The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a method of rice cultivation whose origins are the subject of an interesting creation mythology. SRI has been termed a ‘root revolution’ on the grounds that for the first time it directs the attention of scientists and farmers to the creation of conditions for vigorous and healthy root growth.

According to orthodox accounts, SRI was discovered or invented in Madagascar quite suddenly in the early 1980s, by a French Jesuit missionary who was also a trained agronomist and rural development worker. The priest, the late Father Henri de Laulanié, described SRI as a method ‘founded on the physiology of rice’, ascribing his inspiration to his close observation of rice itself. However, such breakthroughs are also built on prior insights and previous discoveries, and indeed de Laulanié drew on various sources to build his knowledge of rice physiology and paddy cultivation methods.

An investigation of those sources as well as other historical precedents for SRI shows that the principles and practices of SRI are not as unique, novel or original as its creation myth suggests. The direct lineage of the SRI methodology as well as various analogues from different times and places reveal various connections with colonial agricultural science as well as farmers’ practices in different times and places.

SRI’s creation myth serves to mobilise networks of activists and scientists by positioning SRI as a grassroots alternative to conventional, styles of agricultural research and methods of rice cultivation associated with the Green Revolution. However, this act of storytelling does not by itself invalidate the physiological theory underlying SRI or the technical principles of SRI cultivation methods. If anything, the rediscovery or re-emergence of SRI-type methods makes the system even more intriguing than if it were genuinely unprecedented. How and why did these principles come to be overlooked or forgotten? Where did they go? Why have they reappeared?

SRI methods have been controversial in scientific circles. Digging down to its roots serves not to uproot the system but show how deeply anchored it is in historical precedents, including scientific research and established farmers’ practice. Both SRI’s proponents and its critics could do better at learning lessons from previous experiments and experiences with SRI-like cultivation methods.