The System of Rice Intensifi cation (SRI) 89and presented a review on its current status, reporting statements for and against.
The ‘SRI’ coordinating website, managed by The Cornell International Institute for
Food, Agriculture and Development (http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri) provides an over-
view of the set of management practices that define SRI and documents what is
happening globally with SRI, mainly at farmer’s field level.
Many small-scale SRI farmers are witnessing phenomena that are entirely
novel within their lifelong experiences. Individual rice plant, grown from both
traditional and ‘Green Revolution’ improved varieties, are seen to respond to SRI
growing conditions with unexpected increased vigour in three major areas – roots,
vegetative parts and grain yield. These responses, at the individual plant level, are
real. It has been found that improved varieties respond positively, usually better
than traditional varieties, but the latter also have given some remarkable increases
in yield and profitability (Koma, 2002; Anthofer, 2004).
In many cases, farmers are claiming that the positive responses at the individual
plant level have translated into higher crop yields while reducing key inputs, in par-
ticular, seeds, synthetic fertilizers and water. Controversy surrounds particular aspects
of these lower input claims: some say labour demands have increased, e.g. for weed-
ing; some say unsustainable levels of organic matter are required; some argue that
crop yields have been unrealistically extrapolated from small experimental plots.
It would be simplistic to say that the enormous gains achieved in rice production
by the Green Revolution technologies have been entirely due to the development
and use of certain genotypes that respond favourably to high inputs of synthetic
fertilizers. But, to the extent that these two elements fuelled the Green Revolution,
it created a path dependency which has demanded continual genetic improvements
to maintain production levels, let alone increased production from limited land. It
is also acknowledged that the Green Revolution, by increasing dependency on exter-
nal inputs and alien technology, reduced the opportunity and incentive for farmers
to manage their natural resources and make their own crop management decisions.
In essence, the Green Revolution had tended to disempower rice farmers.
Biotechnology favours the notion that ‘the solution lies in the seed’ and gives
renewed enthusiasm to supporters of the Green Revolution philosophy. It is not
surprising that some of the Green Revolution scientists have dismissed SRI as an
unnecessary distraction (Sheehy et al, 2004; Sinclair and Cassman, 2004; McDon-
ald et al, 2006). Sinclair (2004) described SRI reports as an ‘Agronomic UFO’
(unidentified field observation); while Sheehy et al (2005) labelled SRI ‘a flawed
idea and nonsense curiosity’. These characterizations say more about the emotions
SRI has generated than about scientific reasoning or investigation. The reality is
that millions of smallholder rice farmers in developing countries are experiencing
a wide gap between potential and actual farm yield (Papademetriou et al, 2000;
Stoop and Kassam, 2005; McDonald et al, 2006). The gap has become manifest at
a time when scientists are claiming that rice yield is approaching a limit.
This gap and current economic exigencies should be providing an incentive
for farmers to explore the potential of novel options. Why is SRI attracting the
lion’s share of attention? SRI offers a set of management practices that farmers