ArticlePDF Available

ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域での稲作と農家経営の実態 －アヘロ灌漑地区とアウトグローワーの比較－

Authors:
Yuko Yamane at Nagoya University
Yuko Yamane
Yoko Ichijo at Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
Yoko Ichijo
Shuichi Asanuma
Shuichi Asanuma
Shuichi Asanuma
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Abstract In this study, we analyzed the rice cultivation and management in the irrigation schemes of the National Irrigation Board (NIB) and in three small schemes managed by local farmers so called outgrowers, which are distributed near the Lake Victoria in Western Kenya. As a result, we found big differences between NIB schemes and outgrowers’ schemes in their farm size and production. In NIB scheme, the average farm size per household was approximately one hector and their yield was 4.5 kg/ha which is double size and 1.5 times higher yield comparing outgrowers. Our survey suggests that this higher yield is brought by large amount of fertilizer and pesticide input and also appropriate frequency and timing of weeding. Necessarily, total production of NIB farmers is bigger, and they succeeded to sale about 3.5 ton per household, whereas outgrowers achieved only around 30% of it. The expenditure for rice cultivation of NIB farmers was about twice as large as outgrowers, but due to their big sales volume, their cash income from rice production after removing production cost at least 5 times and at most 26 times of outgrowers’. In all schemes, labor costs was the major component of management expenses. Outgrowers spent for wage labors, while they paid small cost for fertilizer and agricultural chemicals. Additionally, to meet this cash demand, many of them sold their livestock which was their important assets.
Content uploaded by Yuko Yamane
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yuko Yamane on Jun 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
緒　　言

2000 2000 2008 1970
 2.5 

2010 40

2010


JICA
and AGRA, 20082008
5 TICADIV 4
 10 


Coalition for African Rice Develop-
ment: CARD

 
 
Corresponding author
yamane@agr.nagoya-u.ac.jp
ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域での稲作と農家経営の実態
－アヘロ灌漑地区とアウトグローワーの比較－
 1, 󰏮 2 3
1 464-8601 
2 183-0057  3-8-1
3 102-8012  5-25 
要　約󰔓󰔒NIB 
 3 NIB 
NIB  1
ha  2 4.5t/ha 1.5 
 NIB 
 3.5t/  3 NIB 
 2
5 26 
 8


キーワード󰔓󰔒
Actual Situations of Rice Cultivation and Farm Management in Western Kenya near the Lake Victoria: A comparison
of Ahero irrigation scheme and out-growersYuko YAMANE1, *, Yoko ICHIJO2, and Syuichi ASANUMA31International
Center for Agricultural Education (ICAE), Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan, 2Tokyo University of
Agriculture and Technology, 3-8-1 Harumi-cho, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo 183-0057, Japan, 3Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),
Nibancho Center Building, 5-25 Nibancho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8012, Japan
AbstractIn this study, we analyzed the rice cultivation and management in the irrigation schemes of the National Irrigation
Board (NIB) and in three small schemes managed by local farmers so called outgrowers, which are distributed near the Lake
Victoria in Western Kenya. As a result, we found big differences between NIB schemes and outgrowers’ schemes in their farm
size and production. In NIB scheme, the average farm size per household was approximately one hector and their yield was
4.5 kg/ha which is double size and 1.5 times higher yield comparing outgrowers. Our survey suggests that this higher yield is
brought by large amount of fertilizer and pesticide input and also appropriate frequency and timing of weeding. Necessarily, total
production of NIB farmers is bigger, and they succeeded to sale about 3.5 ton per household, whereas outgrowers achieved only
around 30% of it. The expenditure for rice cultivation of NIB farmers was about twice as large as outgrowers, but due to their
big sales volume, their cash income from rice production after removing production cost at least 5 times and at most 26 times of
outgrowers’. In all schemes, labor costs was the major component of management expenses. Outgrowers spent for wage labors,
while they paid small cost for fertilizer and agricultural chemicals. Additionally, to meet this cash demand, many of them sold their
livestock which was their important assets.
Key words: Farm Management, Irrigation, Kenya, Lake Victoria, Rice cultivation
 
熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019
23 


 CARD 
 80󰔓󰔒

MOA, 2009
󰔓󰔒1950  70 
󰔓󰔒

Mati et al., 2011
󰔓󰔒 6,447 ha
 3󰔓󰔒 900
ha󰔓󰔒 877 ha󰔓󰔒
 213 ha󰔓󰔒Muhunyu,
2012󰔓󰔒1950 
󰔓󰔒
 1965  1998 
Mati et al., 20111999 


2007


󰔓󰔒


󰔓󰔒󰔓󰔒󰔓
󰔒National Irrigation Board: NIB
󰔓󰔒


󰔓󰔒
 NIB 



󰔓󰔒

󰔓󰔒

調査方法
調査地
󰔓󰔒

34°48 35°020°04 0°20Niemeijer
et al., 1985 910ha 
Romano, 2009 1




󰔓󰔒
NIBスキーム
Masuneスキーム
Awachスキーム
Gem-Raeスキーム
ビクトリア湖ウィナム湾
25.0 Km
カノ平原
ティンダーレット高原 b
a
ケニア
1a 4b
山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 

