Report is based on a survey of 120 farmers in two districts, 60 using SRI and 60 non-users, randomly sampled.

1. Among non-users, 87.5% reported having heard about SRI, mostly from other farmers, and 75% reported that they intended to practice SRI in the future (Tables 1 and 2).

2. The main reason given by non-users for unfavorable attitudes toward SRI was "requires more labor and effort" (54%). Other reasons ranged from 12 to 2%. Physical impediments ("water shortages, lack of suitable field") were mentioned by only 9%. 69% of non-SRI farmers reported a favorable opinion toward SRI in their community; only 9% unfavorable.

3. Advantages reported by SRI users included: saving seed (100%), more tillers (98%), reduced demand for herbicide (92%), less lodging (91%), improved seed quality (91%), saving of water (90%), less disease and pest attack (88%), reduced need for organic fertilizer (86%), reduced input cost (85%), more yield (83%), less labor for harvesting (80%), and more milling output (77%).

4. Disadvantages reported by SRI users included: water management difficulties (77%), more effort required (75%), requirement of well-drained soils (69%), required additional work days (65%), organic matter not available (58%), does not work on flooded fields (56%), transport of organic matter is problematic (51%), more labor input required (50%), transplanting is difficult (37%), skilled labor required for management (32%), transplanting requires special skills (25%).

5. When analyzing factors influencing SRI adoption with an elaborate statistical model, labor availability and years of schooling were the main factors identified statistically. The analysis showed no significant difference in SRI adoption between rich and poor farmers, going against some previous reports on SRI.

6. In a parallel analysis of disadoption, yield obtained had a statistically significant correlation, but was not significant in substantive terms (only -.002). Poverty group membership was negatively and significantly correlated with disadoption, meaning that once they start using these new methods, the poor have a higher probability of continuing with them than do rich farmers.

7. SRI farmers used less inorganic fertilizer and more organic fertilization, as expected. The report said that a considerable number of SRI farmers abandoned the use of inorganic fertilizers altogether. SRI farmers who did not apply any form of inorganic fertilizer had significantly better or comparable yields to those SRI farmers who applied up to 150 kg of fertilizer in both maha and yala seasons. Herbicide use among SRI farmers was 73% less, while mechanical weeding was only 33% more per hectare and hand weeding only 7% more.

8. Irrigation reduction in terms of hours of irrigation was only reduced by 21% for SRI farmers, but given the higher yield, water productivity was raised by 90%.

9. SRI yields were 50% higher, averaging 5.977 t/ha in 2003. This is lower than reported from many other countries, and from some other locations in Sri Lanka, so there is potential for SRI returns to be even higher in the future.

10. Costs of production per unit of paddy output were not reported in the draft, but they were said to be considerably lower with SRI. The report did say that the estimated profit for SRI was almost double that of conventional practice in both seasons.

11. The incidence of net losses among SRI farmers was substantially lower than for conventional farmers, irrespective of season (Section 5.3). Given farmers need and desire to reduce risks, this could become an additional motivation for SRI adoption.