THE POSSIBILITY AND BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING A SYSTEM OF RICE

INTENSIFICATION IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Thesis: The purpose of this review is to determine that, while the literature on Andhra Pradesh's

System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is extensive, it appears to be only focused on demonstrating

the system's benefits. The issues that SRI is facing in Andhra Pradesh, as well as the reasons why

SRI isn't catching on, aren't discussed in depth.

Index terms: Traditional Rice Farming, System of Rice Intensification, and Benefits of SRI

I. Introduction

Rice is one of India's and the world's most essential, extensively farmed, and consumed food

grains. Many countries, particularly Asian countries, view it as a strategic commodity because of

its ability to supply national food security and provide jobs through its cultivation. Rice

agriculture comprises roughly 23 percent of the gross cropped area and 35 percent of the total

area under food grains in India (2, Samarpitha et al., 2016). India is one of the leading exporters

of rice. Rice farming has long been considered a cash crop, i.e., a crop produced only for selling,

due to its significant consumption both in India and around the world. As a cash-pulling region,

rice cultivation has seen a lot of government interference and subsidies. The Green Revolution

added to this by introducing hybrid and Genetically Modified (GM) rice varieties, which made

rice easier to obtain and faster to grow, resulting in a significant number of farmers taking up rice

farming across India. Traditional rice growing, on the other hand, causes a slew of issues.

Traditional rice farming has become challenging to improve yield. It necessitates additional labor

and a large amount of fertilizer. Using outside inputs to farm in contemporary ways is also costly.

Farmers employing traditional methods were only able to boost their output by using expensive
inputs such as chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and hybrid seeds. The farming community is

finding it very hard to afford these things. Chemicals are also known to be damaging to the

environment and also responsible for GHG (GreenHouse Gasses) Emissions. As a result of these

issues, a need for better cultivation methods arises, which is where the System of Rice

Intensification (SRI) comes into play. SRI is a rice-growing system that claims to increase water

productivity and grain output significantly. It's a technique that was developed in Madagascar

about 25 years ago. "[l]large amounts of water to the tune of 2"-5" inundation were required for

Traditional paddy culture, a film of water up to 1" only is maintained throughout in SRI paddy

farming (404, Jayapalreddy et al, 2013)," according to SRI.The collected data sources can

address the crucial issue of total factor productivity, which is a true measure of the economic

efficiency of any technological impact of SRI. In the 1980s, Madagascar was the first country to

develop SRI. China, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and India are all

putting it to the test. Andhra Pradesh is a state in India. During the 2003 Kharif, SRI was tested

in all 22 districts, with positive results. SRI paddy farming necessitates a smaller seed quantity -

2 kgs per acre. As a result, there are fewer plants per unit area (25 x 25 cm), compared to 20 kg

seed per acre in conventional chemical-intensive paddy farming. 1 acre equals roughly 0.4

hectares. In this context, a study was undertaken at Manubolupadu village of Dagadarthi Mandal

in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh to note the impact of the SRI method of rice cultivation by

the farmers. changes in physical yield are not true measures of productivity from an efficiency

perspective. Also, through the existing literature on SRI, rice farming in Andhra Pradesh, and its

applications to better comprehend this opportunity. The following sections will explain how,

while the literature on the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Andhra Pradesh is extensive, it

appears to be focused solely on showing the system's benefits. There is virtually no explanation
of the SRI's issues or why it isn't gaining in the state, despite the fact that its statistics appear to

be superior to standard growing methods.

II. Research Question: What are the impact, Benefits, and Possibilities of SRI in Andhra

Pradesh? Why do people in AP adopt the SRI method?

