The System of Rice Intensification (SRI):

Understanding this Resource-Saving, High-Yielding Rice Farming System and

Its Implications for Agricultural Science

Kyoto University, February 22, 2008

Norman Uphoff Cornell International Institute for

Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD)in cooperation with Nippon Koei

Rice sector needs in 21st centuryacc. to IRRI/DG, Intl. Year of Rice, 2004

• Increased land productivity-- higher yield

• Higher water productivity -- crop per drop

• Technology accessible for the poor

• Environmental friendliness

• More pest- and disease-resistance

• More tolerance of abiotic stresses

• Better grain quality for consumers

• Greater profitability for farmers

SRI practice can meet all these needs:

• Higher yields by 50-100% (78% in NT)

• Water reductions of 25-50%

• Capital expenditure -- not necessary

• Neither are agrochemical inputs

• Pest and disease resistance

• Drought and lodging tolerance

• Better grain quality

• Lower costs of production by10-20%

Additional benefits of SRI practice:

• Time to maturity reduced by 1-2 weeks

• Milling outturn -- higher by about 15%

• Other crops’ performance also being improved by SRI concepts and practices, e.g., sugar cane, millet, wheat, mustard• Human resource development for farmers through participatory approach

• Diversification and modernization of smallholder agriculture

SRI Not a Technology – 6 Core Ideas

1. Use young seedlings to preserve growth potential – although DIRECT SEEDING is becoming an option

2. Avoid trauma to the roots -- transplant quickly, shallow, no inversion of root tips that will halt growth

3. Give plants wider spacing – one plant per hill and in square pattern to achieve ‘edge effect’

4. Keep paddy soil moist but unflooded – mostly aerobic, not continuously saturated, and

5. Actively aerate the soil -- as much as possible

6. Enhance soil organic matter as much as possible

Practices 1-3 stimulate plant growth; while practices 4-6 enhance the growth and health of roots and soil biota

Alternative Agricultural Paradigms: • GREEN REVOLUTION strategy was to:

(a) Change the genetic potential of plants, and

(b) Increase the provision of external inputs -- more water, more fertilizer and insecticides, etc.

• AGROECOLOGY (SRI) instead changes the management of plants, soil, water & nutrients to:

(a) Promote the growth of root systems, and

(b) Increase the abundance and diversity of soil organisms to better enlist their benefits

These produce bigger/better PHENOTYPES

Cambodia, Takeo Province:rice plant grownfrom single seed,with SRI methodsand trad. variety

Nepal,MorangDistrict:

Single riceplant grown

with SRI methods

India: Punjabi farmer showing difference in rice phenotypes

INDONESIA: Dried rice plants in Nippon Koei office, Jakarta

India, Maruteru Research Station, AP: roots of a single rice plant (MTU 1071)

Cuba: Two plants, same variety(VN 2084) and same age (52 DAP)

Microbial populations in rice rhizosphere as measured in TNAU analysis

Micro-organisms

Conventional rhizospheres

SRI practice rhizospheres

Total bacteria

88 x 106 105 x 106

Azospirillum 8 x 105 31 x 105

Azotobacter 39 x 103 66 x 103

Phospho-bacteria

33 x 103 59 x 103

AZOSPIRILLUM POPULATIONS, TILLERING AND RICE YIELDS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT CULTIVATION PRACTICES

AND NUTRIENT AMENDMENTS Results of replicated trials at Anjomakely, Madagascar, 2001 (Andriankaja, 2002)

Azospirillum

CLAY SOIL in Roots (103/mg)

Tillers/ plant

Yield (t/ha)

Traditional cultivation, no amendments

65 17 1.8

SRI cultivation, with no amendments

1,100 45 6.1

SRI cultivation, with NPK amendments

450 68 9.0

SRI cultivation, with compost

1,400 78 10.5

LOAM SOIL SRI cultivation, with no amendments

75 32 2.1

SRI cultivation, with compost

2,000 47 6.6

SRI

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

IH H FH MR WR YRStage

Org

an d

ry w

eigh

t(g/

hill)

CK

I H H FH MR WR YR

Yellowleaf andsheathPanicle

Leaf

Sheath

Stem

47.9% 34.7%

“Non-Flooding Rice Farming Technology in Irrigated Paddy Field”Dr. Tao Longxing, China National Rice Research Institute, 2004

