1. EVALUATION OF
THE SYSTEM OF RICE
INTENSIFICATION
IN BANGLADESH
Prof. A. M. Muazzam Husain
BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
WRRC, Tokyo-Tsukuba, Japan
November 4-7, 2004
2. What is SRI?
A system of irrigated rice crop management
to significantly increase production through
changes and integration of the management
of rice plants, soil, water and nutrients.
• Does not depend upon high-cost modern inputs
• Reduces farmers’ costs of production
• Helps make crop production more sustainable
and is environment friendly
• Easily accessible to resource-poor farmers
• Enhancement of food security
3. Relevance to Bangladesh
Rice is main staple crop – 75% of cropped area
High density of population – small farm size,
majority of farmers resource-poor
HYV adoption increased production – but yield
growth has leveled out, with reduced profitability
Hybrid rice and biotechnology may increase
productivity but dependent on high- cost inputs
Biotech is still a debatable technology, with
possible health and environmental risk
4. Rice Sector Needs of Bangladesh
Substantial & sustainable increase in yields –
to release land for high-value crops
Reduction in cost of production & increase
in profitability for farmers
Reduced requirement for high-cost inputs like
fertilizer, irrigation water, and insecticides
Environment- friendly sustainable agriculture
SRI has shown the potential to meet all of
these needs of the BD agricultural sector
5. SRI Trials in Bangladesh
Started in 1999 after Bellagio Conference
paper on SRI reached BD
Dept. of Agric. Extension (DAE) and NGOs
conducted initial trials in farmers’ fields
BRRI conducted on-station trials
Trials in farmers’ fields gave encouraging
results but BRRI on–station trials did not
Need for systematic evaluation -- PETRRA
funded 3 sub-projects carried out over two
consecutive Boro season trials (2002 – 2004)
6. Findings from PETRRA evaluations
Sub-Project 36 02
Implemented by 3 NGOs (BRAC, SAFE, POSD) and
a private company (Syngenta BD Ltd.)
Participatory trials conducted in farmers’ fields in
4 districts, 8 sub–districts (upazila): in 2002-03, N =
487 farmers; in 2003-04, N = 791 farmers (plus 237)
Results for both seasons were found encouraging:
• Number of participating farmers increased by
62% (111%) during second year
• Area under SRI increased by 91%
7. AGRONOMIC FINDINGS
Tillersper hill were 95% higher during 1st
season and 60% higher during 2nd
season than under FP
Effective tillers were 94% and 122%
higher during the 2 seasons respectively
Length of panicle 11% higher in both
seasons
Weight of 1000 grains 14% – 18% higher
10. Table 1. Yield gains of SRI over FP
Partners SRI yield gains SRI yield gains
2002-03 2003-04
(%) (%)
BRAC 37 30
POSD 21 25
SAFE 19 23
Syngenta 30 24
11. Fig. 3: Comparative net returns, 2002 - 03
SRI Farmers' practice
45262
42100
50000
38257
31865
40000
27765
24863
Net return (Tk/ha)
24120
30000
16655
20000
10000
0
BRAC POSD SAFE Syngenta
12. ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Because of reductions in the cost of
production while yield increased,
farmers’ net returns were increased –
more than 50% on average
13. Fig. 4: Comparative net returns, 2003 - 04
SRI Farmers' practice
51557
60000
44772
39801
50000
38124
Net return (Tk/ha)
40000
28238
25939
24584
18988
30000
20000
10000
0
BRAC POSD SAFE Syngenta
14. Table 2: Profitability increase with SRI
2002-03 2003-04
Partner Profitability Profitability
organisations gain with SRI gain with SRI
(%) (%)
BRAC 82 73
POSD 59 62
SAFE 32 35
Syngenta 67 59
15. Perceptions of farmers on SRI
No. of farmers and area under SRI increased
Farmers confirmed increased yield from SRI
Did not face any major pest/insect problems
Thought that healthier SRI plants were more
resistant to pests/insects
Larger no. of farmers used organic manure –
but needed training on preparing compost
Faced irrigation management problems –
these need community approach to solve
16. More perceptions of farmers on SRI
Partial SRI adoption was favored by many
farmers in some areas – accepting easier
practices such as early transplantation with
reduced no. of seedlings and wider spacing
Difficult practices included:
- applying compost or organic manure