 1,140m 




20 
Njokah, 19841930  1940

Niemeijer et al., 19851970 
󰔓󰔒
 1


Rarieya and For tun, 2010 1960

Niemeijer et al.,
19851960  1970 
󰔓󰔒
NIB 󰔓󰔒 877ha
󰔓󰔒 900ha 2󰔓󰔒
󰔓󰔒 1969  3
 1.6 ha4acre/519 
1980 
 840 ha 
Scheme




󰔓󰔒
 11 
1980 
690 ha Niemeijer et al., 1985

Ong Orego 2002
 Gem-Rae 
Ong and Orego, 2002

󰔓󰔒
 NIB Ahero-based
National Irrigation Board


予備調査
2010 11 2011 2712 
󰔓󰔒NIB 




 Awach 

2011 2 12  NIB 
 4



質問票を用いた広域調査

NIB 
 4 NIB

 Ahero  Masune 
 Awach 
 Gem-Rae  5
2012 5
 17 3


 331 
 15 20
2011 

 NIB 
 77 Masune  78 Awach
 77 Gem-Rae  81 

結果および考察
調査地における稲作の特徴

 4



栽培条件　

󰔓󰔒
 1
󰔓󰔒
 Gem-Rae 
1920 
Awach  Masune  1945
NIB 
 1969 Niemeijer et al.,
1985󰔓󰔒
熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019
1󰔓󰔒NIB 

   󰔓󰔒

󰔓󰔒
 
NIB

󰔓󰔒
560 
877ha*
1969 󰔓󰔒Niemeijier et
al., 1985)
NIB  
  

 
 

12 


 NIB 
NIB 



Nyando
Masune 400 *2
250ha
1945 
1986
1992

Ministry of Social ServiceMISS
Lake Basin Development AuthorityLBDA

1980  Nyando 





Awach 400
200ha*2
1945 
1986
1986
1999
2005
2014
2012

 Ministry of Social ServiceMISS
 Provincial Irrigation UnitPIU
 JICA 
Constituency Development FundCDF 
 50 KSH
15 KSH
Kenya Goverment8.9  Ksh
 
  
  
 
   

Awach-Kano 
NIB  Awach-
Kano  NIB  Nyando 

 3

Awach-Kano

Gem-Rae 500 
120ha*3
1920 
1983
1990 
2004
2010
2011

Provincial Irrigation UnitPIU
86 *4
Ministry of Social Ser vice(MISS)  

JICA 
FAO  :

2012 FAO 
NIB 
󰔓󰔒 
 
 

Awach  500m 
Awach-Kano 
 3
 22 
 2


Awach-Kano

*1: Ahero Irrigation Scheme NIB 2011 
*2: 

*3: Ong  Orego 2002 Gam-Rae Irrigation Scheme  350ha 
*4: 1985  Small Rice Project SRP󰔓󰔒IWMI 2002󰔓󰔒 1995  The Ministry of Agriculture 󰔓󰔒
IWMI 2002)
山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 
 4acre1.6ha
 NIB  560 

 12 
 14





 NIB  1
 10 30 

 2
 400 500  3
1986  Ministry of
Social Service 
NGO 
Awach  Gem-Rae 
1986 Provincial Irrigation UnitPIU
󰔓󰔒
1999  2004 JICA 
 1

Masune 󰔓󰔒

󰔓󰔒
 NIB 


 NIB 



 Awach  77  22 
28.5 Gem-Rae  81
911.1Masune  78 
45.1NIB  77  2
2.6
稲作農家の世帯の特徴


2008






 4.6 6.1 
 2

2.8 3.2 /
2.6 3.0 /
 NIB  2.2
/ Masune 
Gem-Rae  2.4 /
 2
 8 9



 0.1 0.2 /
NIB 
 0.1 /





2*
NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 77 78 77 81
 5.9 6.1 4.6 5.7
 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.8
 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.9

 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.4
 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3
* 6
熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019
 0.2 0.3 /





世帯の農業における稲作の位置づけ









 3
 9

NIB 
 4

 NIB 
NIB

 1.0 ha/ 
 Masune 
0.59 ha/  Gem-Rae 
0.44 ha/  NIB 


 3
 0.50 0.56ha/ 
NIB 
 0.27ha/


NIB  4,291 kg/ 
 Masune  2,187
kg/  NIB 
 Gem-Rae  968 kg/ 
NIB  4

Masune 
418 kg/ Awach  217 kg/ 
 3

 5.0
6.3  3
Masune  8.9 /
NIB 4.1 /
 5 3
NIB 
 NIB 



3
NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 77*78 77 81
 *2   
 *329 37.7 5 6.4 7 9.2 11 13.6
 +Mand/or S *443 56 73 94 70 92 70 86
ha/   1.01 a*70.59 b 0.55 b 0.44 b
M & S*5 0.27 a 0.56 a 0.53 a 0.50 a
kg/   4,291 a 2,187 b 1,497 b 968 b
M & S*6333 a 418 a 217 a 315 a

 /
 5.2 a 6.3 a 6.1 a 5.0 a
 4.1 a 8.9 b 5.8 ab 5.9 ab
*:  2011 
*2: 