CNRRI factorial trials, 2004 and 2005,using two super-rice hybrid varieties,

seeking to break the plateauing of S-R yields

Standard Rice Mgmt• 30-day seedlings• 20x20 cm spacing• Continuous flooding• Fertilization:

– 100% chemical

New Rice Mgmt (SRI)• 20-day seedlings• 30x30 cm spacing• Alternate wetting and

drying (AWD)• Fertilization:

– 50% chemical, – 50% organic

Average super-rice YIELDS (kg ha-1) with new rice management (SRI) vs. standard rice management

at different plant densities ha-1

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

150,000 180,000 210,000

NRMSRM

Comparison of rice plant roots in North

Bharat Chandra Nagar, Rajnagar

Subdistrict,Tripura State

Conventionalrice plants (3)

on left; andSRI rice plant

(1) on left

1. INCREASED YIELD

Area under paddy (ha)

Paddy produc

tion (mt)

Ave. yield

(mt/ha)

Area under

SRI (ha)

SRI production (mt)

Ave. SRI

yield (mt/ha)

No. of

fami-lies

2005-06

15,613 49,976 3.009 24.5 170.08 6.942 122

2006-07

15,632 50,976 3.261 2,300 15,669.9 6.813 5,335

Data from Department of Agriculture, State of Tripura, Rajnagar Subdistrict Office

Indonesia,Lombok Province:

Rice plantssame variety,

same age

Results of 9 seasons of on-farm comparative evaluations of SRI in

Indonesia, by Nippon Koei, 2002-06

• No. of trials: 12,133

• Total area: 9,429.1 hectares

• Ave. increase in yield: 3.3 t/ha -- 78%

• Reduction in water requirements: 40%

• Reduction in fertilizer use: 50%

• Reduction in costs of production: 20%

Bali, DS 2006: 24 farmers on 42 hectares: SRI + Longping hybrids: 13.3 t/ha vs. 8.4

2. REDUCED WATER USE• Application of minimum of water to meet the plants’ needs – either by:

• Small daily applications to maintain soil moisture, according to soil type, with some periods of soil drying, or• Alternate wetting and drying – may give lower yield but saves on labor

• Getting higher yield with less water means greater water productivity and achieving goal of ‘more crop per drop’

Trend in Decreasing Water Table Level in Punjab

YearYear Affected areaAffected area Depth of water Depth of water level (in feet)level (in feet)

1973-741973-74 3%3% 3030

2005-062005-06 30%30% 70 70

20232023 Whole of Whole of Punjab?Punjab?

160160

Statistics of DOA PunjabStatistics of DOA Punjab

SRI Saving of Irrigation Water in Punjab

Method of Method of cultivationcultivation

No. of No. of irrigations irrigations per acreper acre

Time to irrigate Time to irrigate one acreone acre

(4” delivery pipe)(4” delivery pipe)

Saving of Saving of water under water under SRISRI

Conven-Conven-tional tional methodsmethods

2525 4 hours4 hours

50-55 %50-55 %SRISRI 1313 2 hours2 hours

If we apply SRI method of cultivation on 26 lakh If we apply SRI method of cultivation on 26 lakh hectares of rice area in Punjab, then it is estimated hectares of rice area in Punjab, then it is estimated that 50% of water can be saved.that 50% of water can be saved.

Dr. Amrik Singh, MANAGE, GurdaspurDr. Amrik Singh, MANAGE, Gurdaspur

3. ACCESSIBILITY TO POOR• SRI requires no purchases of external inputs, although these can be used

• All varieties respond to SRI practices – so no need to purchase new seeds, although highest yields with HYVs/hybrids• Decomposed biomass suffices for soil nutrition – so no need to buy fertilizers; fertilizer gives good but not best results• No/little need for agrochemical protection

• Credit is not necessary -- no need for households to borrow and go into debt

INDIA: South Tripura District, Rajnagar Subdivision: Dimatali -- all tribal village, 21/78 farmers using SRI

-- 6.5 t/ha SRI yield vs. 2.5 t/ha conventional --two years earlier not even doing row planting

Socially Marginal Villages Visited in Teliamura Agricultural Sub-Division,

West Tripura District, India

G.P. Area Population Culti-vators

SRI Culti-vators

PaddyArea (ha)

SRIArea (ha)

North Maharanipur

1800(90% STs)

632 143(79%)

180 100(56%)

Maiganga 3648(70% SCs)

822 200(24%)

248 100(40%)

EastHowaibari

1832(40% SCs,20% STs)

270 92(34%)

85 54(64%)

Data from Tripura State Dept. of Agriculture

Paddy Yield by Socially Marginal Villages, Teliamura Sub-Division, by season, 2006-07

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SRIKhI

ConvKh1

SRIKh2

ConvKh2

SRIRabi

ConvRabi

N.Mah.Maig.E.How.

4. ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL PRODUCTION

• Lower water requirement reduces pressure on natural ecosystems

• Reduced N fertilizer application preserves water quality (less NO3)

• Reduced use of agrochemicals benefits both soil and water quality

• Not flooding abates CH4 (GHG) -- although still need to assess N2O

5. PEST/DISEASE RESISTANCE

• SRI rice plants are more resistant to pests and diseases

• Little or no need for agrochemical protection

• Although IPM crop management is always recommended

• Some agrochemicals can be used on an ‘as-needed’ basis

Incidence of Diseases and PestsVietnam National IPM Program: average of

data from trials in 8 provinces, 2005-06:

Spring season Summer season

SRIPlots

FarmerPlots

Differ-ence

SRIPlots

FarmerPlots

Differ-ence

Sheath blight

6.7% 18.1% 63.0% 5.2% 19.8% 73.7%

Leaf blight

-- -- -- 8.6% 36.3% 76.5%

Small leaf folder

63.4* 107.7* 41.1% 61.8* 122.3* 49.5%

Brown plant hopper

542* 1,440* 62.4% 545* 3,214* 83.0%

AVERAGE*Insects/

m255.5% 70.7%

Insects

(damage or population size)

SRI cultivation

(mean ± SE)

Conventional cultivation

(mean ± SE)

t value

(difference)

(SRI reduction)

Cut worm(% damaged leaves

per seedling)

0.0 ± 0.0(0.0)

20.4 ± 4.8(19.1)

16.1**

( ∞ )

Thrips(per seedling)

0.5 ± 0.2(0.9)

6.1 ± 0.5(2.5)

19.3**

( 92% )

Green leaf hopper

(per seedling)

0.1 ± 0.0(0.8)

0.4 ± 0.1(0.9)

14.8**

( 75% )

BPH(per seedling)

0.0 ± 0.0(0.0)

0.2 ± 0.0(0.8)

11.5**

( ∞ )

Whorl maggot(% damaged leaves

per seedling)

0.8 ± 0.2(0.9)

9.3 ± 2.6(9.1)

12.5**

( 91% )

Pest abundance in nursery (TNAU)

Figures in parentheses are transformed values ** Significant difference (P<0.001)

Insects(damage or

Population size)

SRI cultivation

(mean ± SE)

Conventional cultivation

(mean ± SE)

t value

(difference)

(SRI reduction)

Whorl maggot

(% damaged leaves per hill)

17.9 ± 1.9(18.0)

23.2 ± 2.0(19.1)

6.6**

( 23% )

Thrips(per hill)

6.6 ± 0.1(2.2)

20.2 ± 2.0(4.1)

12.2**

( 67% )

Green leaf hopper(per hill)

0.6 ± 0.1(1.0)

1.1 ± 0.2(1.2)

10.7**

( 45% )

BPH(per hill)

1.1 ± 0.2(1.2)

2.7 ± 0.2(1.8)

14.4**

( 60% )

Whorl maggot

(% truncated leaves per hill)

5.6 ± 1.8(5.9)

8.8 ± 1.4(9.1)

4.5**

( 36% )

Pest abundance in main field (TNAU)

Figures in parentheses are transformed values ** significant difference (P<0.001)

6. RESISTANCE TO ABIOTIC STRESSES

• LODGING & STORM DAMAGE

• DROUGHT – WATER STRESS

• TEMPERATURE EXTREMES

Why? Because of larger, stronger root systems -- and possibly more uptake of silicon when paddy soils are not kept saturated

Climate-proofing to deal w/ climate change

India, Tamil Nadu: rice plot in foreground is normal rice; no lodging on SRI plot in center

