Is direct seeding of rice a solution or a new problem in disguise?

True agricultural progress lies in empowering farmers, preserving biodiversity, and adopting sustainable practices. It is time to challenge the corporate-driven agricultural model and prioritise the needs of the people who feed us

Sometimes I wonder. Why do we first destroy the inherent capacity and then after a few years go in for capacity rebuilding. Well, if you think it isn’t clear as to what I mean, let me make an effort.

It was interesting to read a statement by Subroto Geed, President of South Asia wing of Corteva AgriScience, a global agricultural company that provides crop protection and seed products to farmers: “At Corteva AgriScience, we understand the challenges rice farmers face and acute need to promote sustainable farming. That’s why we are focused on increasing Direct Seeding Rice (DSR) adoption through a multi-stakeholder approach.

By bringing together diverse partners and leveraging advanced seed technology, crop protection solutions, and sustainable agronomic practices, we empower farmers with effective solutions for resilient rice production.”

The DSR technology in rice cultivation may sound to be highly innovative, but, excuse me, to only those scientists and business journalists who probably cannot see beyond what the corporate battlefront has to offer. The ‘precision technology’ tool that is now being made available with much fanfare was, in fact, being practiced by Indian farmers or for that matter by rice farmers across Asia decades ago.

To make it look as if the technological innovation approach is multi-stakeholder, diverse partners are being engaged to leverage the advanced seed technology. Surprisingly, we now have the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the umbrella agricultural research organisation of the country, getting into an agreement with the multinational giant, Bayer. According to media reports, Bayer plans to bring one million hectares under DSR by 2030.

In a memorandum of understanding between ICAR and Bayer, a set of policy frame works, including agronomic solutions, crop protection, mechanisation for DSR and other precision technology tool are envisaged. Of course, all this will require capacity building at the farmers as well as at the research and extension levels.

When I was growing up I had always seen rice farmers undertaking cultivation by sprinkling seeds in a field filled with water. Later, after completing my Master’s in agriculture I joined a multi-edition major English language daily as its Agriculture Correspondent. It was around that time agricultural universities and extension services were aggressively promoting transplanting of paddy. The argument of agricultural scientists and extension workers then was that transplanting in rice increased crop productivity. No one questioned the tall claim, and it was something that everyone seemed to agree with.

For several years, a picture of women transplanting paddy seedlings in rows became a routine front page photograph in my newspaper also indicating the advent of Kharif crop season. Even now, a picture of women workers transplanting paddy has become a popular way to identify a report or analysis that talks of rice.

But it was mid-1980s, a study by International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) lifted the lid over the so-called efficiency of paddy transplanting. The study said that there is no difference in crop productivity if you sow rice by broadcasting of seeds (which means seed sprinkling) or by transplanting paddy seedlings. It was during that time I was on a short term assignment with IRRI at Los Banos in the Philippines, and had an opportunity to meet one of the top rice scientists of the world. I asked him if according to IRRI study there is no difference in rice yield if the crop is sown by broadcasting or transplanted, then why we were told to shift to transplanting of paddy. After all, this was quite a shift in the way rice cultivation was undertaken.

What I was told was no less than an eye-opener. The emergence of high-yielding varieties of rice coincided with the period when the tractor industry was trying to expand its marketing. Given that 97 per cent of rice cultivation globally happens in Asia, broadcasting of seeds do not allow the tractors to operate in paddy field. With seeds having been broadcasted, it becomes difficult for the tractor to operate in the rice field without trampling the rice plants. Transplanting in rows therefore became a solution to ensure that a tractor could cooperate in a rice field without causing any damage. Higher productivity in that case was not the criteria but creating a narrative around it helped convince farmers and extension workers of the need to shift from broadcasting of seeds and in the guise help the industry to market its tractors in Asia.

In other words, the politics of technology destroyed the inherent capacity or skills of the farming community to not only sow the seeds directly but also in the process ensure climate resilience leading to sustainable rice production. It is now being claimed that DSR will revolutionise rice production in India without being told that Indian farmers were efficiently doing it in the past. The only difference now being that the industry is drilling a herbicide along with seed which in my understanding is much more harmful to the environment. Just like depletion of groundwater in case of paddy cultivation has become a problem; it will be herbicide application that will emerge as a major problem in the years to come. Earlier, farmers were only broadcasting the seeds. It too was direct sowing.

Very cleverly, rice farmers were divulged from continuing with climate savvy practices by a system approach that involved agricultural universities and the agribusiness industry. Simply put, rice farmers were much more future looking than what the agribusiness industry now is trying to rebuild the capacities for. As I said earlier, first destroy the existing capacity, and after having exploited the farming communities by selling expensive industrial tools, now rebuild capacities so as to sell new industry tools backed by digital technology providers. Both ways, it is farmers who are at the losing end, and it is the input industry that laughs all the way to the bank.

This in reality is the real circular economy.

Now look at the industry claims. With several industry players joining hands, and with ICAR and IRRI supporting them, a new narrative of water-positive rice cultivation is being built. It is being said that DSR will save 35 to 40 per cent water, save Rs 4,000 to Rs 5,000 per acre as transplanting labour cost, save fuel and machine cost for puddling operations, and also save environmental damage by hard soil pan creation as a result; and finally lead to 35 per cent reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Wasn’t this what rice farmers were actually saving on when they were simply broadcasting seeds? We actually first destroyed the time-tested and innovative technology of broadcasting seed to be replaced by less efficient branded technologies which we market as innovative.

(The author is a noted food policy analyst and an expert on issues related to the agriculture sector. He writes on food, agriculture and hunger)