*3: 
*4: 
*5: 
*6: 
*7:  = U-test, p<0.05

山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 
 NIB 


稲作の実態
Gem-Rae
 100 
1960 󰔓󰔒
 NIB 
NIB 



世帯当たりの栽培面積と収穫および販売量
NIB 1.0
ha/  20.50
0.59 ha/ 
 2
4 NIB 

 NIB 
󰔓󰔒 4.5 t/ha 
󰔓󰔒
 Masune  3,880 kg/ha
Awach  Gem-Rae 󰔓󰔒
 3,190 kg/ha
2,260 kg/ha 
世帯の栽培面積による単収の差
NIB  0.4046 ha 
 1 acre 4

 377  3 1
23 29.5 0.5 ha 
 1 acre 
26.9  21  2 acre
37.2 29  4 acre 
 1 acre  2 4
NIB 
 1 acre  4

Yamane and
Asanuma, 2015

NIB 
 1 acre 
 0.5 ha/

Masune  Awach  6
Gem-Rae  8
 0.5 ha/ 
 Awach  0.27 ha/ 
Masune  0.30 ha/ Gem-Rae 
0.31 ha/ 
 1 ha  20
 0.5 ha 1
ha/  9

NIB 



稲作における作業の種類と栽培暦：栽培暦

 2011 

 1
 NIB  4.5 Awach 
5.2 Masune  5.3 Gem-Rae
 5.4 
NIB  Gem-Rae 


Masune 
 46 78
 81  58 71.6 57 59
 72.8 78 811 

 1 1 6
8 1
 12 
 Masune 󰔓󰔒󰟟

󰔓󰔒
 Awach  6 7
 77  97  50 51.6 
Gem-Rae  81  81  53
63.1 1
7 9 11  1
NIB  12 
󰔓󰔒
 3 5


 NIB 

 1
2NIB 
77  57 74.0
熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019

Awach  1 1.3 Gem-Rae
 33.7Masune  5
6.4 313
 3 NIB 
 1

Becker and
Johnson, 1999NIB  1
 23 Gem-
Rae  34 Masune  35 
Awach  39 
NIB  11  16 
NIB  2
 44  1
2NIB

 2

播種量と肥料の使用
1

Gem-Rae  3
 IR  NIB
 989.9 IR 
4 Masune  50.5 Awach
 522Gem-Rae 
 31.9 IR 
 4 ITA BR 
Gem-Rae  ITA 
34.5BR
 Masune 30.6 Awach 
19.1Gem-Rae 15.0 
NIB  ITA BR 

Basmati NIB 7.6  Ma-
sune 2.7
Awach  Gem-Rae 
 27 23.518.5 16.3
4
NIB Masune Awach Gamerae
 77 78 77 81
        
IR 71 89.9 56 50.5 60 52.2 36 31.9
ITA 0 0.0 14 12.6 5 4.3 39 34.5
BR 1 1.3 34 30.6 22 19.1 17 15.0
Bathmati 6 7.6 3 2.7 27 23.5 18.5 16.4
NERICA 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0
 1 1.3 4 3.6 1 0.9 *2.5 2.2
 79 100.0 111 100.0 116 100.9 113 100.0
        
NIB  68 86.1 *223 20.7 9 7.4 26 23.0 *3
NIB  3 3.8 0 0.0 1 0.9 4 3.5
 5 6.3 *432 28.4 37 31.7 24 21.2 *5
 0 0.0 6 5.4 5 4.3 20 17.7
 2 2.5 48 42.8 59 50.9 22 19.5
 1 1.3 3 2.7 6 4.8 17 15.0 *6
 79 100.0 111 100.0 115 100.0 113 100.0
 STD STD STD STD
kg/ha60 20.6 a*7104 68.6 b 72 51.0 a 75 45.3 a
kg/  61 35.7 a 55 52.3 a 27 18.9 b 29 31.2 b
* : 
*2: NIB  65 Ksh/kg 
*3: 142Ksh/kg NIB 
*4:  150 Ksh/kg 
*5: 263 Ksh/kg 
*6: 6  FAO 11 Mwea 3
*7:  = U-test, p<0.05

山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 
 4


 Nyatanga
Nyadoda 
 Gem-Rae  Ma-
sune  3 6
 ,


NIB  986.1
󰔓󰔒NIB 4
Masune 
 20.7 Gem-Rae  23.0
 Awach  7.4 NIB


Masune
42.8 Awach 50.9

 4
Masune  28.4
Awach  31.7Gem-Rae 
23.0 4
 NIB  65 Ksh/kg
 150
Ksh/kg Gem-Rae  113 
20 17.7
 6 FAO 
 4

 NIB 
NIB  60.3 kg/
Awach  27 kg/ 
Gem-Rae  29 kg/ Masune

55 kg/  NIB 
 4
 NIB 
Masune  104 kg/ha 
Awach  Gem-Rae 
 72 kg/ha, 75 kg/ha NIB 
60 kg/ha  10 kg 
2
 5
 5
NIB 
 11.3
Masune  67.7
 Awach Gem-Rae 
 27 35.119 23.5
 23


NIB  77 
56 72.7
 5

Masune  48.7 Awach 
33.8Gem-Rae  45.7

NIB  911.7Ma-
sune  67.7Awach  3
3.9
 6
Gem-Rae
 11.6
 5
 NIB 

 NIB
 161 kg/ha 
 Masune 
 69 kg/ha Awach 
Gem-Rae  46.7 kg/ha20 kg/ha

NIB  82 kg/ha 
Masune  68 kg/haAwach
 55 kg/haGem-Rae  62.6
kg/ha NIB 
 5
Awach  Gem-Rae 
10 15