- alternate drying and wetting of fields
However, even partial adoption had definite
positive effect on yield and profitability
17. Findings from Sub-Project 34 02
Implemented by BD Rice Research
Institute (BRRI) with local NGO partner
Trials were conducted in farmers’ fields
in one district (N = 20 farmers, then 35)
Results for both seasons were positive
– no detailed data on 2nd season
SRI results were found to be better
than both FP and BRRI practices
18. Table 3: Agronomic performance
Agronomic SRI BRRI FP
features
Panicles (m2) 296 270 226
Filled grains 78 65 52
per panicle
Grain wt per No significant difference
1000 grains
19. Table 4: Comparative yields, returns,
and BCR of SRI, BRRI and FP
Indicator SRI BRRI FP
Yield (t.ha-1) 6.03 5.79 4.06
Net returns (Tk 51,255 49,215 34,510
ha-1)
Benefit-cost 1.9 1.8 1.3
ratio (BCR)
20. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
SRI yields and net returns were 49%
higher than FP and 4% higher than BRRI
Farmers’ perceptions in the area toward
SRI were positive; also many farmers
started their own partial adoption of SRI
SRI was considered as specially suitable
for resource-poor farmers
21. Findings from Sub-Project 35 02
Implemented by BRRI with NGO partner
in three districts
Trials were conducted both on
research station and in farmers’ fields
(N = 32 farmers, and then 39 farmers)
SRI yields in one district were 17.5%
higher than under FP during 1st season
In 2nd season, SRI yields were 13% to
20% greater
22. Further Findings from Sub-Project 35 02
In the two other districts, 1st season
SRI yields were less than FP, but then
they were higher during the 2nd season
SRI costs were higher than FP in these
trials:
- Labour costs 19% higher
- Irrigation cost 33% higher
23. Summary of SP 35 02 Findings
Average net returns from SRI were similar to FP
Many of the SRI practices were followed incorrectly,
which affected the results
Farmers’ perception of SRI was reported to be mixed
However, farmer opinion was said to be universal in
favour of ‘improved practices’ (modified SRI)
DAE and other extension organizations working with
project are showing interest to disseminate SRI
Many local farmers have already started partial
adoption of SRI
Report recommends further field verification of SRI
24. SRI NATIONAL WORKSHOP, 2003
Seven papers presented - 3 by BRRI staff, and
4 by NGO/ DAE extension specialists
Two BRRI papers did not have much positive
to report, but the 3rd was highly encouraging
NGO/ DAE papers found encouraging results
Gap between views of scientists and extension
specialists was apparent
The farmers present expressed firmly positive
views on SRI
25. WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS
Initiateintegrated and coordinated
approach to evaluation and extension
involving farmers, scientists and
extension workers ( GO/NGO)
Conduct further trials and experiments
on SRI to determine its potential in BD
Seek donor assistance for the above
26. Some Limitations of SRI and Evaluation
Trials were conducted for a short period
Lack of proper understanding of SRI
In some cases, faulty application was
made of SRI practices
Lack of organic manure
Problems faced in irrigation management
Proper weeding not done to save costs
Cost-effectiveness required in weeding
27. OVERALL FINDINGS ON SRI IN BD
Overall experience shows encouraging picture
Agronomic findings are favourable – with more tillers,
effective tillers, larger panicles, more filled grain, etc.
Grain quality was also found to be better
Yield increases were significant in most cases, up to
49% higher than yields with FP
Profitability was much higher, up to 82% more
Farmers’ perception was highly positive; many also
have adopted partial SRI on their own
Extension personnel (GO/NGO) have positive attitude
Some scientists have taken a positive attitude, some
others are still skeptical – no consensus
28. CONCLUSION
SRI has shown its potential for improving
yield and profits of farmers in Bangladesh
Gap still persists between results of
researchers on-station and farmers’ fields
Further trials and experimentation on various
aspects of SRI are needed
Government and donor support for more SRI
trials can be well justified
GO/NGO collaboration is also needed