KENYA: INDICATORS OF

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY (With

Reference to Maize, Wheat, Sorghum
and Millet)

by
John Thinguri Mukui

Report Prepared for USAID, Nairobi, Kenya

13 December 1990

-A-

STATEMENT OF WORK
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the consultancy is to assist USAID/Kenya to develop a database for use in
monitoring and evaluation of program impact at the goal, sub-goal and purpose levels of
the Missions development assistance program. The objectives of this consultancy are to
review, interpret and analyze data, as well as develop a database on income distribution,
consumer price index (CPI), agricultural productivity, and the level and productivity of
private investment. Much of this program performance information will also be useful to
the Government of Kenya and private sector groups.
In order to assess the goal of sustained broad-based economic growth and sub-goals of
increased production and incomes, indicators of income have an important role to play.
While major indicators of income e.g. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross National
Product (GNP), GDP per capita etc are easily available, information on income distribution
is scarce and not easily accessible. Yet measures of income distribution are necessary in
assessing the broad-based characteristics of economic growth.
USAID/Kenya is interested in real growth. An important component of real growth is the
rate of inflation. A number of observers are of the opinion that the rate of inflation in
Kenya is higher than the official estimates. An understanding of what the rate of inflation
is in Kenya will shed light on real growth of the Kenyan economy and on price stability.
In order to measure purpose-level program impact and for decision-making, USAID/Kenya
would like to get a good handle on indicators of productivity of investment (especially
private investment), capital and labor, as well as productivity of agriculture (especially
smallholder agricultural productivity). Productivity is one the major determinants of the
standard of living since increases in productivity may result in higher real income and
promote price stability. The measurement of productivity is also an important element in
the evaluation of the relative efficiency of factor utilization.
SCOPE OF WORK
The following information and analysis shall be provided under this consultancy:
i

Review, interpret, and analyze data on income distribution from published and
unpublished sources. Develop a database on income distribution including the
following indicators of income distribution: Gini coefficients, total income
distribution, land Gini coefficients, regional income distribution, and factorial
income distribution. Discuss the status of the Social Dimensions of Adjustment
(SDA) project.

ii

Analyze the Governments computed consumer price index (CPI). Provide revised
CPI based on appropriate commodity basket, weights and income groups. Based on
this alternative CPI, develop a series of CPI for the period 1980-1989.
-i-

iii

Identify and compute appropriate indicators for productivity of investment

(especially private investment), capital and labor. Analyze trends in productivity
during the period 1975-1989.

iv

Identify and compute appropriate indicators for agricultural productivity (with

special emphasis on smallholder productivity). Develop a series of trends in
agricultural productivity during the period 1975-1989.

Describe and discuss the difficulties in assembling the various data, as well as the
adequacy of the data. Discuss in depth the reliability and validity of various data.
Discuss the strengths and drawbacks of various indicators.
REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES

The consultant shall produce a comprehensive database for the USAID/Kenya Mission. The
report shall include a series of tables for all indictors identified above. It shall also include
an analysis of these data, an assessment of their reliability and validity, and identification
of underlying assumptions, as well as recommendations for collecting and updating the
information. The consultant should discuss the usefulness of each factor of production by
sector (labor, land and capital), focusing mainly on agriculture and industry, in an attempt
to justify the choice of sector-specific measures of productivity.
SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. INDICATORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
i

Identify and compute appropriate indicators for agricultural productivity (with

special emphasis on smallholder productivity). Develop a series of trends in
agricultural productivity during 1975-1989.

ii

Describe and discuss the difficulties in assembling the various sources of data, as
well as the adequacy of the data. Discuss in depth the reliability and validity of
various data. Discuss the strengths and drawbacks of various indicators.

iii

Carry out a detailed analysis of trends in maize productivity increases especially for
smallholders. Use the physical indicator of yield per hectare as measure of
productivity.

iv

Undertake a detailed analysis of trends in sorghum/millet productivity increases.

Use the physical indicator of yield per hectare as measure of productivity.

Carry out a detailed analysis of trends in wheat productivity increases. Discuss both
smallholder and large-scale farms wheat productivity. Use the physical indicator of
yield per hectare as measure of productivity.

vi

Assess the productivity gap, that is, yield gaps in the above basic food grains.
-ii-

vii Analyze factors underlying yield gaps.

2. MEASURING PRODUCTIVITY OF INVESTMENT AND LEVELS OF INVESTMENT
Objective
The objective of this consultancy is to investigate the productivity of investment in Kenya
for the economy as a whole and for specific sectors including manufacturing, agriculture
and construction. In addition, the consultancy will include the analysis of government,
parastatals and private sector investment in each sector and the economy as a whole with a
view to defining purely private investment. This will be accomplished by analyzing
existing data, discussions with Government officials, and developing alternative indicators
for productivity of investment including the incremental capital-output ratio.
Background
One of the primary objectives of the USAID Mission in Kenya is to raise the level and
productivity of private investment in order to put the economy on a sustainable broadbased growth path. Presumably, therefore, increased productivity of private investment, or
an accepted proxy, must be an objective target in the Missions strategy. After some initial
research, it does not appear so easy to provide reliable quantified benchmarks to measure
that objective.
Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed Growth states that
Kenya has required nearly six units of new capital to produce one new unit of output in
the past decade. According to the GOK-published data on the economy as a whole, Kenyas
ICORs compare favorably with those of other countries and Kenyas ICOR has declined
over the past several years. The interpretation of these results is difficult given controls on
interest rates, exchange rates and many prices. In addition, the relative amount of excess
capacity could affect the ICOR if growth in the past five years has come from existing
capacity.
Another issue with the productivity of investment is the contribution of Government,
parastatals and the private sector. It would be interesting to analyze each of these actors in
detail. As USAID/Kenya analyzes different program options, it would also be interesting to
look at the productivity of investment in different sectors like manufacturing, horticulture,
and construction.
Our understanding of the economy is not as good as might be. More research is required
before USAID or the Government can rely on the ICOR or other measures of productivity
of investment to make investment policy decisions.
Deliverables under the contract
The completed report will include the following information and analysis:
i

Discussion of different measures of the productivity of investment including the

incremental capital-output ratio (ICOR) and at least two additional alternative
-iii-

measures.
ii

Discussion of data sources on investment broken down by sector and economic

agent (government, parastatals or private sector) for Kenya.

iii

Calculation of the incremental capital-output ratio and two alternative measures of

productivity of capital for the economy as a whole and for each of the productive
sectors for the period 1970-1988.

iv

Calculation of the ICOR and two additional measures of productivity of capital for
each sector of the economy by economic agent (government, parastatal and private
sector) for the period 1970-1988. This calculation will be dependent on data
availability.

An analysis of the quality of data provided, explaining the results of the ICOR
calculations, trends in the results, anomalies in the calculations, how the results
compare to other African countries, and recommended areas for further research.

vi

Discussion of problems in using ICOR and other measures in calculating

productivity of investment.

vii Discussion of capacity utilization in the Kenya economy and estimates of annual
capacity utilization for the period 1970-1988.
PHASING OF THE WORK
The first study undertaken was on the CPI, followed by preliminary analysis of income
distribution, incremental capital-output ratio, and finally agricultural productivity for
selected food crops.
Due to time constraint based on the contract, the scope of work was scaled down
substantially. For example, the study on the consumer price index no longer required
development of alternative CPI for the period 1980-1989. The study on agricultural
productivity excluded the issue of assessing productivity (yield) gaps for each crop and
factors underlying yield gaps, since yield gaps were considered region-specific based on
agricultural potential.
In the case of productivity of capital investment, the issues excluded were analysis of
contribution of the governmental sector since there was an existing study conducted by
the Long Range Planning Division of the Ministry of Planning and National
Development; use of at least two additional measures of productivity (apart from the
capital-output ratio); and estimates of annual capacity utilization.
The USAID/Kenya Mission decided to support the Central Bureau of Statistics to update
the CPI through financial support and technical assistance, while more sophisticated
analysis on productivity of capital investment was to be undertaken later based on
preliminary findings on the capital-output ratio.
-iv-