III. Hypothesis:

Rice yields will be higher in SRI farms than in typical rice fields. Farmers with higher incomes

may be the best candidates for adopting new SRI practices. In comparison to farmers with lower

incomes, this will result in higher soil quality (as measured by soil carbon and nitrogen content)

and SRI rice yields. Can SRI be considered part of a long-term livelihood strategy/farming

system that is also environmentally sound? Is SRI capable of reducing GHG emissions (CH4,

N2O, CO2) while also improving soil quality in terms of C storage? - In terms of efficiency and

sustainability, the target farmers' SRI and the "real" theoretical notions of SRI are compared. The

method SRI is introduced to farmers and the organization(s) promoting it will have a big impact

on its success. According to my understanding through data collection from primary and

secondary sources I used, farmers may boost their rice yields by implementing just a handful of

the SRI concepts, and SRI might thus be deemed particularly appropriate for the poorest farmer

groups with limited resources. SRI can provide security for the poorest populations in a society

with a growing population and the potential for food shortages, and it should thus receive more

attention in the future in terms of research initiatives and recognition.

IV. Objective:

● Distribute information about SRI.

● Knowledge and scientific understanding of the SRI approach should be generated and

advanced.
 ● Improve the technical implementation of SRI in farmers' fields and test plots.

V. Review of the Literature:

Benefits of SRI mentioned in the literature and according to my research and collected

data:

As previously said, the SRI technique of agriculture piqued curiosity because it greatly increased

water productivity and grain yield. According to the literature, "the CO2 equivalent of GHG

emissions under SRI cultivation is 26.81 percent less than non-SRI or traditional HYV

techniques (5, Harris-White et al, 2014)," SRI approach reduces GHG emissions. The research

also shows that SRI resulted in cheaper costs, owing to the fact that it required less labor

According to research conducted in Andhra Pradesh, "SRI also requires 29.82 percent less labor

while delivering 57.41 percent greater output per hectare than conventional HYV rice farming

(5, Harris-White et al, 2014)," implying a reduction in labor costs. Most notably, yield results

from the literature showed that the SRI method produced higher yields than

conventional/traditional growing methods. Except for Mr. Thiyagarajan's experiment, almost all

of the literature considered for this review reflects the same in terms of yield difference when

comparing the SRI approach to the old method (Proc. Int. Conf, 2003, Thiyagarajan, p. 137). His

findings revealed no significant production gains using SRI, although he did claim water savings

of 50–56 percent. As a result, the literature suggests that the SRI approach has a lot of benefits

and a few downsides.

With all of these advantages, one might expect farmers to rush at the chance to use the

SRI technique of production, but careful examination of the literature reveals gaps and nuances

that can be overlooked if one only looks at the results. These gaps may also explain why, despite

the literature indicating higher yields and fewer adverse side effects, farmers have been hesitant
to embrace this way of production. In the next parts, I will review the gaps in the literature

regarding the implementation of SRI cultivation in AP.

The literature reveals difficulties or shortcomings in the benefits of SRI:

As previously stated, the findings of the various studies all pointed to SRI as a perfect method of

rice cultivation that could be adopted by both farmers and the environment, but what the results

do not reveal are the intricacies, assumptions, or conditions that were taken into account when

stating the results. When looking at the results of SRI cultivation, they can differ, which provides

for an interesting debate. In the following paragraphs, I'll go over some of the facts and

conditions that the literature mentions, and how they might alter the results if they weren't taken

into account.

The majority of the yield data produced to indicate the benefits of SRI is experimental

data, which is one of the most significant limitations discovered in the literature examined. This

means that control variables and environments were set up and supervised specifically for the

purpose of SRI cultivation, which is not always the case in real-world cultivating situations

because there are many complexities that arise in day-to-day farming that cannot be replicated in

an experiment. In dairy farming, for example, the same plot of land is utilized for numerous

crops at the same time. While the old approach, while detrimental, permits farmers to continue

the process for several years, no such information is provided for the SRI way of farming. Given

that the data in the literature comes from tests that only looked at yield, cost, water, and emotion

data for one cycle, even if they were conducted on a public or random plot of land, it is

impossible to say whether the SRI approach will be able to support farmers in the future.

