0726 sri in tamil nadu: current scenario
DESCRIPTION
Presenter: T. M. Thiyagarajan, Director, Rice Research Station, TNAU, Tirur Audience: 2nd National SRI Symposium, Agartala, India Subject Country: Tamil Nadu, IndiaTRANSCRIPT
SRI in Tamil Nadu: Current Scenario
T.M. Thiyagarajan
• Policies
• Research
• Extension
• Adoption
Policies :
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
• Has pursued a more scientific understanding of SRI
• Now large scale of adoption of SRI within Tamil Nadu state
• SRI is priority component in new 2007 World Bank-funded project on irrigated agriculture
Policies :
Agricultural Department
Govt. of Tamil Nadu
• Has undertaken popularization of SRI across TN state
• Promoting large scale of adoption
TNAU : SRI RESEARCH
• Carried out in the research stations at Coimbatore, Aduthurai, Thanjavur, Kumulur, Killikulam, and Tirur
• During the 2006-07: 7 research projects on agronomy of SRI, and 5 research projects in plant protection with SRI
Agronomy Research
• SRI with INM gave significantly higher yield than SRI with fertilizers only
• Hybrid rice yield was significantly higher than variety with SRI methods
(Rajendran, Aduthurai & Anbumani, Thanjavur)
Effect of organic nutrient sources on SRI
(Thiyagarajan & Gnanachitra, Tirur)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Control RF RF(LCC)
RF +MNM
GLM1 GLM +RF
GLM2 FYM1 FYM +RF
FYM2
Gra
in Y
ield
(k
g h
a-1)
Feb.- May. 2007
Nutrient management in SRI : Leaf folder damage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
control RF HigherNK
RF +MNM
GM1 GM +RF
GM2 FYM1 FYM +RF
FYM2
% D
amag
e
Jul. – Oct. 2007
(Sumathi, Thiyagarajan & Gnanachitra, Tirur)
Nutrient management in SRI : Black bug populations
(Sumathi, Thiyagarajan & Gnanachitra, Tirur)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control RF HigherNK
RF +MNM
GM1 GM +RF
GM2 FYM1 FYM +RF
FYM2
No
. per
hill
Jul. – Oct. 2007
Nematode populations with SRI
0
100
200
300
400
500
Planting Tillering Panicleinitiation
Flowering Harvest
Per
250
cc
soil SRI
Conventional
Root nematode / May-Aug. 2006 / Killikulam
0
100
200
300
400
500
Planting Tillering Panicleinitiation
Flowering Harvest
Per
250
cc
soil
SRI
Conventional
Root nematode / Aug.- Jan. 2007 / Killikulam
0
100
200
300
400
500
Planting Tillering Panicleinitiation
Flowering Harvest
Per
250
cc
soil
SRI
Conventional
Root knot nematode / May-Aug. 2006 / Killikulam
0
100
200
300
400
500
Planting Tillering Panicleinitiation
Flowering Harvest
Per
250
cc
soil
SRI
Conventional
Root knot nematode / Aug.- Jan. 2007 / Killikulam
(Seenivasan, Killikulam)
Plant protection research
Application of Pseudomonas fluorescence as seed + soil treatment recorded 37.5% and 59.5% reduction of rice root nematode population, and 61.3% and 62.8 % reduction of root knot nematode population in both soil and roots, respectively.
(Seenivasan, Killikulam)
Plant protection research• In the reproductive phase (80 to 100 DAT), SRI recorded significantly higher leaf folder incidence (2.95 to 23.95%) than conventional method (1.21 to 13.98%).
• At 100 DAT, stem borer incidence was less in SRI (2.24% WE) than with conventional method (5.6% WE)
• ADT43 showed less incidence of pests compared to hybrids
• SRI resulted in a significantly higher yield of 8,014 kg ha-1 compared to standard methods (6,393 kg ha-1).