KENYA: INDICATORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

INTRODUCTION
1.
The agricultural sector is the mainstay of Kenyas economy in terms of its dominant
contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), export earnings and employment.
According to Sessional Paper No 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed
Growth, food security remains a major objective of the Government. The food crops
particularly cereals such as maize, wheat and to a lesser extent sorghum and millet are
crucial for food security. Currently Kenya is self-sufficient and has some surplus in white
maize but has to import some of its wheat requirements to feed its population. Kenyas
population growth rate is one of the highest in the world (about 3.4 percent per annum).
Only one third of its land is suitable for food production. This means a unit area of land has
to feed an increasing population, hence production per unit area (yield) has to increase by at
least 3.4 percent per annum to sustain the increasing population. The Sessional Paper No. 4
of 1981 on National Food Policy (Kenya, 1981b) had also emphasized that expansion of
food production will need to be based primarily on increases in yields. To monitor this
desired increase in productivity, appropriate indicators need to be developed that can assist
policy makers in formulating and implementing suitable policies to sustain food production.
One simple indicator is yield per hectare.
2.
In the case of major cereals, the Governments goal is to continue to be self-reliant
in maize, and to reduce wheat imports. Due to the pressure on good agricultural land and
the competing demands by different crops and livestock, the challenge is to raise yield per
hectare rather than extending crop area. It is however difficult to close the wheat import
gap due to pressures from both demand and supply sides. On the demand side, rapid
urbanization has led to growth in demand far much in excess of the national population
growth rate. On the supply side, analysis shows that under small-farm conditions, maize
production for subsistence has a substantial comparative advantage over wheat (Kenya,
1986a). The Government intends to boost the supply of triticale and sorghum, which can be
combined with wheat in the preparation of wheat products (Kenya, 1986a).
3.
The paper starts by outlining the various sources of annual crop area and production
data, which are mainly the Central Bureau of Statistics and Department of Resource Surveys
and Remote Sensing of the Ministry of Planning and National Development, and the
Ministry of Agriculture. In addition, various ad hoc surveys have been undertaken by
Government agencies in the past, which are a rich source of baseline agricultural data, and
need to be used in rebasing the annual data. The data from the Ministry of Agriculture
District Annual Reports, compiled by Gitu et al (1989), is used in the computation of yield
mainly because it was the only source that covered the period 1975-89 and all districts. The
second section deals with strengths and weaknesses of yield per unit area as a measure of
productivity in the agricultural sector. Despite its conceptual weaknesses, yield makes little
demand on data. The final section deals with yield by crop, both at the district and national
levels.

SOURCES OF ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL DATA

4.
The quality of agricultural data has a direct bearing on the understanding of the
structure and nature of the rural economy, and on the official interventions in the sector. It
is particularly important to a developing country such as Kenya as this determines the
appropriateness of policies formulated using the data. Although the range of agricultural
data available from different official sources is wide, it is not always timely, reliable,
complete or comparable over time.
5.
There are three main sources of crop area and production data, varying in their
methods of collection, coverage and accuracy. The three sources, namely, the Ministry of
Agriculture (MoA), the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and the Department of Resource
Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), provide own independent estimates of the crop
situation in the country. In recent years, CBS and DRSRS have been scrutinizing their
methodologies for collecting data with a view to harmonising the data from the three
sources. Details of data collection procedures are provided in Kirimi (1988; 1990), Ottichilo
(1988) and Ottichilo and Sinange (1988; 1990). It is expected that the gradual process of self
re-examination will in future result in more consistent and useful data. It is important to
note that the weaknesses in agricultural data highlighted below refers to CBS annual
surveys, but not the more expensive and elaborate occasional surveys e.g. the Integrated
Rural Surveys of the 1970s and the 1986/87 Agricultural Production Survey.
6.
In gathering data such as crop area planted and production, the Ministry of
Agriculture uses its frontline agricultural extension officers and technical assistants. The
extension officers are each assigned a given area (e.g. a sub-location) and estimates the area
planted and expected production during the normal visits to farmers. This data is then sent
to the Divisional Agricultural Officers who compile a divisional dataset (or report) and
sends it to the District Agricultural Officer (DAO), the senior-most agricultural officer in an
administrative district. The DAO then compiles a district report which is sent to the
Ministry of Agriculture headquarters to be used in compiling national annual totals. The
data on crop area and production by district can be culled from the District Annual Reports
prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture. The MoA data by districts is not available from a
single source.
7.
The MoA data is not obtained by physical measurement but is eyeball estimation by
local agricultural extension staff. The data is not factual but estimates, and hence carries a
lot of subjectivity. In addition, as the data is transmitted from the field upwards, other
biases are introduced at the provincial level and the Ministrys headquarters in the process
of subjectively adjusting the data from the districts. As the World Bank (1990, Annex 3)
states, these [MoA] data are thought to be the least reliable but are the only statistics
available on district basis for the country. For a number of minor crops (e.g. sorghum and
millet), production per unit area in a district may remain the same for a number of years
due to the tendency to use estimated crop area to derive output. In such instances, the
computed yield would only observe the subjective decisions of the district-level agriculture
staff. The data should therefore be used with caution. However, it is the only published data
available by districts, hence its widespread usage.

8.
The Central Bureau of Statistics is the Government body charged with the
responsibility of gathering, analyzing and publishing economic and social data for use by
Government, researchers and donor agencies. The CBS mainly uses sample surveys to
collect agricultural data, although censuses are undertaken for large farms. It also uses
physical measurement of area usually every five years to establish a checkpoint of
previously collected data and to form a benchmark for the following five year survey
programme (see Kirimi, 1988; 1990, for good summaries of the CBS methodologies of
collecting agricultural data; this section is largely based on these references). The
instruments used for area measurements include prismatic compass for taking bearings and
a measuring wheel for recording distances. The above method has a drawback in that there
are no accurate ways of apportioning area in mixed crop fields. CBS automatically assigns
equal area to all constituent crops in a mixed field, which is likely to result in lower
estimates of yield derived using such data.
9.
CBS conducts biannual Crop Forecast Survey (during the short and long rains) and
publishes data covering maize, beans and potatoes. In the case of large farms, the
Agricultural Census of Large Farms provides data on crop area, production and disposals.
According to CBS own stated criteria, apart from their availability, characteristics of good
data include: timeliness; reliability, which means that the estimates are based on objective
methods and have sampling and non-sampling errors within acceptable ranges;
completeness with regard to coverage of crops and geographical areas as well as of
subsistence and market-oriented production; and comparability over time.
10.
According to the above criteria, the Crop Forecast Survey is not timely (the latest
published data refers to 1981/82); but is reliable as it is based on the national sample; is
incomplete because the published data only covers maize, beans and potatoes; but is
comparable over time. The data is collected on the basis of the NASSEP II (1985-89) frame
which excludes Garissa, Wajir, Mandera in North Eastern province; Isiolo and Marsabit in
upper Eastern province; and Samburu and Turkana in Rift Valley province (Kirimi, 1990).
In interpreting data from the Crop Forecast Surveys, the CBS cautions that a 5 per cent
error margin is attached to the estimates and that individual crop area data are based on
respondents subjective judgement and may lead to erroneous conclusions if attempts are
made to calculate crop yield on per hectare basis for any given agricultural year or season.
The data on large farms has at least three main drawbacks. First, the publication of results
takes place roughly seven years after the questionnaires are received from the field (the
latest publication refers to 1984 data). Second, the response rate is quite low (38 percent in
1984) and substantial errors are likely to emerge when grossing up the census returns to
obtain total estimates. If land is subdivided in the period between two censuses, the
grossed-up data is likely to be overestimated as grossing-up factors used to take care of the
non-response are expected to decline with subdivision. Third, published data on, say, wheat
crop, includes area but omits production, although the questionnaire collects data on
production.
11.
The Department of Resources Surveys and Remote Sensing (formerly KREMU), like
CBS, is a department of the Ministry of Planning and National Development. The
department uses aerial photography to estimate area under various crops including maize
and wheat; and radiometry supplemented by ground checks to estimate maize yield.

