ABSTRACT

A large body of evidence indicates that SRI can enhance rice grain yield with substantially less water input than in conventional indsutrialized rice farms. While SRI conserves a large amount of water, it tends to endorse rice monocultures and emphasize complete eradication of weeds – practices that drastically truncate farm biodiversity. Except for a subset of “organic SRI,” most SRI practitioners apply agrochemicals. SRI proponents recommend the use of cono weeder, for weeding and soil aeration. However, poor farmers find the machine to be too costly and tend to apply herbicides for weed control, to the detriment of the environment and human health. In areas where surface water is unavailable, SRI induces use of pumps, which deplete groundwater stock and emit greenhouse gases, albeit substantially less in quantity than in conventional farming. Farmers’ adoption of SRI is motivated by spectacular grain yield, while environmental benefits remain a secondary consideration. This paper examines the SRI components that are discordant with the principles of agroecology and recommends redesigning of SRI methodology to conform to agroecology.

大量证据表明，与传统的工业化水稻农场相比，SRI可以以更少的水输入量提高稻米产量。尽管SRI可以节约大量的水，但它倾向于支持水稻的单作并强调彻底根除杂草，这种做法极大地削减了农场的生物多样性。除了一部分“有机SRI”外，大多数SRI从业人员都使用农药。SRI支持者建议使用锥度除草剂进行除草和土壤通气。但是，贫穷的农民发现这种机器价格昂贵，并且倾向于使用除草剂来控制杂草，从而损害环境和人类健康。在没有地表水的地区，SRI鼓励使用泵，这些泵会消耗地下水并排放温室气体，尽管其数量大大少于常规耕作。农民采用SRI的原因是谷物产量高，而环境效益仍然是次要考虑因素。本文研究了与农业生态学原理不符的SRI组成部分，并建议重新设计SRI方法以符合农业生态学。