Parameters2013 2014 Difference (%)

DDSR TPR DDSR TPR 2013 2014

Gross return (US $) 1,606 aa 1,680 a 1,569 a 1,601 a -5 -2

Cost of production (US $) 479 a 783 b 463 a 724 b -48 -44

Net returns (US $) 1,127 a 897 b 1,106 a 876 b 23 23

Benefit-Cost ratio 2.35 a 1.15 b 2.39 a 1.21 b 69 66

Concluding remarks

Higher grain yield in DDSR system can be achieved by using rice cultivars that producemore productive tillers, longer panicles and not necessarily producing high biomass

Emerging DDSR system with comparable grain yield of improved rice cultivars, higherwater productivity and attractive economic returns will be more advantageous tomajority of resource-poor rice farmers in the dry zones

India is the second largest producer and consumer of rice in the world with cultivatingarea of around 37 million ha and produces 88 million tons annually. Transplanted rice(TPR) system is common in rice production areas of dry zones in Karnataka State, India.However, TPR is labor, water and energy intensive, and is becoming less profitable asthese resources are continuously becoming expensive and scarce. Due to thesedisadvantages, a major shift on rice production system from TPR to direct dry-seeded rice(DDSR) has occurred with wide adoption in several Asian countries including India.Sustaining yield and economic stability of DDSR needs to be considered before setting intolarge scale adoption of the emerging rice production system in the dry zone areas.

This work was supported by the Government of Karnataka through the Bhoo-Samrudhi project and coordinated by ICRISAT Development Center with thesupport of the IRRI-South Asia Hub, Joint Director of Agriculture, and University ofAgricultural Sciences Raichur, Karnataka State, India.

Direct dry-seeded and transplanted rice system of cultivation in the dry zone JB Soriano1, SP Wani1, AN Rao2, KL Sahrawat1, GL Sawargaonkar1, JAC Gowda1

1International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru - 502 324, Telangana State, India2ICRISAT Development Center and International Rice Research Institute - South Asia Hub at ICRISAT, Patancheru - 502 324, Telangana State, India

a Within a row by year, means followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level according to least significant difference(LSD) test. Percent decreased on DDSR against TPR reflects negative percent difference.

Economic returns

Water productivity

Grain yield and harvest index

Difference

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2013 2014

Direct dry-seeded rice

Transplanted rice

Gra

in y

ield

(t h

a-1)

Har

vest

inde

x (%

)

42.0

43.0

44.0

45.0

46.0

47.0

2013 2014

Dif

fere

nce

(%)

Yield difference of DDSR and TPR was attributed more to harvest index than tobiomass production

Higher harvest index can be achieved in DDSR system with taller plant height,longer panicles and more productive tillers

• A farmer participatory field studywas conducted in Neermanvivillage, Manvi taluka, Raichurdistrict of Karnataka State, Indiaduring the 2013 and 2014 rainyseasons

• DDSR and TPR system of ricecultivation were established in 12farmers’ fields using SambaMahsuri (BPT 5204) rice cultivar

DDSR Field TPR Field

Dryland Preparation Wetland Preparation

DDSR consumed around 46% less irrigation water compared with TPR

DDSR system can be more attractive to rice farmers of the dry zones due tocomparable grain yield and higher water productivity

Water productivity