Radiometry using reflectance of near infrared and red light are used in estimating
production particularly of green biomass of many forage and food crops. According to
Ottichilo (1988), the method of combining aerial photography and radiometry relies on
sampling the maize after the crop has reached its peak biomass. Since it takes little time to
cover wide areas and to analyze and compile the data, it can be undertaken close to harvest,
thereby reducing uncertainty about the influence of weather and pests on pre-harvest
losses. The DRSRS derives the yield factor for wheat by collating data from the Ministry of
Agriculture and the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB), supplemented by small
field surveys. DRSRS releases the data timely in their series of Technical Reports.
12.
One of the main weaknesses of DRSRS method is the fact that from the air, it is
difficult to make accurate estimates in mixed cropping and crops grown in shade and those
grown in patches. As Kirimi (1988, p. 106) notes, the air survey technique ...is not as
attractive as it might appear at first sight since it cannot be combined with any enquiry
relating to the production or disposal of the crops, or even their yield. In addition, the
results exclude semi-arid areas and maize and forested areas. According to Ottichilo and
Sinange (1990), in districts like Lamu, Tana River, Garissa, Marsabit, Mandera, Turkana,
Wajir, Isiolo, and Samburu, maize was grown on a very small scale such that it was of no
significant importance in terms of national output, hence were not included in the strata.
The DRSRS tries to minimize the potential errors of the air survey technique by (a)
covering only maize and wheat which are likely to be the taller crops in case of mixed
cropping; (b) netting out acreage under barley using data from Kenya Breweries to arrive at
reasonable estimates of wheat crop area; and (c) using wheat yield data from other sources
e.g. MoA and NCPB.
13.
Table 2a compares maize hectarage and production data for reference years 1985 and
1986, based on CBS, DRSRS and MoA, while Table 2b gives the derived yield (tons/ha). In
both years, the DRSRS figures on crop area were lower (and production higher) than those
obtained from either CBS or MoA, although this is not necessarily the case in all districts.
The implied yield (see Table 2b) derived from the DRSRS data appear to be on the high side.
The maize results from DRSRS are pre-harvest production estimates which do not take into
account the pre-harvest, during harvest and postharvest losses which can be as high as 20
percent (Ottichilo and Sinange, 1990). Ottichilo and Sinange, both staff of DRSRS, further
cautions that the maize yield estimates ... are only reliable in areas where field sizes are at
least over one hectare and where monoculture [pure fields of maize] is practised. However,
the national figures on crop area and production (and implied yield) should be interpreted
with caution as there are data gaps for some districts in different years and from different
institutions. In addition, the MoA and DRSRS derive production from estimates of yield
and crop area, hence the reference to implicit yield in the report.
14.
A number of surveys have been undertaken which have tremendous wealth of
baseline agricultural data. The data contained in the Kenya Statistical Digest (Central
Bureau of Statistics, March 1972) sparked debate on the relationship between farm size and
intensity of land use, a debate which was taken up by Hunting Technical Services (1977)
and World Bank (1983). The four rounds of the Integrated Rural Surveys (Kenya, 1977;
1981) gave crop area and production for the most important crops grown in Kenya (except
wheat), and also refers to the diversity of sources of agricultural data, notably MoA, CBS

and NCPB1. Otieno (1978) gives crop area and production by province and district based on
1977 MoA data. Gitu et al (1989) gives MoA district level area and production data for crops
and livestock covering the period 1970/71 to 1987/88. The data culled by Otieno (1978) and
Gitu et al (1989) is not distinguished by farm size. The Farm Management Handbook of
Kenya (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1982) contains a wealth of baseline information on
agriculture according to agro-ecological zones (AEZs) and district, which is useful to
agricultural field advisors, researchers and farmers. The Handbook gives data on yield by
AEZ and district for various crops including maize, wheat and sorghum.
15.
There is need to improve and harmonize the information systems in CBS and other
agencies involved in collection of agricultural data. The Integrated Rural Survey 1976-79
Basic Report emphasized the need to experiment with various data collection and
forecasting techniques with a view to securing more reliable and more accurate production
and crop area data (Kenya, 1981a, p. 159). Partly as a result of the temporary food deficit
brought about by the 1979-80 drought, the Sessional Paper on National Food Policy (Kenya,
1981b) also proposed an early warning system involving the MoA, CBS and the interministerial Crop Forecasting Committee to monitor supply and prices of major staples. The
1989-93 National Development Plan further reiterated the importance of a comprehensive
crop monitoring and early warning system based on the structures developed during the
1984 drought. In an effort to improve data quality, the Meteorological Department, DRSRS,
MoA, NCPB and CBS in 1985 instituted a technical subcommittee to study the different
data collection procedures with a view to obtaining reliable crop forecasts. It is important to
continue the process of harmonizing the datasets for the purpose of forecasting food supply
and to derive reliable estimates of the factors influencing supply, i.e. area and yield. In
addition, there is need to create a reporting format/layout that fulfils the demands of
various users of agricultural data, and to computerize the agricultural database in the
ministry of agriculture.
THE CONCEPT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
16.
The factors of production have traditionally been considered to consist mainly of
land, labour and capital. In measuring productivity, the reference factor of production is the
one considered to be the binding constraint on production in the sector. In the case of the
manufacturing sector, capital is likely to be the more binding non-human resource (Mukui,
1990). In agriculture, especially smallholders, good arable land is a major constraint.
Although labour can be scarce during peak periods, the impact of labour on agriculture is
difficult to estimate because of (a) lack of adequate data especially on the use of unpaid
family labour, and (b) the difficulty of measuring labour services in constant skill units
(factor quality). The convenient measure of productivity in a sector is determined by (a)
ease in obtaining data, and (b) the degree to which the factor puts an upper bound on
production.
17.
Theoretically, increased food production can be considered to be a combination of
changes in area and yield (as a broad proxy for other co-operant factors). A farmer is
1

Some statistics from the 1974/75 Integrated Rural Survey are published in the Statistical Abstract (1977,
1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981) while those from the 1978/79 Integrated Rural Survey appear in the Statistical
Abstract 1982.

assumed rational and uses the factors of production (such as land, capital and labour) to
maximize his production, denoted as yield per unit area. In its simplest form, a single output
Q produced by using two variable inputs (X1, X2) and one or more fixed inputs can be
represented by a production function of the form:
Q = f(x1, x2), where Q > 0; x1 >0; x2 > 0
This function is assumed to be single-valued and continuous with continuous first and
second partial derivatives. The productivity of x1 is the partial derivative of Q with respect
to x1 treating x2 as a parameter and vice versa for x2. This formulation is, however, not
appropriate for determining the interaction between yield and farm size, as output (Q) is
defined per unit area.
18.
According to Evenson and Kislev (1973; 1975), the production function can be taken
to represent yields e.g. of maize or wheat, x1 are the biological determinants of potential
yield (fertilizers, seeds, water, correct choice of methods and timing) and x2 as the
mechanical inputs (labour and machinery) while land (e.g. one hectare) is considered as
constant. The factors grouped under x1 determine potential yield and research influences
the biological process, while factor substitution can occur within the sub-components of x2
(mechanical process) but there is very little substitution between the biological and
mechanical processes.
19.
The above method of using yield as an indicator of productivity is inherent with
several drawbacks. First, it assumes that a farmer has inputs such as fertilizer as and when
required. This is not always true particularly for the small-scale farmers who have limited
resources. Second, yield as an indicator of productivity does not take into consideration the
impact of the variation and timing of weather conditions especially rainfall. Weather affects
yields considerably and is often a big determinant of annual variations in yield. Thirdly,
yield does not allow one to adequately isolate the impact of husbandry e.g. timely planting,
weeding and pest control. Husbandry also includes postharvest management so that the
produce is available for disposal through own consumption, sale and retention for seed. In
addition, although yield is the most commonly used indicator of productivity, it is a
physical measure and does not therefore take into account relative prices. Yield (as
measured by physical output per unit area) cannot be used to determine the relative returns
of different crops and in deciding the optimal crop mix. In this regard, the trend and not the
absolute level of a crop yield is a more important indicator of efficiency in resource
allocation.
20.
There are also practical limitations in computing credible figures of yield. The
estimation of crop area in case of intercropping patterns is rather difficult. In addition, even
if the yield is converted to value terms, gross returns do not take into account the costs of
production. If yield in value terms is achieved by adopting expensive production
techniques, yield could rise when profitability is declining. Or profitability could have been
simultaneously achieved through high price increases, leading to implicit taxation of other
agricultural subsectors (crops, livestock) and the non-agricultural economy.
21.

