Organic-Based System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
Philippines
left: Farm practicing the System of Rice Intensification technology (Photo: Engr. Jemar G. Raquid)
right: Rice duck integration in the SRI technology


Intensifying the irrigated rice production while at the same time reducing farm inputs including seeds, fertilizer, and water.

The Organic-based system of rice intensification modifies the usual rice farming system in terms of seedling condition, planting distance, irrigation time and water requirement, and with the incorporation of organic fertilization scheme. Furthermore, integration of rice duck is carried out. This makes the farming system reduce its farm inputs leading to a lower production cost. With the utilization of organic fertilizers and natural concoctions, soil fertility and soil structure is improved. It was also observed that rice grown under SRI can tolerate strong winds. This type of rice production management is currently part of the Caritas Foundation’s project, a non-government organization, called Sustainable Learning Agricultural Farm which promotes diversified-integrated organic farming systems. With this, other practices (i.e. rice-duck farming) are being integrated in some SRI areas. Integration of ducks helps in the weeding since it eats weeds as well as harmful insects. In addition, its droplets/manure served as organic fertilizer in the rice field.
The purpose of this technology is to promote better soil management as well as more efficient water management.
Under SRI, the following practices were implemented: In the land preparation stage, 25cm x 25cm plant spacing is made using the man-made implement. Intermittent irrigation is applied up to the panicle initiation stage with the following irrigation schedule: (1) 3 days after transplanting, (2) 9 days after transplanting, (3) 14 days after transplanting, and (4) 19 days after transplanting. The field is irrigated up to 5-cm water depth level per schedule. Fertilizer application includes compost and natural organic concoctions. This is applied on different crop stages.
The existing project sites are located in Samar experiencing Type IV climate wherein rainfall is more or less evenly distributed throughout the year. Most of the farmer practitioners of this technology belongs to the small scale and average type of land user.
Location: Marabut, Samar
Technology area: < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)
Conservation measure: agronomic, management
Stage of intervention: prevention of land degradation
Origin: Developed externally / introduced through project, recent (<10 years ago)
Land use type:
Cropland: Annual cropping
Climate: humid, tropics
WOCAT database reference: T_PHI062en
Related approach:
Compiled by: Djolly Ma. Dinamling, Bureau of Soils and Water Management
Date: 2016-03-17
Contact person: Pastor Garcia, Visayas State University

        


Classification
Land use problems:
- soil fertility deterioration, water-use management (expert's point of view)
- soil fertility deterioration (land user's point of view)


Land useClimateDegradationConservation measure
Land use Humid
Annual cropping
humid
Chemical soil deterioration: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content
Agronomic: Organic matter / soil fertility
Management: Major change in timing of activities
Stage of interventionOriginLevel of technical knowledge
   Prevention
   Mitigation / Reduction
   Rehabilitation
   Land users initiative
   Experiments / Research
   Externally introduced: recent (<10 years ago)
   Agricultural advisor
   Land user
Main causes of land degradation:
Direct causes - Human induced: soil management
Indirect causes: population pressure
Main technical functions:
- increase in organic matter
- increase / maintain water stored in soil
Secondary technical functions:
- improvement of ground cover
- improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing)
- improvement of topsoil structure (compaction)

Environment
Natural Environment
Average annual rainfall (mm)Altitude (m a.s.l.)    LandformSlope (%)
> 4000 mm
3000-4000 mm
2000-3000 mm
1500-2000 mm
1000-1500 mm
750-1000 mm
500-750 mm
250-500 mm
< 250 mm

> 4000   
3000-4000   
2500-3000   
2000-2500   
1500-2000   
1000-1500   
500-1000   
100-500   
<100   

    plateau / plains
    ridges
    mountain slopes
    hill slopes
    footslopes
    valley floors

flat
gentle
moderate
rolling
hilly
steep
very steep

Soil depth (cm)

0-20
20-50
50-80
80-120
>120

Soil texture: medium (loam)
Soil fertility: medium
Topsoil organic matter: medium (1-3%)
Soil water storage capacity: medium
Ground water table: 5 - 50 m
Availability of surface water: good
Water quality: good drinking water
Tolerant of climatic extremes: floods, strong winds

Human Environment
Cropland per household (ha)

<0.5
0.5-1
1-2
2-5
5-15
15-50
50-100
100-500
500-1,000
1,000-10,000
>10,000
Land user: groups / community, Small scale land users, common / average land users, men and women
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 1% - 2%
Land ownership: individual, titled
Water use rights: communal (organised)
Relative level of wealth: average

Importance of off-farm income: 10-50% of all income:
Access to service and infrastructure: moderate: technical assistance, employment (eg off-farm), drinking water and sanitation; high: education, roads & transport
Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)
Mechanization: manual labour, animal traction, mechanised
Livestock grazing on cropland:


blob_id=5822Technical drawing

System of rice intensification for lowland rice growing. (Patricio A. Yambot)

Implementation activities, inputs and costs
Establishment activitiesEstablishment inputs and costs per ha
- Planting of rice seeds
- Duck raising
InputsCosts (US$)% met by land user
Agricultural  
  - seeds 18.67 100%
Other  
  - Ducks 177.78 %
TOTAL 196.45 100.00%

Maintenance/recurrent activitiesMaintenance/recurrent inputs and costs per ha per year
- fertilizer application (compost)
- first plowing
- weeding
- harvesting
- spraying of natural concoctions
- clearing
- organic fertilizer application
- transplanting
- second plowing
InputsCosts (US$)% met by land user
Labour 213.32 100%
Equipment  
  - machine use 133.34 100%
Agricultural  
  - fertilizer 66.67 100%
TOTAL 413.33 100.00%

Remarks:


Assessment
Impacts of the Technology
Production and socio-economic benefitsProduction and socio-economic disadvantages
   increased crop yield
   reduced demand for irrigation water
   reduced expenses on agricultural inputs
   increased farm income
   reduced risk of production failure
   increased water availability / quality
   diversification of income sources
   decreased labour constraints
Socio-cultural benefitsSocio-cultural disadvantages
   community institution strengthening
   improved conservation / erosion knowledge
   improved food security / self sufficiency
Ecological benefitsEcological disadvantages
   increased soil organic matter / below ground C
   improved excess water drainage
   reduced soil compaction
   reduced evaporation
   reduced salinity
   increased beneficial species
Off-site benefitsOff-site disadvantages
Contribution to human well-being / livelihoods
   Farmers become knowledgeable to a better rice farming management.

Benefits /costs according to land user
Benefits compared with costsshort-term:long-term:
Establishmentpositivepositive
Maintenance / recurrentpositivepositive

Acceptance / adoption:
100% of land user families have implemented the technology with external material support.
0% of land user families have implemented the technology voluntary.
There is little trend towards (growing) spontaneous adoption of the technology.

Concluding statements

Strengths and how to sustain/improveWeaknesses and how to overcome
Increase production yield Intensify their Sustainable Learning Agricultural Farm program
Improvement in crop growth and development
Soil fertility improvement
Ease on weed management
Need for an adequate supply of organic inputs Sustainable production of organic inputs through composting methods


Copyright (c) WOCAT (2017)