(Ravi & Karthikeyan, Aduthurai)
Plant protection research
• No significant variation was found in the incidence of blast and brown spot between SRI and non-SRI
• False smut and sheath rot incidences were significantly lower in SRI (6.3 and 21.7 PDI, respectively) when compared to non-SRI (9.9 and 34.8 PDI, respectively)
(Dinakaran, Trichirapalli)
SRI Conventional
Stem borer damage
4.68% 6.09%
Leaf damage 2.76% 4.54%
Silver shoot 9.43% 13.68%
BPH 0.56 hill-1 0.68 hill-1
Spiders 1.24 hill-1 1.04 hill-1
Plant Protection Research
(Nalini, Madurai)
SRI Extension : TNAU
Major thrust in new World Bank-aided Major thrust in new World Bank-aided
project :project :
Irrigated Agricultural Modernization Irrigated Agricultural Modernization
and Water-bodies Restoration and and Water-bodies Restoration and
ManagementManagement (IAMWARM), 2006-2010 (IAMWARM), 2006-2010
IAMWARM project
Development objectives:Development objectives:
• Increase in area served by irrigation Increase in area served by irrigation
systems in 63 selected sub-basins that are systems in 63 selected sub-basins that are
to be rehabilitated and modernizedto be rehabilitated and modernized
• Increase in agricultural productivity -- net Increase in agricultural productivity -- net
benefits per unit of water delivered in Rs. mbenefits per unit of water delivered in Rs. m-3-3
SRI in IAMWARM project
• 750 - 1000 ha of SRI in each basin
• Rs. 10,000 subsidy for 1 ha
• Women labourers also to be trained
Rupees
Seed + seed treatment 200
Nursery 1000
Marker 1000
Weeder (5 nos.) 2500
Fertilizers 4040
Pesticides 1640
Transplanting 4000
IAMWARM project : Unit cost for 1 ha of SRI
Rice area 89,092 ha
Area of implementation 750 ha
Period 3 years
OutcomeArea spread 5,000 ha
Increased productivity 1,200 kg ha-1
Additional revenue Rs. 30 million
IAMWARM Project : SRI in Cooum Basin
SRI Extension : TN State Agricultural Department
• Implementation of Integrated Cereal Development Programme – Paddy (ICDPP)
• Implementation of National Food Security Mission – Rice (NFSM-R)
• Covering 25 % of 1st season (June – Oct. 07) rice area -- 1.88 lakh ha
• Covering 40 % of 2nd season (Aug.07 – Jan.08) rice area -- 5.45 lakh ha
National Food Security Mission - Rice
• Increase rice production by 10 million tons by the
end of 11th Plan (2007-08 to 2011-12)
• SRI to be implemented in 133 districts across the
country (5 districts in Tamil Nadu)
• Target area for SRI: 5 million ha
• Rs. 3,000 per SRI demonstration allocated
• 50,000 demonstrations; 1 demo of 0.4 ha for
every 100 ha of rice area
Integrated Cereal Development Programme : Paddy
• Cluster approach
• 1,132 villages in Tamil Nadu
• 1 cluster = 10 ha
• Demo in each cluster : Rs.20,000 (10 ha)
• Training in each cluster : Rs.5,000
• Budget : Rs.283 lakhs
Survey on farmers’ opinion on SRI techniques in comparison with conventional cultivation
• 50 farms in Thamirabarani Basin
• 25 farms in Cauvery Delta Basin
Note different opinions among farmers between the two basins
Thamirabarani Basin(farmers’ opinions %)
SRI technique Hard Normal Easy Not adopted
Land preparation 6 92 2 0
Modified nursery preparation
56 12 30 2
Square planting 68 10 20 2
Mechanical weeding 12 4 78 6
Cauvery Basin(farmers’ opinions %)
SRI technique Hard Normal Easy Not adopted
Land preparation 36 64 0 0
Modified nursery preparation
32 28 20 20
Square planting 28 48 24 0
Mechanical weeding 40 4 56 0
Thamirabarani Basin(farmers’ opinions %)
Factor/constraint Good Normal Bad Not applicable
Availability of mechanical weeder
82 10 2 6
Timely reach of inputs
72 10 18 -
Plant population maintenance
90 8 2 -
Cauvery Delta Basin(farmers’ opinions %)
Factor/constraint Good Normal Bad Not applicable
Availability of mechanical weeder
92 8 0 -
Timely reach of inputs
28 20 52 -
Plant population maintenance
80 20 0 -
Thamirabarani Basin(farmers’ opinions %)
Higher Normal Less
Pest and disease problems 2 24 74
Weed problems 10 50 40
Farmers here have not found weed control to be difficult, by using cono-weedersAs seen above, farmers have not experienced any difficulty in accessing weeders
Cauvery Basin(Farmers’ opinion %)
Higher Normal Less
Pest and disease problems 4 46 50
Weed problems 4 28 68*
Farmers here take a very positive view of the cono-weeder to control weedsFarmers here have not experienced any real difficulty in accessing weeders
Problems in adoption(farmers’ opinions %)
Thamirabarani Basin
Cauvery Basin
SRI requires more labour for transplanting
68 24
Women labourers reluctant to do square transplanting
36 12
Farmers that in the two basins have very different assessments of SRI labor requirements
Survey on social suitability of SRI
Survey on social suitability of SRI
• Farmers who tried SRI for the first time were generally surprised and positive about the method and its results: higher yield with reduced water usage.
Survey on social suitability of SRI
• Despite the positive reactions and awareness of the advantages, relatively few farmers practice SRI or are motivated to switch over fully to SRI.
• Many remain skeptical and perceive SRI practices as relatively difficult compared to conventional rice cultivation practices.
• Most farmers say that they are not familiar enough with SRI techniques to practice the system independently.
• They feel insecure about the practices and fear that poor implementation of the practice could lead to crop failure.
• SRI is not popular in areas of labour shortage
• Drum seeding + partial SRI adoption may be successful
• Nursery and transplanting are to be avoided
Drum Seeder
Grain yield comparisons (t ha-1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Conventional SRI (20 X 20 cm)
SRI (25 X 25 cm)
Drum seeding +SRI