Rice Plus – Double Your Harvest, Almost

The System of Rice Intensification, SRI, is a simple way of doubling the rice harvest – but PhilRice is notteaching our farmers this one. Why? 

My Internet search gives me ADB blogger Takashi Matsuo who writes, "Producing More With Less Through Rice Intensification Method: Is It A Revolution Or An Illusion?" (28 February 2013 (Asian Development Blog, blogs.adb.org, where the above image comes from)

Why is the Philippine Rice Research Institute, PhilRice, not teaching SRI when farmers can increase their harvest from 20% to 100%?!

SRI Rice, a dedicated center at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, says, "The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) (is) a climate-smart, yield-increasing methodology that is being utilized by more than 10 million smallholder farmers in over 55 countries" (sri.ciifad.cornell.edu).

Sami Grover writes, "How Small-Scale Farmers Are Growing More Rice With Less Water And Fewer Chemicals" (15 April 2013, Mother Nature Network, mnn.com). Indian farmer Sumant Kumar harvested 22.4 metric tons per hectare with SRI where his usual yield was 5 tons. Mr Grover says:

What made Kumar’s yields so notable, however, is that he achieved these results using less than half of the usual applications of nitrogen fertilizer, and only standard applications of phosphorus and potassium.

In the Philippines, members of the Zarraga Integrated Diversified Organic Farmers Association, ZIDOFA, in Iloilo have reported yields up to 9 tons/ha (see my essay, "PH Rice Self-Sufficiency, No With Duterte, Yes With SRI, If You Know What I Mean!" 20 June 2018, Gaia con Gaia, blogspot.com).

So, again, I ask: "Why is not PhilRice promoting SRI?" The only reason I can think of is that PhilRice is not convinced that SRI is as productive as ZIDOFA and other farmers in other countries claim. I understand PhilRice did a study, and the results discouraged the researchers so much.

If PhilRice would look at the above image, comparing left and right rice clumps, it could easily tell the SRI yield (left) would at least be 50% more. That's why I call SRI the Rice Plus.

Mr Matsuo has 2 explanations why SRI has not been widespread: one, "the somewhat loose definition of SRI;" two, the fact that SRI was invented by a priest (Catholic) and advocated by a political science professor (Norman Uphoff). A third excuse for ignoring SRI is that the reports are "generally anecdotal in nature or limited to experimental and demonstration activities" – meaning not the results of large-scale studies. A fourth is "the statistical methods for comparing yield differences." There is also the acceptability by farmers because of "heavy labor requirements for weeding and harvesting."

The naysayers protest too much! Being a graduate with a BS in Agriculture and a self-taught science writer since 1975, or in the last 44 years, I am convinced the explanation for farmers and scientists largely ignoring SRI is the Lazy Juan Mentality:"I'll get to it when I will!"

PhilRice, wake up!
SRI has been adopted by 40 countries, mainly in Asia. Don't tell me the farmers out in the field know better than all the rice scientists of PhilRice combined?!517