Vietnam: FFS farmer in Dông Trù village, Hanoi Province – after typhoon

Sri Lanka: rice fields of same variety, same irrigation system, and same drought -- left, conventional methods; right, SRI

7. GRAIN QUALITY• More milled rice per bushel of SRI paddy

• Fewer unfilled grains – less chaff

• Fewer broken grains – less shattering

• Less chalkiness – maybe other quality improvements? Should be studied

• More nutritional value? More protein? Possible due to increased N uptake

• More micronutrients? Likely with larger, deeper root system and denser grains

Measured Differences in Grain Quality Conventional SRI Methods

Characteristic Methods (3 spacings) Difference

Chalky kernels (%)

39.89 – 41.07 23.62 – 32.47 ↓30.7%

General chalkiness (%)

6.74 – 7.17 1.02 – 4.04 ↓65.7%

Milled rice outturn (%)

41.54 – 51.46 53.58 – 54.41 ↑16.1%

Head milled rice (%)

38.87 – 39.99 41.81 – 50.84 ↑17.5%

Paper by Prof. Ma Jun, Sichuan Agricultural University,presented at 10th conference on Theory and Practice for

High-Quality, High-Yielding Rice in China, Haerbin, 8/2004

8. HIGHER PROFITABILITY

INCREASED PRODUCTION +

LOWER COSTS OF PRODUCTION =

MORE NET INCOME FOR FARMERS

Average cost reduction/ha across

10 evaluations in 8 countries = 25%On-farm comparisons: N = 4,214

1. Bangladesh – IRRI-funded evaluation (N=1,073)

2. Cambodia – GTZ evaluation (N=500); CEDAC evaluation of 3-year SRI users (N=120)

3. China – China Agricultural University (N=82)

4. India – TNAU (N=100), IWMI-India (N=108)

5. Indonesia – Nippon Koei evaluation (N=1,849)

6. Nepal – DADO Morang record-keeping (N=412)

7. Sri Lanka – IWMI evaluation (N=120)

8. Vietnam – farmer field school reporting (N=60)

Country Evaluation by/for:

YieldIncrease

Water-Saving

Cost Reduction

Increase in Net Income

Comments

BANGLADESHOn-farm Evaluations(N=1,073)

BRAC/SAFEBRRI/Syng-enta BD Ltd(Husain et al., 2004)

24% n.d.

7% 59%

(32-82%)

On-farm evaluations funded by IRRI under its PETRRA project with DFID

CAM-BODIANational Survey(N=500)

GTZ (Anthofer et al., 2004) 41%

Flooding at TP

reduced 96.3%→

2.5%

56% 74%

Survey of SRI and non-SRI users randomly sampled in 5 provinces; SRI use has grown to >70,000 farmers in 5 years

Long-term Users

(N=120)

CEDAC (Tech, 2004) 105% 50% 44% 89%

Small farmers who had used SRI methods consecutively for 3 years

CHINAVillage Study (N=82)

China Agric. University(Li et al., 2005)

29% 44%7.4%

[ext. service promoting fertilizer & new seeds]

64%

SRI use in village had gone from 7 in 2003, to 398 in 2004; farmers considered labor-saving main

benefit (N=82)

Country Evaluation by/for:

YieldIncrease

Water-Saving

Cost Reduction

Increase in Net Income

Comments

INDIATamil Nadu (N=100)

Tamil Nadu Agric. Univ. (Thiyaga-rajan et al., 2004)

28% 40-50%

11% 112%

On-farm comparisons in Tamiraparani Basin, supervised by TNAU and extension service

Andhra Pradesh (N=1,535)

Andhra Pradesh Agric. Univ. (Satyanara-yana, 2005)

38% 40% NA NA

On-farm trials supervised by ANGRAU and State extension service centers

West Bengal (N=108)

IWMI-India(Sinha and Talati, 2005) 32%

Rainfed version of SRI 35% 67%

SRI use in villages had gone from 4 farmers to 150 in 3 seasons; now > 6,500

INDO-NESIA(N=1,849)

Nippon Koei (Sato, 2006)

84% 40% 24% 412%

3 years of evaluation in Eastern. Indonesia; trials conducted on 1,363 ha

Country Evaluation by/for:

YieldIncrease

Water-Saving

Cost Reduction

Increase in Net Income

Com-ments

NEPAL(N=412)

Morang District Agr. Dev. Office (Uprety, 2005)