One of the key benefits of the agricultural approach indicated in the literature is that it is

cost-effective and saves a lot of money, particularly in the labor area. What is overlooked,
however, is that the type of labor necessary for SRI cultivation differs from that required for

traditional methods. In addition, while the amount of labor required is lower in the SRI technique

of growing, the labor intensity and reliance on labor is higher. Farmers must be considerably

more attentive to time frames in the SRI approach, as Adusumilli and Laxmi explain in their

article: "farmers must pay more attention to crop establishment, the use of younger seedlings, the

requirement for timely transplantation and weeding, and improved water management." So some

additional time is involved with SRI that is not considered in conventional input accounting

techniques. This means farmers may have to put in extra work, learn new skills, or negotiate new

labor agreements to successfully use the SRI technique of production (93, Adusumilli et al,

2011)." While traditional paddy respondents were found to be both educated (40 %) and

uneducated (60 %), all SRI paddy cultivators were found to be educated (100 %) (404,

Jayapalreddy et al, 2013), thus there is a control difference of the education level difference in

the experiment setting which is not seen in the results. There's a good likelihood that the SRI

farmers' adequate knowledge and grasp of the system was the reason for the good yields in the

studies, but this isn't the case in real-life farming.

Another argument that has been made in the literature in a number of papers and studies

but has never been fully developed is that there is a good chance that the robust yields seen from

SRI cultivation are due to measurement errors, and that "SRI has no major role in improving rice

production generally" (78, Thakur et al, 2010). This is further confirmed by the fact that,

according to V Ratna Reddy's research (Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2005, Reddy,

V. R, Vol 60), when the paired 't' statistic tests are done on indicators such as yield, seed, labor,

costs, and so on, It was discovered that the increased yields from SRI cultivation are not actually

converted into profitability. The same is true for the labor productivity coefficient, which is
statistically significant, indicating that labor variation/change does not have a substantial impact

on rice output. This is significant because the points of less labor and higher yields are central to

the benefits of SRI, and if the numbers are skewed by measurement error or aren't really

significant in the real-world picture, SRI will not catch on as a viable rice cultivation strategy,

regardless of the experimental benefits.

To back this up, in the next section, I'll look at why, despite the experimental gains

obtained in the state of AP, the SRI approach has yet to catch on as a rice farming method.

Why, if the benefits of SRI can be seen, have farmers not yet adopted it?

Perhaps the best counter-argument and counter-question to the literature's positive portrayal of

the SRI method is this: If the benefits of SRI in terms of yield, costs, water efficiency, emissions,

labor, and so on are greater than those of conventional methods, why haven't the farmers of

Andhra Pradesh adopted the method of cultivation yet?

Andhra Pradesh has a semi-arid climate and is particularly prone to drought in the

majority of its districts. If we were to rely just on the outcomes reported in the literature, we may

presume that farmers in this area would enthusiastically endorse the SRI growing approach.

Indeed, the research reveals that most farmers have a certain degree of education, have

medium-sized families, and are involved in various groups to enhance their production, which is

conducive to the SRI technique of farming. Farmers in the state make their own decisions, and

societal structure has little influence on their actions. Andhra Pradesh's farmers have a history of

taking chances, which has resulted in their flourishing during the Revolution. In addition to all of

these causes, the Andhra Pradesh government has supported SRI since 2003, when it launched a

series of operations and tests to encourage farmers in the state to utilize SRI. Despite this, in

2006, 100,000 acres of land in Andhra Pradesh were expected to be under SRI cultivation (about
1% of the total rice-growing area). As a result, it was clear that the farmers were not opting for

this growth strategy. The reasons for this are most likely the same as the holes and issues I

discussed earlier. While the experimental data revealed profits, when the gaps and assumptions

are removed, the yields are not that dissimilar. Farmers preferred to stick with traditional

methods because "SRI requires more capital inputs and hence looks to be a risky decision (466,

Ratna Reddy, 2005)," and because "SRI needs more capital inputs and thus appears to be a risky

choice (466, Ratna Reddy, 2005)." In fact, a closer examination of the literature reveals that

"[l]ittle solid evidence is available on the actual spread of SRI in Andhra Pradesh or India as a

whole (38, Basu et al, 2012)," and that the majority of the interest in SRI stems from the farm

level rather than from farmers. The majority of the excitement and interest in the SRI approach

comes from researchers, universities, and experimentalists; farm cultivator interest comes from

extremely narrow groups like small-scale organic farmers. This is not surprising, as the

experimental data that showed positive results piqued the interest of the research community.