Masune  3
NIB 
 8
 5
労働投入量と労働生産性


250  /
 6a
NIB
 6a

 NIB 

1.5 
熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019
54
 NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
77  78  77  81 
 kg ha-1 kg ha-1  kg ha-1  kg ha-1
       

 40 51.9 164 - - 10 12.8 69 - 3 3.9 47 - - 3 3.7 20 -
 6 7.8 86 65 - 6 7.7 59 57 3 3.9 25 33 - 0 0.0 - -
 7 - 79 39 - 1 1.3 40 250 0 0.0 - - - 1 1.2 59 445
 3 - 175 93 31 0 0.0 - - 1 1.3 124 124 82 0 0.0 - -
 13 *116.9 82 - - 38 *348.7 68 - 26 *533.8 55 - - 37 45.7 63 -
 2 - 46 62 - 1 1.3  50 0 0.0 - - - 0 0.0 - -
 1 1.3 247 124 - 9 11.5 62 124 2 2.6 23 303 0 0.0 - -
 0 0.0 - - - 0 0.0 - - 0 0.0 - - - 1 1.2 1 173
 3 *23.9 371 - - 1 1.3  0 0.0 - - - 0 0.0 - -
 0 0.0 - - - 0 0.0 - - 0 0.0 - - - 4 *64.9 13 -
 0 0.0 - - - 0 0.0 - - 1 1.3 25 556 - 0 0.0 - -
 0 0.0 - - - 3 *43.8 346 - 11 14.3 125 - - 2 2.5 77 -
 0 0.0 - - - 0 0.0 - - 1 1.3 180 - - 7 *78.6 240 -
 1 1.3 6 7.7 27 35.1 19 23.5
 1 1.3 3 3.8 2 2.6 7 8.6
 77 100.0 78 100.0 77 100.0 81 100.0
*1: 3 
*2: 1 
*3: 4 
*4: 1 
*5: 5 
*6: 2 
*7: 2 
山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 

NIB 
 NIB 


NIB 
 6bNIB 
 1ha 


NIB 

 kg 
NIB  20.5 kg/
Masune 
 10.4 kg/  Awach  3
7.2 kg/ Gem-Rae  4
4.7 kg/  NIB 

各スキームにおける稲作の実態
NIB 
 2
 34







NIB  NIB 




 3
 Masune 
󰔓󰔒
Awach  Gem-Rae 
 Awach  1,000 kg/ha
 Awach-Kano


各スキームにおえける稲作経営について

 9

生産費：賃労費，生産費構造および費用の額
 7
 9




 313 Awach 
 1 Gem-Rae  3 4



6
a
 󰝒      
Ahero 12 a*17 a 31 a 122 a 49 a 39 a 269 a
Masune 30 b 17 a 21 b 75 b 71 b 27 b 244 a
Awach 35 b 19 a 22 b 91 b 73 b 26 b 267 a
Gem-Rae 35 b 20 a 15 b 64 b 69 b 23 b 227 a
b ha
 󰝒      
Ahero 15 a 20 a 32 a 115 a 54 a 33 a 269 a
Masune 59 b 41 b 43 b 165 a 162 b 58 b 531 b
Awach 84 c 59 c 48 b 185 a 209 b 67 b 652 bc
Gem-Rae 93 c 52 c 38 b 231 b 218 b 64 b 696 c
*:  U-test, p<0.05

熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019
14 3
 NIB 
 13 
1

 7 8
NIB 33,510 KSh/ 
8d Masune 
26,30 KSh/  1.3  Gem-Rae 
17,638 KSh/  1.9 

 1 NIB

 1󰟟
1,600 1,700 KSh 2 3,500
KSh NIB  1󰟟
 92.5
Awach  1.3
2 NIB  32.4

 Masune  9.9Awach 
2 Gem-Rae 1.2

1NIB 
NIB 
 5,610 Ksh/ 
 Masune  3,010
Ksh / NIB 
 2
 NIB
 3,900 Ksh/ 
 1,000 Ksh/ 



8a

1
NIB 

 2
NIB  Gem-Rae

7ksh 
NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 77*75*276*381*4
 145,586 a*653,327 b 34,813 bc 25,102 c
 *554,172 a 33,704 b 25,899 bc 21,658 c
 2,078 a 1,600 a 2,408 a 1,198 a
 33,513 a 26,357 ab 20,600 b 17,334 b
 2,616 a 2,617 a 1,232 *8b 1,369 b
 3,624 a 29 b 237 b 64 b
 *72,046 a 256 b 275 b 574 b
 73 a 19 ab 7 b 22 ab
 9,879 a 2,510 b 1,264 b 1,363 b
 339 a 210 ab 107 b 49 b
 32 ab 112 a 0 b 4 b
 91,414 a 19,623 b 8,783 b 3,492 c
*: 2 
*2: 3 
*3:  3

*4: 11 
*5: 

