IRRI And PhilRice Were On The Right Way Toward P20/Kg Rice Or Cheaper, But Their Attempt At System Of Rice Intensification (SRI) Failed Them! Why?

The astounding System of Rice Intensification (SRI) came from Cornell University to the Philippines in 2000, and trial plantings were made in Southern Mindanao, resulting in average yields of 7 t/ha in 2001 and 12 t/ha in 2002 (sri.ciifad.cornell.edu). 20 years later – What happened to the tremendous SRI promise?!

Above, we see the enthusiastic Facebook sharing of PH ex-Secretary of Agriculture William Dar where he says, “In PhilRice, Munoz, Nueva Ecija to visit the testing of SRI Technology and derby on fertilizers on rice!” My comment on the Facebook sharing [translation added]:

In 2003, IRRI reported a very sad SRI yield of 1.44 t/ha – according to CIFAD, Cornell U; PhilRice did not report any encouraging yield either. But Engr Carlos Salazar of NIA reported from his own farm a yield 6.9 t/ha in 2003. Maabak ti IRRI ken PhilRice! Apay ngay? [IRRI and PhilRice are the losers here! Why are they?]😎

Repeat: CIIFAD (above) reports that IRRI tried SRI and got a miserable 1.44 t/ha, while PhilRice itself obtained discouraging yields with SRI. Considering my being an alumnus of UP Los Baños and Editor In Chief of so many theses, dissertations and technical papers, not to mention quite a few technical journals, I greatly suspect something wrong with the methodology as applied independentlyby both IRRI and PhilRice.

To IRRI and PhilRice, I say: “Time to rise with rice and shine!” Especially with the presidential-candidate challenge and/or promise of now-President Ferdinand “BBM” Marcos Jr for a “P20/kg rice” or lower. I interpret that to mean “We will discover one way or another how to bring down the selling price of rice to at P20/kg.” SRI is it!

According to the CIIFAD report (above):

After the director of the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) in the Department of Agriculture learned about SRI at a conference in Indonesia in 2000, the ATI center in Southern Mindanao undertook trials that averaged over 7 t/ha in 2001 and 12 t/ha in 2002. In 2004, the Cotabato ATI center reported even higher SRI yields. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) at Los Baños, however, reported a disappointing yield of only 1.44 t/ha in its 2003 trials followed by a yield of 3 t/ha in 2004. The Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) trials similarly did not report significant increases with SRI.

On 20 June 2018, I wrote “PH Rice Self-Sufficiency, No With Duterte, Yes With SRI, If You Know What I Mean!” (Gaia Con Gaia, gaiavsgaia.blogspot.com) about the Zarraga Integrated Diversified Organic Farmers Association (ZIDOFA) SRI experience in Iloilo Province, Panay Island – lower image above shows many tillers from one hill, promising high yield. Joby Arandela, Chair of ZIDOFA, said:

We are spearheading a regenerative agriculture initiative using the climate-friendly and organic-based System of Rice Intensification (SRI) here in Panay Island.

Were IRRI and PhilRice not paying attention to others except their own coconuts that they did not try organic fertilizers? So much for modern agriculture research & development!@517

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Knorr Of Big Business Unilever Thinks Big Business Regenerative Agriculture – My Tiny Country PH Also Should!

Image
“Knorr’s plan for 50 regenerative agriculture projects is predicted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water use by an estimated 30% while improving biodiversity, soil health and livelihoods.” That is regenerative agriculture (RA) news by Julian Cirineo (05 Nov 2021, “Unilever Wants To Rethink How Farms Work To Secure Food And Resources For The Future,” Rappler , rappler.com ). Note: 50 (not 5 only) RA projects to improve greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and water use by 30% – plus improving biodiversity, soil health and livelihoods. Note the last 7 words in the above paragraph. How can RA improve biodiversity? RA requires that the farmer practices multiculture (a few or many crops grown at the same time in the same place), where monoculture (such as rice-only or corn-only) is the practice – the biodiversity improves crop health because of the ensuing balance of nature, such as some organisms feed on other organisms that would otherwise become pests or cause diseases. RA is your
Read more

In Looking At The Crown Of Thorns, I Found The Clowns

Image
We could use a surprise sense of humor!  Yes, especially on the wide problematic fields of Agriculture. There was this news that some high PH government officials wanted to probe Vice President Leni Robredo for “competing against” PH agencies in providing much-needed assistances during this coronavirus lockdown, and Marigs Laririt shared a picture-story on Facebook quoting Ms Leni as saying, “I didn’t know it was competition. I didn’t see any competitors!” Ms Marigs says, “Ay, parang friends ko kung sumagot si Mam.” (Ay, with Mam, it’s just like my friends answering back.) That is a two-handed backslap, and you can imagine the lady laughing! She is the humor-monger; they are the clowns. Today is Friday, 03 April 2020 and in one account ( Wikipedia ), Friday the 3 rd of April was crucifixion of Jesus and his crowning of thorns [1] . (images: Crown of Thorns [2]  from St Anthony Messenger , 1 st clown [3]  from The Guardian , 2 nd clown [4]  from Shutterstock ) About the living clowns I
Read more

“Natural Farming” – Aggie Journalists, We Must Be Careful With The Terms We Use!

Image
Look at the contrasting images: Which one is correct in claiming what is being practiced is “natural farming”? Top Image: This one accompanies the Anonymous WWF-Philippines story, “Mindanao Farmers Start Off the Year with Natural Farming Systems Technology” published online December 2019 [1] . The World Wide Fund, WWF, is a very credible international source of knowledge on conservation, right? Not this time. Very clearly, you can see the white plastic mulch covering the furrows and bare soil in-between them. Mr or Ms Anonymous, the plastic mulch is not natural. The soil not covered in-between furrows is not natural. So much soil bare, not natural, allowing so much natural water wasted because it had evaporated from the unprotected, hot soil surface! That is not conservation; that is not natural. The term “natural” is used here very carelessly . Aggie journalists, wake up! How come I noticed all that immediately when I saw the photograph? Because I learned my organic farming more t
Read more