10333-013-0390-2
26 Gathorne Hardy, A., D. Narasimha Reddy, M. Venkatanarayana, and B. Harriss-White. 2016. “System of rice intensification provides environmental and economic gains but at the expense of social sustainability- A multidisciplinary analysis in India”. Agric. Syst. 143:159-168. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.012
Suggested citation: Gupta, Nid, Shanal Pradhan, Abhishek Jain, and Nayha Patel. 2021. Sustainable Agriculture in India 2021: What We Know and How to Scale Up. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water
The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) is one of Asia’s leading not-for-profit policy research institutions. The Council uses data, integrated analysis, and strategic outreach to explain — and change — the use, reuse, and misuse of resources. It prides itself on the independence of its high-quality research, develops partnerships with public and private institutions, and engages with wider public. In 2021, CEEW once again featured extensively across ten categories in the 2020 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. The Council has also been consistently ranked among the world’s top climate change think tanks. Follow us on Twitter @ CEEWIndia for the latest updates.
FOLU Coalition: Established in 2017, the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) is a community of organizations and individuals committed to the urgent need to transform the way food is produced and consumed and use the land for people, nature, and climate. It supports science-based solutions and helps build a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities to unlock collective, ambitious action. The Coalition builds on the work of the Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land Use, and Energy (FABLE) Consortium teams which operate in more than 20 countries. In India, the work of FOLU is being spearheaded by a core group of five organizations: the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Revitalising Rainfed Agriculture Network (RRAN) and WRI India.
Contact [email protected]/ [email protected] for queries