The use of the concept of crop yield per unit area is generally accepted as an input in

the planning process. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed
Growth uses crop value per hectare to derive a ranking of the relative importance of
different crops and livestock, given the shortage of high and medium potential land.
Although value per ha is superior to physical yield in determining optimal national crop
mix, it is not immediately apparent whether the values in the Sessional Paper were imputed
on the basis of domestic or international prices. The Ministry of Agriculture Programme
Strategies on Crop Development to the Year 2000 (Kenya, 1989a) uses projections of
physical yield as targets in the development process.
22.
Analysis of agricultural productivity differentiating between large and small farms
was undertaken in the 1970s, using data from the Kenya Statistical Digest (Kenya, March
1972) and the Integrated Rural Surveys (Kenya, 1977; 1981a). The debate and analysis on
the relationship between size of holding and intensity of land use were taken up by
Hunting Technical Services (1977) and the World Bank (1983). The main conclusions,
based on official data, were: (a) gross output per ha was inversely related with holding size;
(b) employment per ha was even more strongly associated with holding size; and (c)
production costs per unit of output are much lower on smallholdings. The inverse
relationship between farm size and productivity was further collaborated by the IRS. The
Hunting Technical Services (1977) concluded that apart from enterprises like seed maize
and wheat, which are not suitable for small-scale production, there do not appear to be
major arguments against further subdivision in terms of output per ha. Since sorghum and
millet are smallholder crops, maize predominantly smallholder, and wheat mainly
produced by large farms, the analysis of yield by crop in this report can roughly be taken to
represent yields by holding size.
TRENDS IN MAIZE PRODUCTIVITY
23.
According to the Agricultural Production Survey 1986/87, conducted by the Central
Bureau of Statistics, maize is grown in almost all agro-ecological zones in the country and
remains the foremost annual crop and staple diet for the majority of Kenyans. An average of
29 percent of national total holding area (for districts covered in the Agricultural
Production Survey 1986/87) is devoted to maize in pure stand and a further 49 percent
under mixed stand, i.e. inter-planted with other crops such as beans, potatoes and sorghum
(see Table 1, based on summary data from the Agricultural Production Survey 1986/87
released as Chapter 3 of Economic Survey 1989). Smallholder maize production is mostly in
Central, Nyanza and Rift Valley provinces. About 90 percent is produced by farms of less
than 5 hectares (Kenya, 1989b). Large-scale maize farming is mainly found in Trans Nzoia,
Uasin Gishu and Nakuru districts of Rift Valley province. It is therefore difficult to reach
firm conclusions about the relationship between farm size and maize yield because farm
sizes are region-specific (i.e. large farms are located in only three districts) and different
districts have different climatic and soil conditions.
24.
Kenya has generally been self-sufficient in maize since independence. Varying
volumes of maize have, however, been imported in years of drought (in 1965, 1971 and
1984) or after a drought year (1967 and 1980). Good weather coupled with price incentives
adopted by the Government has encouraged farmers to increase their production. The area
planted increased from about 0.64m hectares in 1963 to over 1.3m ha in 1989. Production

has also been on an upward trend, rising from about 1m tons in 1963 to about 2.8m tons in
1989. In the last decade, this trend was only interrupted during 1982-84, starting from a
good harvest of over 2.5m tons in 1981 and dropping to the all time low of about 1.4m tons
during the drought of 1984. Two years of good weather reversed the downward trend
culminating in a bumper harvest of nearly 3m bags in 1986.
25.
In general maize yield fluctuated around 2.1 tons/ha in the second half of the 1970s,
except during 1979 and 1980 when yield was a low 1.6 tons/ha due to drought conditions.
Maize yield started high at a level of 2.2 tonnes per hectare in 1975. Yield was on a
downward trend between the years 1981 and 1984 but started to increase after 1985.
Available data indicates that 1986 had the highest yield (2.4 tons/ha) since Independence.
Only the years 1969, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1981, 1988, 1989 and 1990 had yield levels nearing
that of 1986.
26.
Productivity (as indexed by yield) decreased by about 5.8 percent to 2.0 tons/ha in
the year 1976. The decline was eased somewhat in 1977, increasing marginally by 1.4
percent over 1976 to 2.1 tons/ha. The following three years witnessed a steady decline in
yield, decreasing by 4.3 percent, 14.0 percent and 7.3 percent in 1978, 1979 and 1980,
respectively. The sharp increase in yield in 1981 of 31.4 percent over 1980 led to a recovery
in yields to levels obtained in the mid-1970s. From the peak of 1981, the maize yield
declined sharply to an all time low of 1.3 tons/ha during the drought year of 1984. The yield
then picked up to a new peak of 2.4 tons/ha in 1986 but slightly dropped again during the
period 1987-1989.
27.
The high maize yield in the mid-1970s may be partly explained by an increase in
area planted from about 708,000 ha in 1971 to about 1,120,000 ha in 1980 as the expansion
is likely to have taken place on good arable land. The continuous decline in yield from 1975
to 1980, which is partly due to less favourable weather conditions, was accompanied by an
increase in crop area. One other possible explanation is that during this time farmers did
not use adequate inputs such as fertilizers and seeds. This is likely to be particularly so with
small-scale farmers who may have lacked adequate resources, resulting in low levels of
fertilizer application and low yields. In addition, the 1973 and 1979 oil price shocks may
have had a deleterious impact on foreign exchange available to import agricultural inputs.
28.
The sharp decline in maize yields from 1981 to 1984 was mainly due to adverse
weather conditions which culminated to a severe drought in 1984 resulting in huge imports
of cereals particularly maize and wheat. Farmers responded to unfavourable weather by
reducing area planted from a peak of about 1.24m ha in 1982 to 1.13m ha in 1984. The
national maize yield shot up in 1985 after the drought reaching a peak in 1986 but declined
slightly thereafter. According to DRSRS data, the 1985-89 average yield was 31 bags/ha or
about 2.8 tonnes/ha.
29.
The maize grown by small-scale farmers is mainly for subsistence particularly in the
medium and low potential parts of Kenya. Data available indicates that in areas where the
majority of farmers are smallholders (Central, Coast, Western, Nyanza, Eastern and North
Eastern provinces), the yield trend has fluctuated from district to district and from year to
year within each district. In some districts in Central Province (especially Nyeri and

Kiambu), yield has risen above the national level for some years. For example, Kirinyaga
district had a yield of 3.9 tons/ha in 1976 compared to the national yield level of 2.0 tons/ha.
Kiambu and Nyandarua districts had peak yields of 3.3 tons/ha in 1980 and 3.2 tons/ha in
1981, respectively, compared to the national levels of 1.6 tons/ha in 1980 and 2.1 tons/ha in
1981. The areas with good soils and relatively high rainfall (e.g. some parts of Rift Valley)
tend to have higher yields than the national average.
30.
On the other hand, some districts had low yields compared to the national figures.
The ASAL districts (e.g. Marsabit in upper Eastern province) had average yield levels of
below 1.0 tons/ha. (The high yield for Isiolo district in 1988 of 3.8 tons/ha - computed on
the basis of Gitu et al (1989) data compendium - is likely to be due to the quality of data as it
is impossible for the semi-arid district to have yield exceeding the national average of 2.2
tons/ha!) Similarly, the districts in Coast province had low yields. However, as mentioned
elsewhere, the data available has several shortcomings and more weight should be attached
to the trend (rather than the absolute levels) of yield in a district. However, within limits of
around 10-20 percent margin of error, the data could be taken to represent differences in
yield in various regions in the country.
TRENDS IN WHEAT PRODUCTIVITY
31.
Wheat is the second most important cereal grown in Kenya, occupying 2.2 percent
of the total area of crops and dairy pasture in 1983/84 compared with 22.6 percent taken up
by maize and beans (Kenya, 1986a). It is the most important crop of the large-scale farming
areas. The main wheat growing areas are Nakuru, Uasin Gishu, Trans Nzoia and Narok in
Rift Valley and Nyandarua in Central province. Narok district has overtaken Nakuru and
Uasin Gishu and is currently the district with the highest wheat production. The main
factors influencing the level of wheat production have been the subdivision of the former
European owned farms, and the wheat/maize price ratio (Hunting, 1977; Maitha, 1974).
32.
Wheat is mainly grown on large farms. According to the World Bank (1990), the
share of large farms in total production declined from 93 percent during the period 1960-70
to 80 percent during 1970-80, and is expected to stabilize around 75 percent at the end of
the century. The growth in production during 1963-89 (annual compound rate of 2.0
percent) was accounted for by increase in yield (1.87 percent) as the area under cultivation
increased marginally at an annual rate of 0.16 percent due to subdivision of large scale
farms. Since maize is the traditional smallholder crop in many parts of Kenya, subdivision
of wheat land has led to switching from wheat to maize. The change in crop mix has
probably been most dramatic in Kinangop/Nyandarua where wheat production declined
sharply after subdivision of the former Million Acre Scheme. Due to urbanization and
changing consumption patterns, the rate of growth in wheat consumption is double the
population growth rate. The current production (243,000 tonnes in 1989) therefore falls
below domestic requirements (333,000 tonnes in the same year).
33.
Data on wheat production distinguished by farm size (large versus small farms) is
scarce. The published data from the Integrated Rural Surveys of the 1970s does not include
crop area and production of wheat. District level data on crop area and production for
reference year 1976 was collected by the Ministry of Agriculture and compiled by Otieno