Indeed, the research interest indicated that SRI "had become part of the scientific discourse, and

is taken seriously by segments of the academic community as well as academic journals (38,

Basu et al, 2012)." However, study curiosity does not imply acceptance for SRI, and I believe

this is the most relevant criticism of the literature's benefits. Farmers will not adopt something

that necessitates more intensive labor, a greater level of education, and sophistication while still

generating roughly the same amount of profit as the current way, regardless of how much water

it saves or how many emissions it reduces.

IV. Conclusion:

To summarize, there is a significant gap in the literature discussing the promise of SRI as the

future of rice cultivation. This difference is best stated as SRI being seen more from a research
standpoint than from an applicability standpoint. The literature shows benefits through controlled

trials with multiple assumptions ranging from education levels to technological availability,

which cannot be made in the cultivation process for a crop that accounts for 34% of the total land

for food crops. Even though there appear to be few drawbacks to SRI agriculture, only 1% of the

area used for rice cultivation in Andhra Pradesh adopts the SRI approach. If SRI is to be

regarded seriously as a replacement for traditional cultivation methods, more farm-level studies

and data sets should be included in the literature, and the assumptions made should not rule out

problems that may arise in day-to-day farming (like in the education level).

The significant impact of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a method of gaining

traction as a viable alternative to the traditional flooded rice production method, and it is

showing tremendous promise in addressing issues such as water scarcity, and excessive energy,

and chemical use. As a result, it benefits small and marginal farmers. It can contribute to food

security, create jobs, and enhance soil and water quality by reducing the use of synthetic

chemicals on a broad scale. Finally, SRI can assist us in taking a step toward a more

environmentally friendly and long-term environment.

IV. References

1. Reddy, N., Venkatanarayana, M., Hardy, A. G., & Harris-White, B. (2014). SRI

cultivation in Andhra Pradesh: Positive evidence on yield and GHG effects but problems

of adoption.

2. Ramapuram Jayapal Reddy, D. N. (2013). A comparative economic analysis of

Traditional and System of Rice Intensification (SRI) rice cultivation practices in

Mahabubnagar district of Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Scientific and

Research Publications, 404.

India. In Proc. Int. Conf (p. 137).

4. Thakur, A. K., Uphoff, N., & Antony, E. (2010). An assessment of physiological effects

of the system of rice intensification (SRI) practices compared with recommended rice

cultivation practices in India. Experimental Agriculture, 46(1), 77-98.

5. Janaiah, A. (2003). Hybrid rice in Andhra Pradesh: findings of a survey. Economic and

Political Weekly, 2513-2516.

6. Adusumilli, R., & Laxmi, S. B. (2011). Potential of the system of rice intensification for

systemic improvement in rice production and water use: the case of Andhra Pradesh,

India. Paddy and Water Environment, 9(1), 89-97.

7. Basu, S., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Understanding the rapid spread of System of Rice

Intensification (SRI) in Andhra Pradesh: Exploring the building of support networks and

media representation. Agricultural Systems, 111, 34-44.

8. Reddy, V. R., Reddy, P. P., Reddy, M. S., & Raju, S. R. (2005). Water use efficiency: a

study of the system of rice intensification (SRI) adoption in Andhra Pradesh. Indian

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(902-2016-67428).

9. Rao, I. V. Y. (2011). Estimation of efficiency, sustainability, and constraints in SRI

(system of rice intensification) vis-a-vis traditional methods of paddy cultivation in the

north coastal zone of Andhra Pradesh. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(2),

325-331.

10. Gartrell, J. W. (1977). Status, inequality, and innovation: the green revolution in Andhra

Pradesh, India. American Sociological Review, 318-337.

revolution in rice vanishing? Empirical evidence from TFP analysis. Economic and

Political Weekly, 5596-5600.