*6:  U-test, p<0.05

*7: 2016 6
2011 20161.46 
*8:  2016  2011 

山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 
8 10  *1
a
NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 77 78 77 81
1 *25,610 a*33,010 b 2,080 b 1,920 b
2 2,720 a 3,040 a 2,260 a 1,860 a
 1,890 a 2,240 a 1,560 a 1,930 a
 3,900 a 2,950 a 2,730 a 2,410 a
 114,120 a 11,230 ab 8,630 b 8,120 b
42.1 42.6 41.9 46.7
b
NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 77 78 77 81
1 4,140 a 3,980 a 4,010 a 2,430 a
2 1,800 a 460 b 110 b 150 b
 550 a 390 ab 60 b 140 ab
 40 a 90 a 20 a 10 a
 370 a 150 b 60 b 120 b
 3,410 a 3,120 a 1,680 b 1,970 ab
 210,320 a 8,210 ab 5,950 ab 4,830 b
30.8 31.1 28.9 27.8
c
NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 77 78 77 81
 *4 2,970 a 2,490 a 2,320 a 1,980 a
 3,030 a 2,300 ab 1,690 ab 1,300 b
 3,070 a 2,130 ab 2,020 ab 1,060 b
 39,070 a 6,930 ab 6,030 ab 4,420 b
27.1 26.3 29.3 25.4
d. 
NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 77 78 77 81
 33,510 a 26,360 ab 20,600 ab 17,370 b
*1: 
*2: NIB  95Awach  3.9
 3500Ksh 1600 1700Ksh 2

*3:  U-test p<0.05

*4: 


 8b

 8a, b, c
 4
3 8a, b

 8c







熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019



2


 NIB 
󰔓󰔒


 Awach 
17 22.1Masune 19.2
Gem-Rae 18.5  15 NIB
 10 13.0
 NIB 
21,890 Ksh/ 
 Masune  10,150
Ksh/ Awach  7,560 Ksh/ Gem-Rae
 4,290 Ksh/ 
 NIB 
2,080 Ksh/ Masune  1,600
Ksh/ Aeach  2,410 Ksh/ Gem-
Rae  1,200 Ksh/  7
NIB 
Masune 
 7
NIB 

2,620 Ksh/  Awach 
1,230 Ksh/  Gem-Rae 1,370
Ksh/  2Masune
2,620 Ksh/ 
 4 NIB 
  7
󰔓󰔒 Masune

 30 Ksh/ 

 200 Ksh/ 
NIB 

 3,100 Ksh/acre 
 1
3,620 Ksh  7
 5NIB 


 5 9,880 Ksh/ 
 4 5

 NIB Ma-
sune  2,510 Ksh/ Awach 
Gem-Rae   1,260 Ksh/
1,360 Ksh/ 
 NIB 
 340 Ksh/   7

Bakker, 1974
NIB  77 
66 Gem-Rae  5 38
46.9Masune  26 33.3 
 Awach  21 27.3
 NIB
 2,050 Ksh/ 
Gem-Rae  570 Ksh/ 
Masune  Awach  260 Ksh/
280 Ksh/ NIB  10 
 7

NIB 
 4
NIB  70 Ksh/ Masune 
20 Ksh/ Awach  10 Ksh/ 
Gem-Rae  20 Ksh/ 
 7
稲作所得（生産額・販売額・稲作による農業所得）


 NIB 
145,590 Ksh/ Masune  53,330 Ksh/
Awach 34,810 Ksh/ Gem-
Rae  25,100 Ksh/ NIB
 3 5

NIB 
54,170 Ksh/ 
Masune  33,700 Ksh/ Awach 
25,900 Ksh/ Gem-Rae  21,660
Ksh/ NIB 
 1.5 2
NIB 
 91,410 Ksh/ NIB 
 Masune 19,620
Ksh/  4Awach 
8,780 Ksh/  10 Gem-
Rae 3,490 Ksh/  26
 7Gem-Rae  81 
11 
山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 

 Awach 

賃労費の生産量および稲作による販売額への投資効率

 1 kg

 /

NIB  1 kg 
 9.3 Ksh/kg 
 Masune  2
20.0 Ksh/kgAwach  2.5 25.1 Ksh/
kgGem-Rae  330.6 Ksh/
kgNIB
 1 kg 


 /
 NIB  5.7 Ksh/Ksh 
 Masune 4.5 Ksh/KshAwach 2.9 Ksh/
KshGem-Rae 2.7 Ksh/Ksh 
 3 2

資金調達の手段




NIB  8

42 54.5 NIB 
 36
46.8 2
 21 
27.3
 11 9
 2

Masune  34 
43.6Awach  22 28.6Gem-
Rae  17 21.0NIB
NIB 
 Masune  67.7
Awach  33.8Gem-Rae 
 56.1

3

Awach  Gem-Rae 
 14
17 Masune  4

 3
 13 16 17 2
稲作経営の実態
 NIB 
 1.5 2
 NIB 
 1.5 2





 36


 Masune 
 Gem-Rae  2
 1.2 
スキーム 名
NIB
Masune
Awac h
Gem-Rae
1月 2月 3月 4月 5月12月1月 2月 3月 4月 5月 6月 7月 8月 9月 10月11月
一回目耕うん
移植
鳥追い
収穫時期
2󰔓󰔒NIB 3
熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019

