Skip to main content

Table 1 Review of SRI management impacts on yield, water saving, costs of production, and farmer income per ha in 13 countries

From: Supporting food security in the 21st century through resource-conserving increases in agricultural production

Country Farmers (N) or Trials/Area Conven-tional yield (t/ha) SRI yield (t/ha) Yield increase (%) Water saving (%) Impact on cost per ha (%) Impact on income per ha (%) Coverage of evaluation and agency doing study [source of data]
AFGHANISTAN 42d 5.6 9.3 55% NM NM NM Aga Khan Foundation program in Baghlan district [23]
BANGLADESH 1,073d 5.44 6.86 26% NM −7% +59% 2-year study by NGOs and Syngenta under IRRI program auspices [24]
CAMBODIA 500c 1.63 2.29 41% Rainfed −56% +74% 5-province study done for GTZ [25]
Experienced farmers 120d 1.34 2.75 105% Rainfed −47% +98% Study of all 3-year SRI users by CEDAC [26]
CHINA 82c 6.6 9.37 42% 44% −7.4%f +64% Village study by China Agricultural University in Sichuan province [27]
Sichuan province Total area 2004 to 2010 : 301,967 ha 7.7 9.5 23% 25.6% NR Additional income: US$320 million Provincial Department of Agriculture data, 2004 to 2010 [28]
INDIA 108d 4.12g 5.47g 32%g Rainfed −35% +67% IWMI-India programme study in W. Bengal [29]
Andhra Pradesh state 1,525d 6.31 8.73 34% 40% NM NM Evaluations by AP state university ANGRAU [30]
INDONESIA 12,133d 4.27 7.61 78% 40% −20% >100% On-farm trials managed by Nippon Koei TA team, 2002 to 2006 [31]
KENYA On-station trials 6.2 7.6 26% 28.2% NM NM Mwea irrigation scheme trials, 3 replications [32]
Additional trials " 8.66 14.85 70% 24% NM NM Mwea irrigation scheme trials, 4 replications [33]
MALI 53d 5.5 9.1 60% 10% +15% +108% Timbuktu region under Africare program [34]
MYANMAR 612d 2.1 4.4 110% Rainfed +0.2% 8.7 times more FFS results in Kachin and Shan States, 3 years [35]
NEPAL 412d 3.3 6.1 82% 43% −2.2%e +163% District agricultural extension program, Morang [36]
Far Western region 890d 4.01 7.58 88% >60% +32% +164% EU-FAO Food Facility Programme [37, 38]
PANAMA 46d 3.44 4.75 38% 71-86% NM NM 10 communities, evaluation by NGO [39]
SRI LANKA 120c 3.84 5.52 44% 24% −12% +104% IWMI study in 2 districts [40]
VIETNAM 1,274d 5.58 6.79 22% 33% −30% +36% MARD FFS results from 13 districts [41]
Total N and Averages 18,870a 4.77 7.12 50% 37.5% −16% 94%a,b  
  1. NM: Not measured, NR: Not reported, FFS: Farmer Field Schools.
  2. aNot including Sichuan/China data; bNot including Myanmar data.
  3. c Based on random samples; dResults from all farmers using SRI in area; no sampling involved.
  4. eLabor-saving hand weeders were not yet available in district to reduce labor inputs and costs.
  5. fExtension personnel were promoting the purchase of modern seeds and fertilizer simultaneously with SRI methods.
  6. g50% increase in the village with normal rainfall, 12% in the drought-stricken village.