A rice revolution on the horizon
Many a professor dreams of revolution. But Norman T. Uphoff, working
in a leafy corner of the Cornell University campus, is leading an
inconspicuous one centred on solving the global food crisis. The secret,
he says, is a new way of growing rice.
Rejecting old customs as well as the modern reliance on genetic
engineering, Dr. Uphoff, 67, an emeritus professor of government and
international agriculture with a trim white beard and a tidy office,
advocates a management revolt.
Harvests typically double, he says, if farmers plant early, give
seedlings more room to grow and stop flooding fields. That cuts water
and seed costs while promoting root and leaf growth.
The method, called the System of Rice Intensification, or S.R.I.,
emphasizes the quality of individual plants over the quantity. It
applies a less-is-more ethic to rice cultivation.
In a decade, it has gone from obscure theory to global trend - and
encountered fierce resistance from established rice scientists. Yet a
million rice farmers have adopted the system, Dr. Uphoff says. The rural
army, he predicts, will swell to 10 million farmers in the next few
years, increasing rice harvests, filling empty bellies and saving untold
lives.
“The world has lots and lots of problems,” Dr. Uphoff said recently
while talking of rice intensification and his 38 years at Cornell. “But
if we can’t solve the problems of peoples’ food needs, we can’t do
anything. This, at least, is within our reach.”
Norman T. Uphoff |
That may sound audacious given the depths of the food crisis and the
troubles facing rice. Roughly half the world eats the grain as a staple
food even as yields have stagnated and prices have soared, nearly
tripling in the past year. The price jolt has provoked riots, panicked
hoarding and violent protests in poor countries.
But Dr. Uphoff has a striking record of accomplishment, as well as a
gritty kind of farm-boy tenacity.
He and his method have flourished despite the scepticism of his
Cornell peers and the global rice establishment - especially the
International Rice Research Institute, which helped start the green
revolution of rising grain production and specializes in improving rice
genetics.
His telephone rings. It is the World Bank Institute, the educational
and training arm of the development bank. The institute is making a DVD
to spread the word.
“That’s one of the irons in the fire,” he tells a visitor, looking
pleased before plunging back into his tale. Dr. Uphoff’s improbable
journey involves a Wisconsin dairy farm, a billionaire philanthropist,
the jungles of Madagascar, a Jesuit priest, ranks of eager volunteers
and, increasingly, the developing world. He lists top S.R.I. users as
India, China, Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam among 28 countries on
three continents.
In Tamil Nadu, a state in southern India, Veerapandi S. Arumugam, the
agriculture minister, recently hailed the system as “revolutionizing”
paddy farming while spreading to “a staggering” million acres.
Chan Sarun, Cambodia’s agriculture minister, told hundreds of farmers
at an agriculture fair in April that S.R.I.’s speedy growth promises a
harvest of “white gold.” On Cornell’s agricultural campus, Dr. Uphoff
runs a one-man show from an office rich in travel mementos.
Rice harvesting in progress |
From Sri Lanka, woven rice stalks adorn a wall, the heads thick with
rice grains.
His computers link him to a global network of S.R.I. activists and
backers, like Oxfam, the British charity. Dr. Uphoff is S.R.I.’s global
advocate, and his Web site (ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/) serves as the main
showcase for its principles and successes.
“It couldn’t have happened without the Internet,” he says. Outside
his door is a sign, “Alfalfa Room,” with a large arrow pointing down the
hall, seemingly to a pre-electronic age.
Critics dismiss S.R.I. as an illusion. “The claims are grossly
exaggerated,” said Achim Dobermann, the head of research at the
international rice institute, which is based in the Philippines. Dr.
Dobermann said fewer farmers use S.R.I. than advertised because old
practices often are counted as part of the trend and the method itself
is often watered down.
“We don’t doubt that good yields can be achieved,” he said, but he
called the methods too onerous for the real world. By contrast, a former
sceptic sees great potential. Vernon W. Ruttan, an agricultural
economist at the University of Minnesota and a longtime member of the
National Academy of Sciences, once worked for the rice institute and
doubted the system’s prospects.
Dr. Ruttan now calls himself an enthusiastic fan, saying the method
is already reshaping the world of rice cultivation. “I doubt it will be
as great as the green revolution,” he said. “But in some areas it’s
already having a substantial impact.” Robert Chambers, a leading analyst
on rural development, who works at the University of Sussex, England,
called it a breakthrough.
“The extraordinary thing,” he said, “is that both farmers and
scientists have missed this - farmers for thousands of years, and
scientists until very recently and then some of them in a state of
denial.”