Gem-Rae  Awach



 2
 3 1.5 2


 NIB 




稲作農家の問題意識


 Awach 
 Gem-Rae  3



 911 



NIB  1.7 
 Gem-Rae  2.0 
 2

Gem-Rae 

 9


 NIB
 Awach 
Awach  4





 -0.33 0.1 
 -0.3 0.2 





 NIB
 Awach 
Masune 
 Game-Rae 

 9
Gem-Rae  Ma-
sune NIB 


󰔓󰔒
NIB 󰔓󰔒
Awach  Gem-Rae 
9 *1
 NIB Masune Awach Gem-Rae
 1.2 a 1.3 a 1.3 a 1.6 a
 1.6 a 1.2 ab 1.1 b 1.2 ab
 1.6 a 1.3 ab 1.1 b 1.3 ab
 0.7 a 0.1 b 0.2 ab 0.4 ab
 -0.3 a -0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a
 0.2 a 0.1 a -0.3 a 0.1 a
 1.7 a 1.9 a 1.8 a 2.0 a
 1.4 a 1.2 a 1.2 a 1.3 a
 0.6 a 1.4 cb 1.0 ac 1.6 cb
 0.8 a 0.9 a 1.1 a 0.8 a
󰔓󰔒 0.5 a 0.1 b 0.8 ac 0.8 ac
*1: +2+1
0-1-2
*2: 
*3:  U-test,p<0.05

山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 
Masune 
󰔓󰔒







 NIB



まとめ
1970 
󰔓󰔒






NIB 
NIB 
 3

 1.5 NIB 












 8

󰔓󰔒


1997
󰔓󰔒


1997
 2






2013

2013
 IR 



 NIB

NIB 


NIB 


 1
NIB  2



Becker and Johnson, 1999
 1 t/ha
Becker et al., 2003
 2
 67kg/ha 
Johnson et al., 2004
 NIB  1
 11  16 


Bakker, 1974

NIB 



NIB 

1990 

󰔓󰔒
Adams, 1990󰔓󰔒
󰔓󰔒
熱帯農業研究　12（2）2019
1990
󰔓󰔒
Ong and Orego, 2002

 

2004
󰔓󰔒󰔓
󰔒NIB
 NIB 


 2011 
10
󰔓󰔒 NIB 

 11
Awach 
Gem-Rae 





󰔓󰔒 Masune

2


Awach 





 NIB 











謝　　辞
JP22710245

脚　　注
1  Gem-Rae
 1925 


2 2014 9

3 Ahero Irrigation Scheme NIB 
2011 





4 N IB 󰔓󰔒1
1 acre 1 4

 1 1
4 1
NIB  1 acre/ 


5 



6 
2009


7 ,

8 9
 1
 2 3
 1

9 NIB NIB 


10 2011 12  Gam-Rae 10 



11 Ong  Orego2002 Gem-Rae 
1995  ,󰔓󰔒
 Ministry of Agriculture 
, 1997 

 3.5t/ha  0.5t/ha

引用文献
Adams, W. M. 1990. How beautiful is small? Scale, control and
success in Kenyan irrigation. World Development 18: 1309-
1323.
Bakker, W. 1974. Characterization and ecological aspect of rice
yellow mottle virus in Kenya. Centre for Agricultural Pub-
lishing and Documentation. (Wageningen) P152. [Online]
https://library.wur.nl/WebQuer y/wurpubs/fulltext/201577
(browsed on Jan 9, 2019)
Becker M. and D. E. Johnson 1999. Rice yield and productivity
gaps in irrigated systems of the forest zone of Cote d Ivoire.
Field Crops Research 60: 201-208.
山根ら：ケニア西部ビクトリア湖東岸の稲作地域の稲作と農家経営 
Becker M., D. E. Johnson, M. C. S. Wopereis, and A. Sow 2003.
Rice yield gaps in irrigated systems along an agro-ecological
gradient in West Africa. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 166: 61-67.
1990. 󰔓󰔒
 34: 107-114.
2007.󰔓
󰔒 p. 291.
JICA and 
AGRA2008[Online]
http://www.jica.go.jp/activities/issues/agricul/pdf/card_
jp.pdfp.24.2018 77
Johnson, D. E., M. C. S. Wopereis, D. Mbodj, S. Diallo, S. Powers,
and S. M. Haefele 2004. T iming of weed management and
yield losses due to weeds in ir rigated rice in the Sahel. Field
Crops Research 85: 31-42.
Mati, B. M., R. Wanjogu, B. Odongo, and P. G. Home 2011. Intro-
duction of the system of rice intensification in Kenya: Experi-
ence from Mwea Irrigation scheme. Passy Water Environ. 9:
145-154.
2004
󰔓󰔒 65: 19-
35.
Ministory of Agriculture (MOA) 2009. National Rice Development
Strategy 2008-2018. p. 24.
Muhunyu, J. G. 2012. Is doubling rice production in Kenya by
2018 achievable? Journal of Developments in Sustainable Ag-
riculture 7: 46-54.
Niemeijer, R., G. Marianne, T. Kliest, and J. H. Ogonda 1985. Nu-
tritional aspect of rice cultivation in Nyanza province, Kenya.
African studies. Center, Leiden, (Netherlands) p. 155.
Njokah, J. N. 1984. Rice production in Kenya. In: Rice improve-
ment in Eastern, Central and Souther n Africa. Proceedings
of the International Rice Workshop at Lusaka, Zambia,
April 9-19. International Rice Research Institute (Laguna,
Philippine) p.159. [Online] http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/
PNABD750.pdf (browsed on Jan 20, 2015)
Ong, C. and F. Orego 2002. Links between land management,
sedimentation, nutrient flows and smallholder ir rigation in
the lake V ictoria basin. In: The changing face of irrigation in
Kenya: Opportunities for anticipating changes in Eastern and
Southern Africa. (Herbert, G. B., M. M. Clifford, and M. R.
Hammond eds.) International Water Management Institute
(IWMI) pp. 135-154. [Online] http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/
Publications/Books/PDF/Changing_face_of_Irrigation.pdf
(browsed on Jan 20, 2015)
Rarieya, M. and K. For tun 2010. Food security and seasonal cli-
mate infromation. Kenyan Challenges. Sustain Sic. 5: 99-114.
Romano, K. 2009. Food Security permanent secretar y ministry of
agriculture. Ministr y of Agriculture. p.30. [Online] http://
reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/3C5886BE
345E8FF149257644000899D2-Full_Report.pdf (browsed on
Jan 20, 2015)
2014
J. Intl. Agric. Dev. 13: 55-68.
2008. 
p. 400.
2011.  230  1