82% 43%2.2%

[rotary hoes not widely available]

163%

Morang district users from 1 in 2003 to >1,400 in 2005, and > 2,000 in 2006

SRI LANKADistrict Surveys (N=120)

Intl. Water Managemt Institute (IWMI) (Namara et al., 2004)

44% 24% 11.9-13.3%

90-117%

Survey of SRI users and non-users who were randomly sampled in 2 districts , 60 farmers in each, half SRI, half non-SRI

VIET-NAMFFS(N=60)

National IPM Program (Dông Trù village)

21% 60% 24% 65%

Record-keeping by Farmer Field School alumni on SRI results

AVER-AGE

52% 44% 25% 128%

9. Reduced Time to Maturity 51 SRI farmers in Morang district, Nepal,

monsoon season, 2005, who planted popular Bansdhan (145-day) variety

Age of N of Days to Reductionseedling farmers harvest (in days)> 14 d 9 138.5 6.510 - 14 d 37 130.6 14.4 8 - 9 d 5 123.6 21.4With doubling of yield from 3.1 to 6.3 t/ha --

and reduced water use

Impact of Soil-Aerating ‘Weeding’412 farmers in Morang district, Nepal,

using SRI in monsoon season, 2005Ave. SRI yield = 6.3 t/ha, vs. control = 3.1 t/ha• Data show that weedings can raise yield

No. of No. of Average Rangeweedings farmers yield of yields 1 32 5.16 (3.6-7.6) 2 366 5.87 (3.5-11.0) 3 14 7.87 (5.85-10.4)

10. Extrapolation to Other Crops Farmers in India are taking SRI concepts

and practices and are applying them to other crops:

• Sugar cane (Andhra Pradesh)• Finger millet (Elusine coracana)

(Jharkand, Karnataka)• Wheat (Himachal Pradesh)• Mustard (Orissa)

SRI IS NOT A TECHNOLOGY – rather it is a set of insights and concepts

System of Finger Millet Intensification on left; regular management of improvedvariety and of traditional variety on right,picture courtesy of PRADAN, Jharkand

Winter wheat in Poland before going into winter dormancy

Liu Zhibin, seed multiplication farm, Meishan, Sichuanplanting on raised beds with zero-tillage – 13.4 t/ha yield

SRI crop of G. Moghanraj Yadhav, Nagipattanam district, Tamil Nadu

SRI is still ‘a work in progress’• Contributing to ‘post-modern

agriculture’ – which is the most modern agriculture

• Building on advances in biology and ecology

• Especially in microbiology and soil ecology

• New perspectives on plant-soil-microbial ‘systems’

Ascending Migration of Endophytic Rhizobia, from Roots and Leave, inside Rice Plants and

Assessment of Benefits to Rice Growth Physiology

Rhizobium test strain

Total plant root

vol/pot (cm3)

Shoot dry wt/pot

(g)

Net photo-synthetic

rate (μmol-2 s-1)

Water utilization efficiency

Area (cm2) of flag leaf

Grain yield/pot

(g)

Ac-ORS571 210 ± 36A 63 ± 2A 16.42 ± 1.39A 3.62 ± 0.17BC 17.64 ± 4.94ABC 86 ± 5A

SM-1021 180 ± 26A 67 ± 5A 14.99 ± 1.64B 4.02± 0.19AB 20.03 ± 3.92A 86 ± 4A

SM-1002 168 ± 8AB 52 ± 4BC 13.70 ± 0.73B 4.15 ± 0.32A 19.58 ± 4.47AB 61 ± 4B

R1-2370 175 ± 23A 61 ± 8AB 13.85 ± 0.38B 3.36 ± 0.41C 18.98 ± 4.49AB 64 ± 9B

Mh-93 193 ± 16A 67 ± 4A 13.86 ± 0.76B 3.18 ± 0.25CD 16.79 ± 3.43BC 77 ± 5A

Control 130 ± 10B 47 ± 6C 10.23 ± 1.03C 2.77 ± 0.69D 15.24 ± 4.0C 51 ± 4C

Feng Chi et al., Applied and Envir. Microbiology, 71 (2005), 7271-7278

“Productivity is increased [with SRI], and at the same time the environment is saved. . . . I want to urge everybody, starting with

the Minister of Agriculture and everyone else -- let us support this SRI method with our maximum capacity.”-- Pres. S. B. Yudhoyono speaking at SRIHarvest Festival, Cianjur, July 30, 2007