(1978), but the data is not distinguished by farm size. The publicly available data from CBS
annual Crop Forecast Surveys only covers maize, beans and potatoes, while the Agricultural
Census of Large Farms gives data on area under large scale wheat cultivation (but excludes
production data). The best available data on small scale wheat farmers in selected districts is
provided by Bartenge (1979) and Mulamula (1983). According to Mulamula (1983), sample
survey results for Nakuru district showed that farms smaller than 20 ha occupied 14 percent
of total wheat area (in 1982) and 72 percent of total number of wheat farmers.
34.
The study by Longmire and Lugogo (1989) reports on an economic analysis of
profitability of alternative wheat and maize technologies. The study concludes that Kenya
has a comparative advantage in producing wheat on large farms with machinery-intensive
technologies. In addition, on small fields, labour-intensive wheat was more nationally
profitable than fully mechanized wheat but producing maize with labour-intensive
technology was still slightly more profitable than producing wheat with labour-intensive
technology. The authors, however, caution that the economic advantage of maize
production depends on the natural advantages that exist in different locations for the two
crops on small holdings. Due to paucity of data categorized by farm size, the rest of the
report will use the district level data on wheat crop area and production, which was culled
by Gitu et al (1989) from the Ministry of Agriculture District Annual Reports.
35.
Long-term wheat yield data, based on NCPB records and reported in Ottichilo and
Sinange (1990), separates the period 1942-89 into three distinct episodes: Phase I (1942-65)
had average yield of 8.7-13.7 bags/ha and was accompanied by a large increase in crop area
especially during 1942-55; Phase II (1966-78) registered yield of 13.7-17.4 bags/ha but with
high annual variations; and Phase III (1979-89) shows yield of 18.7-24.9 bags/ha excluding
the bad drought year of 1984. The trend depicted in Table 5 shows increases in yield during
the period 1963-80, but a slight decline during 1980-89 due to a high yield of 2.2 tons/ha for
the base year 1980. Although the absolute values of yield factors from NCPB, DRSRS and
MoA differ, the trend depicted by the three data sources is the same: an increase in yield in
1985 and 1986, followed by a decline in 1987, and an increase in 1988 to levels slightly
above those prevailing during 1985 and 1986.
TRENDS IN SORGHUM PRODUCTIVITY
36.
Sorghum is mainly grown in Nyanza, Western and Eastern provinces, mostly under
mixed stand. According to Field Crops Technical Handbook by the Agricultural
Information Centre, sorghum can survive drought conditions for some weeks by rolling up
its leaves and thus decreasing transpiration. It tolerates some degree of water-logging, but it
is prone to bird damage. The total crop area was about 189,600 ha under mixed stand and
16,800 ha under pure stand during 1974/75, with Nyanza province alone accounting for
162,300 ha and 13,400 ha, respectively (Kenya, 1977). During the period 1974/75, the
proportions of holdings with sorghum were 15.6 percent in Eastern, 75.2 percent in Nyanza
and 36.7 percent in Western province. Own consumption of sorghum was estimated at
about 93 percent of total production during 1976/77 (Kenya, 1981a). World Bank data,
based on FAO sources, shows an increase in sorghum production from 163,000 tonnes in
1965 to 200,000 tonnes in 1980, and a big decline to 130,000 tonnes in 1987 (World Bank,
1989). The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that production and crop area in 1988/89 was

10

111,200 tons and 138,400 ha, respectively, which shows a decline from the levels obtaining
in the mid-1970s. National production data from the MoA District Annual Reports also
shows a decline between the late 1970s and 1988, mainly on account of decline in output
from Siaya district. Data from the 1986/87 Agricultural Production Survey 1986/87 indicate
that the proportion of area under sorghum in both pure and mixed stand is high in Nakuru,
which was not the case in the 1970s (Kenya, 1977).
37.
Although sorghum is mainly a smallholder crop, data relating to the late 1970s show
that intermediate farms had about 3,260 ha under sorghum and produced 1,330 tonnes
(about 14,800 bags) in 1979, compared with 141,800 ha and 1.29 million bags for small
farms. The computation of sorghum (and millets) yield per ha is prone to data and
conceptual problems. This is mainly because the crop is planted mixed with other crops,
and the derived yield per unit area is therefore likely to underestimate the actual yields
from the land. Ideally, the land equivalent ratio (LER) for intercropped sorghum should be
the ratio of sorghum yield in mixed stand to sorghum yield in pure stand, but this
computation only helps in deriving land use patterns rather than yields. When total LER
for the mixed crops is greater than one, mixing pays but when the value is less than one
mixing does not pay. Data from the first round of the Integrated Rural Surveys (1974-75)
led the authors to conclude that sorghum ... tends to be grown on the smaller of the small
holdings. Such holdings also produce better yields of this crop (Kenya, 1977, page 78).
However, the quality of district-level data does not permit firm conclusions about interdistrict differences in yield.
38.
Data on potential sorghum yield is available from the work of the East African
Regional Sorghum and Millet network, which has been conducting trials on grain yield,
drought and disease resistance. In Kenya, local varieties have higher yields than those of
ICRISAT-Centre bred cultivars (International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid
Tropics, 1989), with a yield of about 2.15 tonnes/ha in 1987, obtained at Kiboko for
Mukueni variety. Yields can also be higher than 3 tonnes/ha compared with the current
national level of 600 kg/ha. However, since sorghum is mainly produced in mixed stand,
the yield gaps (actual less potential yield) could be overestimated as computation of actual
yield does not take into account the other crops inter-planted on the same land. The MoA
data was compiled for the purpose of deriving estimates of national production and is
inappropriate for calculation (and comparison) of district yield levels.
TRENDS IN MILLET PRODUCTIVITY
39.
Finger millet is predominantly a marginal crop grown mainly in Nyanza, Western,
Eastern and Rift Valley provinces. Millet is relatively low yielding and subject to
considerable bird damage. Millet is made into ugali and is sometimes used for brewing beer.
In the late 1970s, own consumption accounted for about 81 percent of total production, and
a small proportion sold to local traders/markets. Millet is grown under pure and mixed
stand, but the proportion produced under pure stand is higher than for sorghum. Data from
the Integrated Rural Surveys show that small farms produced about 50,000 tonnes of finger
millet compared to about 1,500 tonnes from intermediate farms. The MoA data shows that
the current crop covers about 110,000 ha and produces an estimated 80,000 tonnes per year
(Kenya, 1989a); which is about 2.6 times the output derived from adding up district totals

11

(see Gitu et al, 1989). World Bank data shows a decline in millet production from 130,000
tonnes in 1965 to 90,000 tonnes in 1980 and 50,000 tonnes in 1987 (World Bank, 1989).
The Agricultural Information Centre estimates that yields of 450 kg/ha (5 bags/ha) are
average, but with good husbandry yields of 1000 kg/ha or more could be obtained.
40.
In the case of finger millet, the Sorghum and Millet Improvement Program based at
Katumani conducts trials for various varieties, areas and growing conditions. A comparison
of actual and potential yield shows that Government attempts to encourage production
have largely failed. It appears that the research effort on sorghum and millet has been low
in recent years, and a thorough analysis of the structure of sorghum and millet economies is
lacking. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture estimates that, by the year 2000, it is
feasible to raise sorghum yield from the current 800 kg/ha to 1200 kg/ha and millet yield
from 600 kg/ha to 1000 kg/ha.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
41.
The food crops particularly cereals such as maize, wheat and to a lesser extent
sorghum and millet, are crucial for food security. Currently, Kenya is self-sufficient in
maize but has to import some of its wheat requirements. Due to the pressure on good
agricultural land, production per unit area (yield) has to increase to sustain an increasing
population, hence the usefulness of yield data as an input in the planning process. However,
the published agricultural data does not provide a sufficient basis for computing national
and region-specific estimates of yield. The published data is even less useful in showing the
relationship between farm size and yield (the intensity of land use).
42.
The MoA data gives data on crop area and production. In reality, the agricultural
officers usually derive production figures on the basis of estimated area and assumed yield.
In addition, the MoA data recording is plagued with typographical/arithmetic errors and
lack of uniformity in the reporting system (e.g. units of measurement of area and
production). No effort is spent to cull data from the district reports into a single
comprehensive national report, thus making it extremely monotonous and tiresome for
each individual policy analyst to extract data from the district reports.
43.
The data on agricultural production marketed through parastatals is fairly reliable,
mainly because of the monopolistic nature of the marketing system. The data on subsistence
and non-recorded marketed production is less reliable. When the Government relaxes the
marketing system and undertakes reform of the agricultural parastatals, there will be more
private firms/institutions handling agricultural produce. The Government should plan for
systems of collecting agricultural statistics during the reform process and for the postreform era.
44.
Maize is grown in almost all agro-ecological zones and remains the foremost annual
crop and staple diet for the majority of Kenyans. Smallholder maize production is mostly in
Central, Nyanza and Rift Valley provinces; and large-scale maize farming is mainly found
in Trans Nzoia, Uasin Gishu and Nakuru districts. The growth of maize output during the
period 1980-90 is accounted by a 3.2 percent annual increase in yield and 1.1 percent
annual increase in area, giving a compound growth in production of almost 4.5 percent (see