802: 235-244.
1997. 
35: 11-23.
Yamane Y. and S. Asanuma 2015. Economic and socio-cultural
evaluation of livestock farming amid severe soil degradation
in Western Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Development 3(7): 253-265.
2009. 
 112(13): 13-25.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Economic and socio-cultural evaluation of livestock farming amid severe soil degradation in Western Kenya
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2015
This paper analyzes, from both economic and socio-cultural perspectives, the roles of livestock in the livelihoods of western Kenya's Luo people, who live in an area facing severe soil erosion due to overgrazing. Forty-five households within the study area were surveyed and studied through participatory observation over 10 months. We classified them into five groups depending on their livestock keeping and examined the groups' socioeconomic characteristics in order to link livestock to livelihoods. The results show that households in the two groups owning the most livestock included many paternal extended families and their widows. The former group tended to live under unfavorable economic conditions, with comparatively lower off-farm incomes and negative post-food-purchase incomes. On the centrally, the latter group did not show negative post-food-purchase income due to smaller number of family members. However, these both groups' households also obtained large shares of their livestock through socio-cultural methods, such as entrustment, gifts, and marriage payments. After obtaining higher incomes by selling these livestock, they were able to pay school fees for their children, allowing them to access to a better future through education. The results demonstrate the importance of socio-cultural methods for obtaining livestock, which work through reciprocity. This has clear policy implications: when devising countermeasures to overgrazing, policymakers must consider both economic and socio-cultural roles played by livestock.
View
Timing of weed management and yield losses due to weeds in irrigated rice in the Sahel
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2004
  • FIELD CROP RES
The effects of differing periods of weed management were studied in experiments in five farmers’ direct-seeded, irrigated rice (Oryza sativa L.) fields during the 1999 wet season (1999WS) and seven fields during the 2000 dry season (2000DS) in the Senegal River delta. Ten weed management treatments were used to identify critical periods of competition and to enable the development of more precise management recommendations. Rice yields in 1999WS ranged from 3.2 t ha−1 with no weed control to 6.3 t ha−1 in weed-free plots; a yield loss of 49%. Major weed species encountered in 1999WS were Bolboschoenus maritimus, Oryza longistaminata, Cyperus difformis and Echinochloa colona. In 2000DS, C. difformis dominated the weed flora, and rice yields ranged from 3.7 t ha−1 with no weed control to 7.9 t ha−1 in weed-free plots; a yield loss of 47%. To assess the effects of weed biomass on the rice crop over time a linear mixed model was used. This highlighted the importance of E. colona and C. difformis in the wet and dry seasons, respectively, and of O. longistaminata in both seasons. The presence of E. colona early in the crop seemed related to greater levels of rice biomass in 1999WS, while O. longistaminata always had a negative effect on crop growth even at relatively low levels of infestation. Gompertz and logistic equations were fitted to data representing increasing periods of weed-free growth and weed interference, respectively. Critical periods for weed control, obtaining 95% of a weed-free yield, were estimated as between 29 to 32 days after sowing (DAS) in the WS and 4 to 83 DAS in the DS. The lower temperatures in the early DS resulted in slower growth of rice and weeds, delaying the effects of competition. Weed competition either before or after these critical periods had negligible effects on crop yield.
View
Nutritional aspects of rice cultivation in Nyanza Province, Kenya
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 1985
Leiden [etc.] : African Studies Centre [etc.] (FNSP Report, no. 14), p. 156, 1985. Based on a survey conducted in 1984, the authors discuss the nutritional conditions prevailing among farming households engaged in irrigated rice cultivation in the Kano plain, Nyanza Province, Kenya. The survey covered four groups reflecting different degrees of participation in and/or dependence on irrigated rice cultivation: non-rice growers, individual rice growers participating in small schemes, non-resident tenants at large schemes, and resident tenants at large schemes. The observed differences in nutritional status between the four groups were above all related to differences in their resource base. The group with the smallest resource base, the resident tenants at the large irrigation schemes (Ahero and West Kano) showed the poorest results in all respects. The survey results do not substantiate the assumption made at the start of the irrigation schemes, that the livelihood of rural families can be fully covered by means of cash farming.
View
Introduction of the System of Rice Intensification in Kenya: Experiences from Mwea Irrigation Scheme
Article
  • Mar 2011
