More Rice with SRI

ONE unforgettable one-liner that I heard a long time ago from farmers and which made me laugh was: "Hindi na kami magsasaka, magsasako na." [We're no longer rice farmers, we're now rice sack dealers.] That's one pun that gets totally lost in translation because the punch rests on one vowel of a Filipino word. Forget it if you don't understand Filipino. The letter O of "magsasako" might as well be a fat zero, meaning empty. Empty sacks. Where has all the rice gone?

There are a myriad reasons for troubled rice yields, rice shortages and vanishing rice varieties. One could blame wanton land conversion, chemical poisoning of the soil, wrong government agricultural priorities, overpopulation, environmental destruction and multinationals that play god. Name it. But there's hope for rice. There is hope in SRI, or system of rice intensification. Its Filipino practitioners have coined a Filipino name for it: Sipag-Palay or "ang sistema ng pagpapalago ng palay" [the system for growing rice]. Well-known SRI proponent Norman T. Uphoff, director of Cornell International Institute for Food Agriculture and Development, was here last week to speak and listen to SRI farmers. Uphoff, who had been here several times before, was the speaker at the Third National SRI Conference organized by the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, the Philippine Greens, Pabinhi, Broad Initiatives for Negros Development, and SRI-Pilipinas. SRI, I learned, had its beginnings in Madagascar in the 1980s. Jesuit Father Henri de Laulanie, who lived among farmers there for three decades, helped develop a way to increase rice yield from 50 cavans per hectare to 144 cavans per hectare. In some cases, the yield even reached as high as 200 to 300 cavans. This was possible even in soil that was not fertile and without using modern rice varieties and chemical fertilizers, and even with very little water. Straight out of a biblical parable? No, it's straight out of Madagascar and now several countries in Africa and Asia, including the Philippines. SRI practices were first tested outside Madagascar in 1999 at Nanjing University in China and later by the Agency for Agricultural Research and Development in Indonesia. Let me share some info on SRI that I've read and learned. SRI is a system, not a technology, because it is not set or fixed. It has to be tested and adapted to particular conditions. If practiced skillfully, it is possible to increase rice produce by 50 to 100 percent, and in cases where initial production level is low the increase could go as high as 200 to 300 percent. The objective of SRI is not to maximize rice yield but rather to achieve "higher productivity" from the factors of production, namely, land, labor, capital and water. Increased productivity should benefit farmers and consumers, the poorer ones especially, while practices remain environmentally friendly and sustainable. Yields vary depending on skill and the soil biota and other conditions. The principles underlying SRI, it is to be stressed, are more important than the practices themselves. The practices that follow from these principles differ dramatically from age-old practices. The principles: Rice is not an aquatic plant. (It does not really thrive best in a watery setting.) Rice seedlings lose much of their growth if transplanted more than 15 days after they have emerged from the nursery. During transplanting, avoid trauma especially to the roots. Wider spacing will result in greater root growth. Soil aeration and organic matter create beneficial conditions for root growth. The practices: Transplant seedlings when they are eight to 12 days old, when the plants have only two small leaves and the seed sacs are still attached to the roots. Transplant quickly and carefully, allowing only 15 to 30 minutes between uprooting from the nursery to planting in the field. Plant wide apart, with one seedling per hill, or two plants per hill in poor soil. Plant in a square pattern to facilitate weeding. Keep the soil well drained. Do early and frequent weeding. Add nutrients to the soil, preferably organic from compost or mulch. One thing I learned from listening to all that, which I could apply to my own garden: Do not feed the plants, feed the soil that feeds the plants. Known local SRI guru and practitioner Rene Jaranilla of Pabinhi shared his SRI experience in the central Philippines province of Guimaras. Practitioners of conventional agriculture dismiss SRI as too good to be true, he said. To prove his point, he gave a video presentation of the results of SRI practices. One of his examples was the sturdy rice variety that grew as high as six feet. The first years of SRI are not easy. Transplanting very young seedlings could be tedious. Jaranilla showed ways how this could be made easier, like making seedlings grow in old washbasins that are easy to carry to the field. It is more labor intensive at first, but as farmers develop the skills, the third or fourth year could be a breeze. For the late Father De Laulanie, SRI was a strategy not just for increasing rice production, but also for human resource development. Farmers who have experienced the benefits of SRI are urged to be more involved in their own development. They are encouraged to continue experimenting with spacing, water applications, weeding, etc. and discover what works best for them.

If you want to know more about SRI or Sipag-Palay, try contacting Vic Tagupa (0916-5104462) of Xavier University College of Agriculture or Noe Ysulat (0919-4068084) of Da-ati Kabacan who has produced more than 200 cavans per hectare. Or access http://www.cifad.cornell.edu/sri or contact ciifad@cornell.edu.

para sa mga magsasakang tulad ko... pwede nating subukan at pag-aralan

Bakit hindi mapigil ang mga tao sa paghuli ng mga endangered species kahit ipinagbabawal na ito?