12

Table 3). The period 1982-84 was marked by declining yield to 1.3 tons/ha in 1984, which
recovered to the highest level of 2.4 tons/ha in 1986, before settling down to the levels
obtained in 1981 (of around 2.1 tons/ha).
45.
Wheat is the second most important cereal grown in Kenya and is the most
important crop of the large-scale farming areas. The main wheat growing areas are Nakuru,
Uasin Gishu, Trans Nzoia and Narok in Rift Valley province. The share of large farms in
total production declined from 93 percent during 1960-70 to 80 percent during 1970-80.
The source of growth in production during 1980-89 has been area (annual increase of 2.34
percent) as yield declined by an estimated annual rate of 1 percent. However, the yield
levels obtained during the 1980s were higher than for the 1970s, which is confirmed by
data from NCPB and MoA. Since maize is the traditional smallholder crop in many parts of
Kenya, subdivision of wheat land has led to switching from wheat to maize.
46.
Sorghum is mainly grown in Nyanza, Western and Eastern provinces, mostly under
mixed stand. At the national level, production and crop area has declined from the late
1970s. Millet is predominantly a marginal crop grown mainly in Nyanza, Western, Eastern
and Rift Valley provinces. Millet is low yielding and subject to considerable bird damage.
The computation of sorghum and millet yield at both district and national levels encounters
both data and conceptual problems. The data is so poor that it is difficult to clearly show the
trend in production. Conceptually, since the crops are produced under mixed stand, the
implied yield is likely to ignore the output from the other crops which are inter-planted
with sorghum and millet.
47.
The report highlights the strengths and inadequacies of agricultural data available
from various Government agencies. Among the cereals, CBS collects data on maize through
the annual Crop Forecast Survey, and maize and wheat grown on large farms. The
published datasets are inadequate; are not disaggregated by district (though the data is
collected from field surveys); and is published years after the field surveys are completed.
Although MoA data is available by district, it is unreliable. The MoA extension officers are
partisan data collectors, since they are the same people who are supposed to promote the
production of selected crops in their respective districts. There is need to improve the
quality of agricultural data from the official agencies so as to make it more useful for
planning purposes.
REFERENCES
Ackello-Ogutu, C., and M.O. Odhiambo, Maize Production in Kenya: A Study of Costs and
Technological Constraints Associated with Output Expansion, Final Report prepared for
USAID/KENYA, 1986
Akach, S.O., Agricultural Production Survey: Some Highlights from Survey Results and
Implications on Policy, in: Kenya Symposium on Statistical Surveys: Integration of
Population Data into National Development, Central Bureau of Statistics, September 1988
Akach, S.O., National Sample Surveys and Evaluation Programme, Paper presented to the

13

Symposium of Producers and Users of Statistics, November 6-8, 1990, Central Bureau of
Statistics, 1990
Bartenge, J.K., Major Small Scale Producing Areas and Farmers Farming Practices, National
Plant Breeding Station, Njoro, Kenya, 1979
Casley, D.J., and K. Kumar, Project Monitoring and Evaluation in Agriculture, World Bank,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987
Development Alternatives, Inc. et al, Economic and Social Soundness Analyses for the
Kenya Market Development Program, 2 volumes, July 1989
Evenson, R.E., and Y. Kislev, Research and Productivity in Wheat and Maize, Journal of
Political Economy, 81(6), November-December 1973
Evenson, R.E., and Y. Kislev, Agricultural Research and Productivity, Yale University Press,
1975
Gitu, K.W., C.A.K. Ngalyuka, and G.N. Kirori, Agricultural and Livestock Data
Compendium, Long Range Planning Unit, Ministry of Planning and National
Development, June 1989
Harder, D.E., Growing Wheat in Kenya, National Plant Breeding Station, Njoro, Kenya,
1974
Heyer, J., J.K. Maitha, and W.M. Senga, Agricultural Development in Kenya, Oxford
University Press, Nairobi, 1976
Hunting Technical Services, Large Farm Sector Study, 3 volumes, Nairobi, November 1977
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Annual Report
1988, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 1989
Jaetzold, R., and H. Schmidt, Farm Management Handbook of Kenya (Volume II: Natural
Conditions and Farm Management Information: Part A: West Kenya; Part B: Central
Kenya; Part C: East Kenya), Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, 1982
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, A Comparison of the Intensity of Cultivation on Large
and Small Farms in Kenya, Kenya Statistical Digest, 10(1), March 1972
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Integrated Rural Survey, 1974-75: Basic Report, March
1977
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract [1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981]
(Chapter: Rural Survey Statistics: Integrated Rural Survey, 1974/75), Government Printer,
Nairobi [1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981]

14

Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, A Review of Land use Changes (in Large Farm Areas,
1976-77), December 1978
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, The Integrated Rural Survey, 1976-79: Basic Report,
November 1981a
Kenya, Sessional Paper No. 4 of 1981 on National Food Policy, Government Printer,
Nairobi, 1981b
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract 1982 (Chapter: Rural Survey
Statistics: Integrated Rural Survey, 1978/79), Government Printer, Nairobi, 1982
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Crop Forecast Survey Long Rains 1980, 1983
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Crop Forecast Survey Short Rains 1981/82, 1983
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Provincial Statistical Abstract, Coast Province, 197580, 1984
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Provincial Statistical Abstract, Rift Valley Province,
1975-80, 1984
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Provincial Statistical Abstract, Central Province, 197580, 1984
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Provincial Statistical Abstract, Nyanza Province, 197580, 1984
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Provincial Statistical Abstract, Western Province,
1975-80, 1984
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Provincial Statistical Abstract, Eastern Province, 197580, 1984
Kenya, Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed Growth,
Government Printer, Nairobi, 1986a
Kenya, Kenya Rangeland Ecological Monitoring Unit (KREMU), Long Rains Maize
Production in Kenya, 1985, Technical Paper No 125, July 1986b
Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture, Programme Strategies on Crop Development to the Year
2000, Nairobi, March 1989a
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Economic Survey 1989 (Chapter 3: Agricultural
Production Survey, 1986/87), Government Printer, Nairobi, 1989b
Kenya, National Development Plan, 1989-1993, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1989c

