90 The Global Food System
can evaluate, adapt and then adopt to meet their own local requirements, rather
than adopt some preset package of practices. Moreover, it relies minimally on
external inputs and maximally on farmers acquiring and using new knowledge.
The FAO Community IPM programme in Asia (www.communityipm.org/) dem-
onstrated the ability and willingness of rice farmers to become experts at growing
a healthy crop. For example, these empowered farmers learned the merits of con-
servation biological control – exploiting local biodiversity to manage pests instead
of the unnecessary use of synthetic pesticides – a process labelled ‘informed non-
intervention’(Gallagher et al, 2005). SRI provides farmers with a new set of options
that create considerable scope for ‘informed intervention’ (Stoop et al, 2002); for
example, careful, rapid and shallow transplanting of younger seedlings, that are
more widely spaced and use less water. These interventions are counter-intuitive,
given current practices and beliefs, and certainly grate with the guiding influence
of a rich tapestry of traditions that go back many generations. However, empow-
ered farmers, determined to increase production sustainably, are prepared to
explore all aspects of SRI practices, mindful of local agronomic conditions. To the
extent that SRI is and will continue to be a successful innovation, an explanation
for SRI’s apparent popularity lies in the central role played by farmers.
Proponents of SRI argue that there are synergistic effects among the recom-
mended practices, giving more increase in yield when all are used together rather
than when practices are used singly and separately. Some are dismissive of any
‘reductionist’ approach which entails teasing apart the individual and combined
impacts of specific components of SRI on plant growth. However, the claimed
synergistic effect of components of SRI practice rekindles some latent issues that
are still not given adequate attention, by either ‘opponents’ or ‘proponents’ of SRI.
One such critical issue is the contribution of root vigour towards yield. The evi-
dence that SRI produce vigorous plants with larger root systems has been recog-
nized (Dobermann, 2004; Stoop, 2005), but why roots can make so much
difference to yield is not fully understood. Therefore, the contribution of rice roots
to the grain yield demands research intervention as a priority.
This chapter looks into several important questions. What is the scientific
basis for the observed responses by individual plants and resulting crop yields to
SRI growing conditions? What are the important gaps in knowledge that need to
be addressed so that the potential benefits/limitations from SRI can be realized/
identified? And what are the respective and collective roles of farmers, trainers and
researchers in filling the gaps?
Attention has been drawn to the ‘hidden half ’ of the plant and to evidence that
indicates that SRI management practices might be increasing ‘root activity’ for better
yield performance. A large body of research, mainly from Asia, validates some of the
claims of SRI. In particular, the four basic management practices (see below) of SRI
that appear to enhance root activity have been focused on. An integrated model for
a high-yielding rice plant, relevant to both traditional and improved varieties and
based on optimal root activity, is presented below. A collaborative approach by
researchers and farmers is also discussed, based on SRI methodology and sound