@incollection{fdi:010063198,
  title = {{F}rom standards to practices : the intensive and improved rice systems ({SRI} and {SRA}) in {M}adagascar highlands},
  author = {{S}erpanti{\'e}, {G}eorges and {R}akotondramanana, {M}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{I}n the {B}etsileo {H}ighlands of {M}adagascar, the supposedly great potential of {SRI} ({S}ystem of {R}ice {I}ntensification) and {SRA} ({I}mproved {R}ice {S}ystem or syste`me de riziculture ameŽlioreŽe) has not been concretized by massive adoption by farmers. {T}he lowest adoption rate occurred in and around forest protected areas where {SRI} extension was implemented early on to help farmers face conservation constraints. {T}he hypothesis was put forward that the {SRI} model has either encountered specific ecological and socioeconomic constraints or has not matched the promises made by those who promoted it. {A}n in situ agronomic survey at field level (crop management sequences, yield component analysis) was implemented on random samples of farmers’ fields, with about fifteen fields per system. {T}hree systems were compared: neither {SRI} nor {SRA} (control {S}1), application of {SRI} ({S}2), application of {SRA} ({S}3) at two sites (near the forest, near the markets) for 3 years. {T}he control {S}1 was more intensive and higher-yielding than {SRI}/{SRA} promoters indicated: 4.2 t/ha against 2 t/ha in official discourses. {T}he management of {S}2 and {S}3 matched the prescribed models {SRI} and {SRA} for key features overall. {H}owever, {S}2 generally received more organic manure and more fertilizers than {S}1 and {S}3 and benefited from the best preceding crops and the best paddies. {T}he average yield of practiced {SRA} ({S}3) was not different from {S}1, because {S}1 had sometimes already adopted some features of {SRA}. {N}ear the forest, with peat soils and mainly mineral fertilizing provided by conservation projects, there was no difference between {S}1 and {S}2 yields in 2006 (drought in vegetative phase), therefore the 2007 yield of {S}2 exceeded {S}1 by 14 % (only due to bigger ears). {Y}et near the markets in 2008, with mainly mineral soils, counter-season crops, earlier rains, and more manure, the {S}2 yielded +40 % more than {S}1 with more panicles. {T}he average gain of +24 % included effects of fertilizer and manure additions, and so the real {SRI} effect, ceteris paribus was much lower. {T}his low attractiveness, the associated risks, the cost of specialized hired labor, and the lack of manure and fertile mineral soils probably reduced {SRI} adoption by the poor farmers of the forest and forest edge. {N}ear roads and markets, more people had enough manure and money for hiring workers to invest and run the risks of {SRI}. {B}ut the real {SRI} effects have yet to be checked, in ceteris paribus yields, environmental and social benefits.},
  keywords = {{RIZICULTURE} ; {SYSTEME} {DE} {CULTURE} ; {INTENSIFICATION} {DE} {L}'{AGRICULTURE} ; {CALENDRIER} {CULTURAL} ; {PRATIQUE} {CULTURALE} ; {AGRICULTURE} {TRADITIONNELLE} ; {EXPLOITATION} {AGRICOLE} {FAMILIALE} ; {MADAGASCAR} ; {FIANARANTSOA} ; {ANDROY}},
  booktitle = {{C}hallenges and opportunities for agricultural intensification of th humid highland systems of {S}ub-{S}aharan {A}frica},
  numero = {},
  pages = {149--163},
  address = {{C}ham},
  publisher = {{S}pringer},
  series = {},
  year = {2014},
  DOI = {10.1007/978-3-319-07662-1_13},
  ISBN = {973-3-379-07661-4},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010063198},
}