THANK YOU

• Web page: http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/

• Email: ciifad@cornell.edu or ntu1@cornell.edu or

• tefysaina.tnr@simicro.mg

Factorial Trial Results, MadagascarMorandava, 2000:

sea level, tropical climate, poor soils

HYV vs. tradl. varieties• 8 vs. 16 days• aerated (AS) vs.

saturated soil (SS)• 1 vs. 3 plants per hill• compost vs. NPK• 25 vs. 30 cm spacing

(no difference)

• all same weeding

Anjomakely, 2001:

1200m, temperate climate, good soils

better vs. poorer soils• 8 vs. 20 days• aerated (AS) vs.

saturated soil (SS)• 1 vs. 3 plants per hill• compost vs. NPK• 25 vs. 30 cm spacing

(only 80 kg/ha difference)

• all same weeding

FACTORIAL RESULTS (t/ha), ANJOMAKELY, 2001 [N=240]CONVENTIONAL Clay Loam Average Addition

SS/20/3/NPK 3.00 (6) 2.04 (6) 2.52 (12)1 SRI PracticeSS/ 20 / 3 / C 3.71 (6) 2.03 (6)SS/20/1/NPK 5.04 (6) 2.78 (6)SS/ 8 /3/NPK 7.16 (6) 3.89 (6)AS/20/3/NPK 5.08 (6) 2.60 (6)

5.25 (24) 2.83 (24) 4.04 (48) +1.522 SRI PracticesSS/20/ 1 / C 4.50 (6) 2.44 (6)SS / 8 / 3 / C 6.86 (6) 3.61 (6)AS/20/1/NPK 6.07 (6) 3.15 (6)AS/20/ 3 / C 6.72 (6) 3.41 (6)SS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.13 (6) 4.36 (6)AS/ 8 /3/NPK 8.15 (6) 4.44 (6)

6.74 (36) 3.57 (36) 5.16 (72) +1.123 SRI PracticesSS/ 8 / 1 / C 7.70 (6) 4.07 (6)AS/20/ 1 / C 7.45 (6) 4.10 (6)AS/ 8 / 3 / C 9.32 (6) 5.17 (6)AS/ 8 /1/NPK 8.77 (6) 5.00 (6)

8.31 (24) 4.59 (24) 6.45 (48) +1.29ALL SRI PRAC TICES

AS / 8 / 1 / C 10.35 (6) 6.39 (6) 8.37 (12) +1.92

FACTORIAL RESULTS (t/ha), MORONDAVA, 2000 [N=288]

CONVENTIONAL HYV Traditional Average Addition

SS/16/3/NPK 2.84 (6) 2.11 (6) 2.48 (12)1 SRI PracticeSS/ 16 / 3 / C 2.69 (6) 2.67 (6)SS/16/1/NPK 2.74 (6) 2.28 (6)SS/ 8 /3/NPK 4.08 (6) 3.09 (6)AS/16/3/NPK 4.04 (6) 2.64 (6)

3.34 (24)(.021) 2.67 (24)(.007) 3.01 (48) + 0.532 SRI PracticesSS/16/ 1 / C 2.73 (6) 2.47 (6)SS / 8 / 3 / C 3.35 (6) 4.33 (6)AS/16/1/NPK 4.10 (6) 2.89 (6)AS/16/ 3 / C 4.18 (6) 3.10 (6)SS/ 8 /1/NPK 5.00 (6) 3.65 (6)AS/ 8 /3/NPK 5.75 (6) 3.34 (6)

4.28 (36)(.000) 3.24 (36)(.000) 3.78 (72) + 0.773 SRI PracticesSS/ 8 / 1 / C 3.85 (6) 5.18 (6)AS/16/ 1 / C 3.82 (6) 2.87 (6)AS/ 8 / 3 / C 4.49 (6) 4.78 (6)AS/ 8 /1/NPK 6.62 (6) 4.29 (6)

4.69 (24)(.000) 4.28 (24)(.000) 4.48 (48) + 0.70ALL SRI PRACTICES

AS / 8 / 1 / C 6.83 (6)(.000) 5.96 (6)(.000) 6.40 (12) +1.92