15

Kenya, Agricultural Information Centre, n.d. Field Crops Technical Handbook

Kere, P.A., W.M. Mwangi, and C. Ackello-Ogutu, The Supply Responsiveness of Wheat
Farmers in Kenya, Eastern Africa Economic Review, 2(2), January 1986
Kirimi, J.B., Crop Production Forecasting and the Role of Prices in Agricultural
Development, in: Kenya Symposium on Statistical Surveys: Integration of Population Data
into National Development, Central Bureau of Statistics, September 1988
Kirimi, J.B., Agricultural Statistics, Paper presented to the Symposium of Producers and
Users of Statistics, November 6-8, 1990, Central Bureau of Statistics, 1990
Lele, Uma, Sources of Growth in East African Agriculture, World Bank Economic
Review, 3(1), January 1989
Longmire, J., and J. Lugogo, The Economics of Small-Scale Wheat Production
Technologies for Kenya, CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 89/01, Mexico, 1989
Maitha, J.K., A Note on Distributed Lag Models of Maize and Wheat Production Response:
The Kenyan Case, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 25(2), May 1974
Mukui, Incremental Capital-Output Ratio as Measure of Productivity of Investment:
Theory and a Kenyan Example, Report prepared for USAID/Kenya, October 1990
Mulamula, H.H.A., Wheat in Kenya: Current Status, Proceedings of the Regional Wheat
Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern Africa, Arusha, Tanzania (Tanzania
Agricultural Research Organization, CIMMYT and CIDA), 1983
Otieno, James. O., Basic Agricultural Data for Kenya: Districts, Provincial and National,
Ministry of Economic Planning and Community Affairs, 1978
Ottichilo, W.K., Estimating Pre-harvest Production of Maize in Kenya Using Large-Scale
Aerial Photography and Radiometry, in: Kenya Symposium on Statistical Surveys:
Integration of Population Data into National Development, Central Bureau of Statistics,
September 1988
Ottichilo, W.K., and R.K. Sinange, Long Rains Maize and Wheat Production in Kenya,
1988, Technical Report No. 131, Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing,
Ministry of Planning and National Development, October 1988
Ottichilo, W.K., and R.K. Sinange, Long Rains Maize and Wheat Production Trends in
Kenya for 1985-1989, Technical Report No. 137, Department of Resource Surveys and
Remote Sensing, Ministry of Planning and National Development, September 1990
Peden, D.G., and H. Mwendwa, Estimating Maize Yields in Kenya Using Airborne Digital
Photometers, Technical Report No. 110, Department of Resource Surveys and Remote

16

Sensing (KREMU), Ministry of Planning and National Development, 1984

Peden, D.G., W.K. Ottichilo, and H. Mwendwa, Estimating Pre-harvest Production of
Maize in Kenya Using Large-Scale Aerial Photography and Radiometry, International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 7(12), 1986
Short, C., A Methodology for Estimating and Projecting Land Use in Kenya, Technical
Paper No. 88-01, Long Range Planning Unit, Ministry of Planning and National
Development, January 1988
Short, C., and K.W. Gitu, Land Use and Agricultural Potential: A National Data Base,
Technical Paper No. 90-02, Long Range Planning Unit, Ministry of Planning and National
Development, August 1990
Simons, S., Raising Agricultural Productivity: The Role of Research and Extension,
Technical Paper No. 89-8, Long Range Planning Unit, Ministry of Planning and National
Development, January 1989
Stewart, J.I., and C.T. Hash, Impact of Weather Analysis on Agricultural Production and
Planning Decisions for the Semiarid Areas of Kenya, Journal of Applied Meteorology,
21(4), April 1982
Uganda Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization (UAFRO), Proceedings of the
Fourth Regional Workshop on Sorghum and Millet Improvement in Eastern Africa, July
22-26, Soroti, Uganda (especially articles by N.W. Onchanda, A Review of Sorghum and
Millet Research in Western Kenya during 1984; L.R. MRagwa and B.M. Kanyenyi,
Report of the Sorghum and Millet Improvement Program for Eastern Kenya, 1984; and
L.R. MRagwa, Development and Improvement of Pearl Millet Composite: IntraPopulation Improvement in Katumani Pearl Millet), 1986
World Bank, Kenya: Into the Second Decade, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975
World Bank, Growth and Structural Change: A Basic Economic Report, Washington D.C.,
1983
World Bank, Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, A Long-Term
Perspective Study, Washington D.C., 1989
World Bank, Kenya: Agricultural Growth Prospects and Strategy Options: A World Bank
Sector Report (Volume 1: Executive Summary and Main Text; Volume 2: Annexes; Volume
3: Detailed Commodity Analyses), Agricultural Operations Division, Eastern Africa
Department, March 1990
Wyeth, P., Economic Development in Kenyan Agriculture, in T. Killick (ed.), Papers on
the Kenyan Economy, Heinemann Educational Books, Nairobi, 1981

17

STATISTICAL ANNEX
Table 1: Land Use: Proportion of Area Devoted to Selected Crops, 1986/87 (%)
Table 2a: Comparison of Maize Hectarage and Production, 1985 and 1986
Table 2b: Maize: Implied Yields, 1985 and 1986
Table 3: Maize: Area, Production and Yield
Table 4a: Maize by Province: Area, Production and Yield
Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield
Table 5: Sources of Growth: Wheat Area, Production and Yield
Table 6a: Wheat by Province: Area, Production and Yield
Table 6b: Wheat by District: Area, Production and Yield
Table 7: Sorghum: Area, Production and Yield
Table 8: Sorghum by District: Area, Production and Yield
Table 9: Millets: Area, Production and Yield
Table 10: Millet by District: Area, Production and Yield

18

Table 1: LAND USE: PROPORTION OF AREA DEVOTED TO SELECTED CROPS, 1986/87 (%)
District

Maize
Pure stand

Kilifi
Kwale
Taita-Tavetta
Machakos
Kitui
Meru
Embu
Nyeri
Muranga
Kirinyaga
Kiambu
Nyandarua
Nakuru
Nandi
Kericho
Uasin Gishu
Trans-Nzoia
S. Nyanza
Kisii
Kisumu
Siaya
Kakamega
Bungoma
Busia
Mean

Wheat

Finger Millet

Sorghum

Mixed
55
53
45
17
9
25
20
16
21
28
14
16
46
28
35
32
34
25
19
32
29
27
35
14
29

65
69
56
47
56
42
47
44
51
44
45
41
59
49
30
35
30
40
47
57
55
57
50
31
49

15
29
3
34
20

5
7
64
4
19
22
5
4
28
13
21
30
11
10
10
24
17

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, Economic Survey 1989 (Agricultural Production Survey 1986/87)

19

37
55
28
52
71
28
80
6
28
42
7
56
52
24
8
60
40

Table 2a: COMPARISON OF MAIZE HECTARAGE AND PRODUCTION, 1985 and 1986
HECTARES (000)
District
Kilifi
Kwale
TaitaTavetta
Machakos
Kitui
Meru
Embu
Nyeri
Muranga
Kirinyaga
Kiambu
Nyandarua
Nakuru
Narok
Kajiado
Nandi
Kericho
Laikipia
Baringo
Uasin
Gishu
TransNzoia
Elgeyo
Marakwet
S. Nyanza
Kisii
Kisumu
Siaya
Kakamega
Bungoma
Busia
Total

CBS
48.5
49.6
45.2
309.5
138.9
138.5
40.1
40.5
87.6
52.1
65.6
23.4
38.9

28.6
58.9

1985
DRSRS
21.9
15.7

76.1
28.9
14.2
18.2
7.9
8.1
20.7
31.7
59.3

23.9

46.9
76.5
3.9
5.6
59.2

42.1

61.1

1986
DRSRS
18.5
14.8
5.2

MOA
34.9
9.6
2.7

CBS
264.3
303.5
207.1

76.5
17.8
30.2
23
13.9
25
19.2
13.7
16.8
47
24.7
5.1
72.8
74
17
13.9
62.5

1012.1
461.3
681.1
206.3
454.5
618.8
540.8
495.4
328.2
2225.7

45.6

98.3
19.4
9.8
21
8.6
19
22.1
13.9
27.9
47
21.7
7
41.6
73.3
10.8
7.9
77

1704.6

2829.7
4383.6
247.3
322.2
3783.6

43.8

67.2

57.6

2127

3887.2

14.2

18.6

63
74.7
23.7
29.7
85
71.2
17.7
1011.2

34
36.8
11.2
40
95.7
92
33
1019.2

MOA
36.5
20.6
7.2

CBS
65.1
50.4
26.8

230
53.7
78.4
43
21.3
47.2
27.4
30.6
19.8
55.2
16.6
17.8
62.8
74

310.9
163.1
140.8
50.3
52.3
84.1
52.8
59.5
29.9
53

37.8
66.1

11.4

55.5
18.6

117.2
112.7
58.6
81
110.2
53.6
24
1789.2

55.1
69.7
22.5
27.1
76
64.7
24.5
895.5

53.4
50
14.3
36.8

1082.1

PRODUCTION (000 bags)