There are various avenues for intensifying agricultural production, the most common being increased use of fertilizers, supplemental irrigation of crops, and adoption of high-yielding varieties. These options are rather widely known to farmers around the world, but they have not been widely adopted by smallholders in sub-Saharan Africa. The low adoption rate is related to complex technical and socio-economic issues, such as poor extension services, lack of capital, failure to mobilize the requisite water, or simply, poverty. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is in a special category of innovation in that, farmers stand to gain multiple benefits from its use, including the possibility of increasing rice yields substantially, saving water, and getting better grain quality, using differently the assets that they already have. A major impediment for the adoption of SRI in Africa has been lack of knowledge about this intervention, especially for farmers already practicing irrigated agriculture. Farmers generally have good business sense and will adopt technologies or practices once the benefits are proven and the risks are seen as minor. SRI should be attractive for these reasons, but there are various issues to be resolved before large numbers of farmers can adopt the method. This article reports on the steps taken and the technical and socio-economic issues addressed in efforts to introduce SRI and promote it in Kenya, specifically in the Mwea Irrigation Scheme. A diverse set of individuals and institutions in Kenya together embarked on the evaluation and dissemination of SRI methods in this East African country beginning in July 2009. If the new methods can perform in Kenya as in other countries, this will bring much benefit to rice farmers and rice consumers in the region. SRI is coming to Kenya relatively late, as it was the thirty-ninth country from which favorable SRI results have been reported. This means that Kenyans can learn from others’ experience and evaluations, and there is also now more of a supportive institutional framework. The initial results from on-farm SRI trials have been positive, although not conclusive. They have given impetus to Kenyan farmers and institutions to collaborate within a multi-sectoral, multi-level coalition that has provided an informal, multi-faceted platform for the evaluation, adaptation and dissemination of SRI practices. The initiative in Kenya is now gaining more formal status and more resources. This experience is presented to show the kinds of things that have been and can be done to utilize the SRI opportunity for raising land, labor, and water productivity in the rice sector.
View
Rice yield gaps in irrigated systems along an agro‐ecological gradient in West Africa
Article
  • Feb 2003
  • J PLANT NUTR SOIL SC
Irrigated rice (Oryza sativa L.) in West Africa covers about 12 % of the regional rice-growing area, and is produced all along the agro-ecological gradient from the forest zone to the Sahara desert margins. Spatial and temporal variability of yield gaps (i.e., difference between actual and potential yield) were determined to set priorities for research and target technologies. On-farm trials were conducted on 191 irrigated lowland fields in the humid forest, the savanna and the Sahel. Farmers' yields were compared with those of super-imposed treatments of improved fertilization and weed management. Farmers' yields varied between 0.2 and 8.7 Mg ha⁻¹, with average yields of 3.4 Mg ha⁻¹ (Guinea savanna), 3.6 Mg ha⁻¹ (humid forest), 3.9 Mg ha⁻¹ (Sahel), and 5.1 Mg ha⁻¹ (Sudan savanna). Simulated potential yields increased from 7 Mg ha⁻¹ in the forest to about 10 Mg ha⁻¹ in the Sahel. Accordingly, yield gaps were large, ranging from 3.2 to 5.9 Mg ha⁻¹. Researcher weed control in the Sahel gave grain yield increases of about 1.0 Mg ha⁻¹. Improved weed and N fertilization management increased yields by 1 to 2 Mg ha⁻¹ in the forest and Guinea savanna sites. A share of 57-80 % of the yield gap could not be accounted for. Improving weed control is likely to have the highest pay-off in the Sahel while improved management of fertilizer N will be most beneficial in the forest and savanna environments.
View
View
Is doubling rice production in Kenya
  • Jan 2012
  • 46-54
  • J G Muhunyu
Muhunyu, J. G. 2012. Is doubling rice production in Kenya by 2018 achievable? Journal of Developments in Sustainable Agriculture 7: 46-54.
In: Rice improvement in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa
  • Apr 1984
  • 159
  • J N Njokah
Njokah, J. N. 1984. Rice production in Kenya. In: Rice improvement in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa. Proceedings of the International Rice Workshop at Lusaka, Zambia, April 9-19. International Rice Research Institute (Laguna, Philippine) p.159. [Online] http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/ PNABD750.pdf (browsed on Jan 20, 2015)
Links between land management, sedimentation, nutrient flows and smallholder irrigation in the lake Victoria basin
  • Jan 2002
  • 135-154
  • C Ong
  • F Orego
Ong, C. and F. Orego 2002. Links between land management, sedimentation, nutrient flows and smallholder irrigation in the lake Victoria basin. In: The changing face of irrigation in Kenya: Opportunities for anticipating changes in Eastern and Southern Africa. (Herbert, G. B., M. M. Clifford, and M. R. Hammond eds.) International Water Management Institute (IWMI) pp. 135-154. [Online] http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/ Publications/Books/PDF/Changing_face_of_Irrigation.pdf (browsed on Jan 20, 2015)
Food security and seasonal climate infromation
  • Jan 2010
  • 99-114
  • M Rarieya
  • K Fortun
Rarieya, M. and K. Fortun 2010. Food security and seasonal climate infromation. Kenyan Challenges. Sustain Sic. 5: 99-114.