Narito ang ilang mga halimbawa ng endangered species:
Sa Karagatan
· Butanding o whale shark
· Pawikan at iba pa
· Dugong
Sa Kagubatan
· Tamaraw
· Mga halamang ligaw (dapo at iba pang kauri nito) mga puno at mga organismo
· Baboydamo
Sa Kapatagan
· Native na hito
· Native na kuhol
· Native na Igat
· Native na gulay
Sa Himpapawid
· Agila
· Kilyawan
· Lawin

Mga ugat ng kawalan ng pakialam ng mga tao:
· Laganap na kahirapan
· Walang mapagkakitaan
· Walang opurtinidad

Mas binibigyang pansin ng mga mahihirap ang pagkaing dadalhin sa kanilang hapag, kaysa sa mga epektong maidudulot ng pagkawala ng mga Likas na yaman.

Mas mahalaga na mapunuan nila ang kumakalam na sikmura ng minamahal niyang pamilya kaysa sa pagkatakot na baka wala ng bukas na naghihintay sa kanilang mga apo

Papaano makapag-iisip ang isang taong naririndi sa iyak ng mga batang nagugutom?

Paano mo aalagaan ang isang kapaligiran o kalikasan kung ang iyong mismong tinitirhan ay butas-butas at nakagiray?

Bakit ba nagpapatuloy ang kahirapan?

Ang mga mamamayan ay napasok sa isang mapanlinlang na modernisasyong ang namamayani ay ang mga kapitalista.

Saan at paaano ba ito nagsimula?
Sa Agrikultura: ang mga kinagisnang pamamaraan ay napalitan ng makabagong sistema ng pagsasaka na sumira sa mga Likas na yaman. Pumatay sa mga katutubong lahi ng mga ng mga hayop at halaman siyang naging salalayan ng buhay sa matagal na panahon ng ating mga ninuno.

Pinalitan ng mismong pamahalaan natin ng mga programang naging dahilan ng kasalukuyang kahirapan.

Ano ang naging bunga ng paghihirap ng ito?
Ang mga tao ay natutong makipagsapalaran sa pamamagitan ng mga numbers game katulad ng jueteng, at iba pang mga sugal at ang pinakahuli ay ang STL

Paano ba pinalalala ng mga sugal na ito ang kahirapan?
Sa pamilya. P10 piso lang. kung ang barangay ay may 2,000 mananaya x P10.00 = P20,000 sa bawat barangay, kung tayo ay may 11 barangay x 2,000 mananaya x P10.00= P220,000.00 sa isang bayan pa lamang. Ang mga perang ito na dapat ay pinakikinabangan ng ating pamilya… ng ating barangay … ng ating bayan.
Ang perang ito na mula sa bulsa ng mga mananaya ay pwedeng magamit sa pulitika, o mas tamang sabihin na ginagamit talaga itong pondo sa pulitika!

Sa kabila ng nakikitang mga kahirapan at kawalan ng hanapbuhay, ang pamahalaan ay walang mga kongkretong hakbang na ginagawa upang matugunan ang problema ng mga maralita...

Imbitasyon mula sa Greenpeace

Sa kasalukuyan ay mayroong isa na namang isinasagawang kampanya sa bansang Brussels laban sa mga Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) products. Narito ang ilang mga punto na ipinadala sa atin ng Greenpeace... upang higit nating maalaman kung bakit ito tinututulan:

"The agro-chemical industry is already bombarding the Commission with lobbyists and messages. Greenpeace activists and campaigners are on the ground in Brussels, too. But with your voice, and your network of friends, we can deliver a louder, more direct message to Europe's top politicians".

"We have contact details for all 27 European Commissioners, talking points you can use in your message to them, and links to further reading. The vast majority of EU citizens are opposed to GMOs, and emails direct from people who care? in Europe, around the world ? can really work.
1. The two maize varieties that will be debated on 7 May 2008 produce their own pesticide. According to current practices these crops were only tested for 90 days for health effects whereas pesticides are tested for 2 years!

2. The GM potato contains a gene that makes cells resistant to antibiotics! If this were to get released into the environment there could be serious problems in treating diseases, such as tuberculosis.

3. Recently 37 scientists wrote a letter to the Commission pointing out from a scientific point of view the many gaps and uncertainties in relation to GMOs.
The majority of European citizens oppose the use of GMOs and this opposition has been consistent for the past 10 years.

4. Industry promotes GM crops as potentially feeding the world, however this has not materialised whilst ecologically sound farming models and methods show real potential. Recently, even the UN admitted that genetically engineered crops are not a solution for poverty, hunger or climate change.

5. The body responsible for advising the Commission on GMOs, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) is not doing its job properly. First of all it has recognized that it lacks the methods for carrying out long term assessment of the health and environmental impacts of GMOs. Secondly, it is relying on incomplete data that is submitted by the agro-chemical industry – and it hardly ever checks it properly.

Isang paglalahad ng katotohanan sa likod ng panlilinlang ng mga transnational corporations. 37 siyentista at milyun-milyong mga tao ang nagnanais na sana’y makamit natin ang tagumpay bago maging huli ang lahat...

Sa ating mumunting kaalaman at mumunting kasanayan... gamitin natin ito upang magbago ang ating lipunan!