Dear all,

yet another forwarded message...

Andreas Jenny

(SRI-Nepal Group Moderator)

(forwarded from Rajendra)

Dear Peter,

I am enjoying such a nice discussion regarding SRI and its validity in scientific world. Yes, we must be honest- when we are advocating anything, at the same time we must be open to thinking about points raised by others, without any reservation. We will come to a conclusion if we all honestly involve ourselves in this type dialogue, while keeping our farmers at the center of our thinking. I am open and honest in trying to incorporate/promote any good technology in our community or my working area. Solarization can similarly be incorporated in SRI for better seedling production.

I have some comments on your views [in brackets below].

With regards,

Rajendra Uprety
Nepal

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter Hobbs
To: SRI-RICE-L@... ; SRI-RICE-L
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Check plots

Thank you for continuing the dialogue in the SRI web site. Only by having honest dialogue can questions be resolved. I have a few comments about your statements below:

1. Surely farmers knowledge of his edaphic and other features of his land/resources would apply to any technology. Why just SRI? Maybe you didn't mean that.

[Yes, farmers knowledge will be always useful for any technology.]

2. I am not sure that addition of information about a check plot and describing what farmers did in their SRI plots is "perfect agronomic methods." I see it as a simple, but logical step that allows one to better understand why SRI gives the higher yield.

[I am not arguing much regarding check plots to compare with SRI methods. In Morang (Nepal) we are using the same input level (SRI or conventional method). We aren't emphasizing fertilization more; fertilizer is becoming very expensive to our farmers (3 times more costly than India), but the cost of production is similar. Besides this, during the last season some of our SRI farmers produce about 9 Mt./ha without using any chemical fertilizers, only compost/FYM only. In SRI we are generally advocating biological activities of soil, which is only possible in aerobic condition with sufficient organic matter. Aerobic soil (moist only) and organic matter enhance plant growth very positively. For its physiological information, scientists are exploring facts and we can work further. For farmers and me (as an extension worker), visual evidence and its profitability is enough. But still I am ready to conduct comparison trials with check plots, side by side (fertilizers application will be same in both plots, as farmers prefer). I am preparing a economic analysis of SRI compare with conventional practice. Soon I will share it with you.]

3. Surely SRI is a technology package, at least that is what I see when it is described. If you mean that SRI is a mechanism for farmer participatory approaches, I would say that this would apply to any technology that you want to promote with farmers.

[I have some disagreement with you on this point. In my 15 years experiences, I have found that farmers' participation has not been equally active in all sorts of technology packages. Costly technology is not prefered by general farmers (the majority of farmers in Nepal are small and resource poor, as you know very well), and farmers always prefer technology packages that can be successful by using local resources and seeds. SRI give this opportunity to farmers so it becomes an attraction within farming communities. High input/investment technology dissemination is limited to a very few commercial farmers and always escape by majority farmers. At the same time, there is no complexity in understanding SRI methods. In this way SRI becomes more participatory.]

4. Why do we need NEW evaluation methods for SRI or other innovations? Surely there is enough literature on this. There are a whole array of methods to do this and the choice is up to the evaluator. What exactly do you mean by NEW evaluation methods and give an example of what you mean.

[No comments.]

5. All innovations or changes in the way farmers do things are marked by continuous learning and adaptation. I don't agree that this is only for SRI.
[Yes, in every technology, there is chance of further improvement and learning, if we are open to learn.]

6. Good scientific methods that make comparisons of SRI with recommended practices are logical impact assessment methods that are simple and acceptable if properly described. What features of SRI are you referring to that need new designs?

[Why don't we collect farmers views on this point? What actually are farmers fro whom we are all working saying? Why do we only emphasize scientists views? If we are working for the betterment of farmers, the main evaluators of any technology must be the farmers, who are the final users of any such technology. It will be the "new design" for comparison in any such innovation.]

To me SRI is a package of good agronomic practices that help farmers improve yields of rice if their traditional practices are not using good agronomy. Good scientific methods are available to assess whether SRI is better or the same as recommended practices and they are simple. Just compare the SRI plot with a check plot but describe carefully what is done in each plot. Hope this helps.
- Peter

[Sure!]

 

-- 

 web (priv):    http://www.beeandy.de/