The method, he added, “has a big contribution to make to world food
supplies. Its time has come.” Dr. Uphoff grew up on a Wisconsin farm
milking cows and doing chores. In 1966, he graduated from Princeton with
a master’s degree in public affairs and in 1970 from the University of
California, Berkeley, with a doctorate in political science.
At Cornell, he threw himself into rural development, irrigation
management and credit programs for small farmers in the developing
world. In 1990, a secret philanthropist (eventually revealed to be
Charles F. Feeney, a Cornell alumnus who made billions in duty-free
shops) gave the university $15 million to start a programme on world
hunger. Dr. Uphoff was the institute’s director for 15 years.
The directorship took him in late 1993 to Madagascar. Slash-and-burn
rice farming was destroying the rain forest, and Dr. Uphoff sought
alternatives. He heard that a French Jesuit priest, Father Henri de
Laulani‚, had developed a high-yield rice cultivation method on
Madagascar that he called the System of Rice Intensification.
Dr. Uphoff was sceptical. Rice farmers there typically harvested two
tons per hectare (an area 100 by 100 meters, or 2.47 acres). The group
claimed 5 to 15 tons.
“I remember thinking, ‘Do they think they can scam me?’ “ Dr. Uphoff
recalled. “I told them, ‘Don’t talk 10 or 15 tons. No one at Cornell
will believe it. Let’s shoot for three or four.’ “ Dr. Uphoff oversaw
field trials for three years, and the farmers averaged eight tons per
hectare. Impressed, he featured S.R.I. on the cover of his institute’s
annual reports for 1996 and 1997.
Dr. Uphoff never met the priest, who died in 1995. But the success
prompted him to scrutinize the method and its origins. One clear
advantage was root vigour. The priest, during a drought, had noticed
that rice plants and especially roots seemed much stronger. That led to
the goal of keeping fields damp but not flooded, which improved soil
aeration and root growth.
Moreover, wide spacing let individual plants soak up more sunlight
and send out more tillers - the shoots that branch to the side. Plants
would send out upwards of 100 tillers. And each tiller, instead of
bearing the usual 100 or so grains, would puff up with 200 to 500
grains. One drawback was weeds.
The halt to flooding let invaders take root, and that called for more
weeding. A simple solution was a rotating, hand-pushed hoe, which also
aided soil aeration and crop production.
But that meant more labour, at least at first. It seemed that as
farmers gained skill, and yields rose, the overall system became labour
saving compared with usual methods.
Dr. Uphoff knew the no-frills approach went against the culture of
modern agribusiness but decided it was too good to ignore. In 1998, he
began promoting it beyond Madagascar, travelling the world, “sticking my
neck out,” as he put it.
Slowly, it caught on, but visibility brought critics. They dismissed
the claims as based on wishful thinking and poor record keeping, and did
field trials that showed results similar to conventional methods.
In 2006, three of Dr. Uphoff’s colleagues at Cornell wrote a scathing
analysis based on global data. “We find no evidence,” they wrote, “that
S.R.I. fundamentally changes the physiological yield potential of rice.”
While less categorical, Dr. Dobermann of the rice research institute
called the methods a step backward socially because they increased
drudgery in rice farming, especially among poor women. In his Cornell
office, Dr. Uphoff said his critics were biased and knew little of
S.R.I.’s actual workings.
The method saves labour for most farmers, including women, he said.
As for the sceptics’ field trials, he said, they were marred by problems
like using soils dead from decades of harsh chemicals and monocropping,
which is the growing of the same crop on the same land year after year.
“The critics have tried to say it’s all zealotry and religious belief,”
Dr. Uphoff sighed.
“But it’s science. I find myself becoming more and more empirical,
judging things by what works.” His computer seems to hum with proof.
A recent report from the Timbuktu region of Mali, on the edge of the
Sahara Desert, said farmers had raised rice yields 34 per cent, despite
initial problems with S.R.I. guideline observance. In Laos, an
agriculture official recently said S.R.I. had doubled the size of rice
crops in three provinces and would spread to the whole country because
it provided greater yields with fewer resources.
“Once we get over the mental barriers,” Dr. Uphoff said, “it can go
very, very quickly because there’s nothing to buy.” The opponents have
agreed to conduct a global field trial that may end the dispute, he
said. The participants include the rice institute, Cornell and
Wageningen University, a Dutch institution with a stellar reputation in
agriculture.
The field trials may start in 2009 and run through 2011, Dr. Uphoff
said. “This should satisfy any scientific questions,” he added. “But my
sense is that S.R.I. is moving so well and so fast that this will be
irrelevant.”
Practically, he said, the method is destined to grow. “It raises the
productivity of land, labour, water and capital,” he said. “It’s like
playing with a stacked deck. So I know we’re going to win.”
From the New York Times |