1985
1986
DRSRS
MOA
CBS
DRSRS
513.1
380
427.4
410
408
314.9
419.3
142.4
146.4
118

135.4
121.9
47.6
83.8
111.6
77.3
24.2
1934.1

1534.3
2643.9

1124.3
279.4
274.1
513.9
317.7
315.3
835
1319.7
2854.3

1914
183.3
895.8
371.7
316.8
675.1
401.2
841.1
283.9
410.4
268.8
2175.1
910

1111
564.7
1050
185.7
450.1
605.1
394.3
453.1
338
2032.9
32.8

1684.7

1425.7
274.1
188.2
384.4
275.6
371.3
613
280.8
1151.4
2197
797.5
225.9
2048.2
3028.4
483.3
281.7
3760.5

994.7
177.8
452.4
575
278.6
500.2
517.5
304.7
280
1410
740.3
101.8
2912
2960
510
486.5
2500

1842.8

3467.5

2591.1

559

570

1813.5
3509.2
862.6
920.7
2652
2186.9
533.5
35256.6

1020.9
1473.6
22.4
1000
2392.5
2760
660
29026.6

1774.9
2508.3

342.2

610.3
584.1

1092.6
2070.4
254.1
439.7
2884.8
3025.9
301.1
25877.5

1588
3482.5
576.2
842.7
3155.8
2492.7
735.7
37084

1000
2000
256.6
66.3

15057.1

MOA
593.9
192.6
48.1

1151.9
1998.7
321.2
362
3151.9
3163.8
280.4
26299.6

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, Kenya Symposium on Statistical Surveys (1988); Ottichilo and Sinange (1990).

20

TABLE 2b: MAIZE: IMPLIED YIELDS, 1985 and 1986 (Tons/Ha)

District

CBS

1985
DRSRS

MOA

CBS

1986
DRSRS

DRSRD Ranking, 1985-89

MOA

0.5

2.1

1.5

Yield (Bags/ha)
22.0

Yield (tons/ha)
2.0

Rank
25

1.8

0.6

2.5

1.8

23.0

2.1

21

1.8

0.5

2.0

1.6

22

2.0

24

1.3

0.7

0.3

1.3

1.2

10.0

0.9

28

0.3

0.9

0.3

0.3

1.3

0.9

8.0

0.7

29

Meru

0.4

1.7

1.0

0.7

1.7

1.3

17.0

1.5

27

Embu

0.5

2.5

0.8

0.3

1.6

2.3

21.0

1.9

26

Nyeri

1.0

3.6

1.3

0.8

2.9

1.8

32.0

2.9

14

Muranga

0.6

3.5

1.3

0.6

1.8

1.8

27.0

2.4

17

Kirinyaga

0.9

3.6

1.3

0.7

2.5

2.4

29.0

2.6

16

Kiambu

0.7

2.5

0.7

1.8

2.0

22.0

2.0

23

Nyandarua

1.3

3.7

1.3

1.0

3.7

1.5

32.0

2.9

13

Nakuru

5.1

4.3

3.5

4.2

2.7

33.0

3.0

12

3.2
3.0

7
11

Kilifi

0.5

2.1

Kwale

0.6

2.4

Taita-Tavetta

0.4

Machakos

0.3

Kitui

Narok

2.2

3.3

2.7

Kajiado

1.4

2.9

1.8

35.0
33.0

Nandi

4.8

5.4

3.1

4.2

4.4

3.6

45.0

4.1

Kericho

4.0

5.2

1.1

3.4

3.7

3.6

44.0

4.0

4.0

2.7

41.0

3.7

3.2

3.2

35.0

3.2

3.3

4.4

3.6

42.0

3.8

3.8

4.6

4.0

46.0

4.1

3.5

2.8

35.0

3.2

Laikipia

5.7

Baringo

5.2

Uasin Gishu

6.4

5.8

Trans-Nzoia

4.5

5.7

Elgeyo Marakwet

2.7
1.0
2.8

S. Nyanza

0.8

2.6

1.7

0.8

2.6

2.7

27.0

2.4

18

Kisii

1.7

4.5

3.6

1.5

4.2

3.6

42.0

3.8

Kisumu

0.4

2.3

1.6

0.6

3.3

0.2

23.0

2.1

20

Siaya

0.5

2.8

0.2

0.4

2.8

2.3

24.0

2.2

19

Kakamega

2.4

3.7

2.5

2.8

2.3

34.0

3.1

10

Bungoma

5.1

3.5

3.7

2.8

2.7

32.0

2.9

15

Busia
Weighted average

1.1
1.3

2.7
3.7

1.0
1.2

2.7
3.1

1.8
2.6

22.0
31.0

2.0
2.8

22

1.3

Source: Table 2a; Ottichilo and Sinange (1990).

21

Table 3: Maize: Area, Production and Yield

Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Trend Growth Rates (%,
p.a.)
Period
1963-70
1970-80
1980-90
1963-90

Area (000
ha)
634.8
666.7
666.7
634.9
666.7
680.6
680.6
739.0
708.0
768.2
780.0
763.7
779.0
853.0
1,002.0
874.7
938.0
1,120.0
1,203.0
1,236.0
1,200.0
1,130.0
1,240.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
1,230.0
1,310.0
1,250.0

Area

Production (000
ton)
999.0
1,143
1,098
900
1,197
1,341
1,431
1,107
1,494
1,332
1,296
1,413
1,692
1,746
2,079
1,737
1,602
1,773
2,502
2,340
2,133
1,422
2,430
2,898
2,416
2,761
2,831
2,744

Production
2.19
4.25
1.10
2.64

1.48
4.82
4.46
3.96

Yield
(ton/ha)
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.3
2.0
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2

Yield (%
Change)
8.9
(3.9)
(13.9)
26.7
9.7
6.7
(28.8)
40.9
(17.8)
(4.2)
11.4
17.4
(5.8)
1.4
(4.3)
(14.0)
(7.3)
31.4
(9.0)
(6.1)
(29.2)
55.7
23.2
(16.6)
11.5
(3.7)
(1.6)

Yield
(0.70)
0.55
3.24
1.23

Sources: World Bank, Agricultural Growth Prospects Study; Central Bureau of Statistics,
Economic Survey 1991; Ministry of Agriculture, Crop Development to the Year 2000; 1989
and 1990 crop area are own estimates.

22

Table 4a: Maize by Province: Area, Production and Yield

Area

Central
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Eastern
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Rift Valley
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Western
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Nyanza
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Coast
Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

1970/71

93,670

34,061

0.36

355,042

17,437

0.05

169,991

489,574

2.88

141,292

325,437

2.30

89,729

91,708

1.02

1971/72

98,573

52,958

0.54

182,058

9,855

0.05

120,850

326,648

2.70

134,373

309,500

2.30

129,527

138,452

1.07

1972/73

124,752

103,277

0.83

219,738

14,625

0.07

151,435

382,500

2.53

122,298

281,688

2.30

138,719

113,758

0.82

1973/74

130,502

179,969

1.38

225,462

38,070

0.17

161,979

386,749

2.39

139,103

343,428

2.47

98,424

157,294

1.60

1974/75

117,484

246,067

2.09

229,432

77,025

0.34

207,130

591,827

2.86

125,842

273,728

2.18

80,478

140,799

1.75

1975/76

53,041

252,798

4.77

194,239

96,100

0.49

224,540

799,983

3.56

137,662

247,190

1.80

94,673

156,676

1.65

1976/77

86,448

233,547

2.70

218,934

91,577

0.42

268,290

733,446

2.73

108,324

249,502

2.30

109,495

154,154

1.41

60,874

1977/78

99,658

205,774

2.06

162,535

228,540

1.41

303,300

808,875

2.67

163,411

376,383

2.30

127,089

328,590

2.59

66,099

1978/79

93,514

206,640

2.21

331,329

440,755

1.33

261,511

785,862

3.01

130,293

351,791

2.70

130,549

264,338

2.02

41,927

29,846

0.71

1979/80

97,865

171,130

1.75

290,397

253,083

0.87

252,908

642,447

2.54

148,337

341,664

2.30

119,924

251,904

2.10

28,816

24,928

0.87

1980/81

99,732

188,885

1.89

294,250

88,630

0.30

322,769

669,165

2.07

186,420

429,379

2.30

189,767

387,183

2.04

41,704

43,342

1.04

1981/82

102,732

178,885

1.74

336,011

292,987

0.87

345,498

993,501

2.88

198,568

457,360

2.30

189,205

432,309

2.28

61,549

109,141

1.77

1982/83

112,143

232,744

2.08

337,200

486,927

1.44

352,621

897,849

2.55

206,548

475,741

2.30

206,841

499,557

2.42

52,696

32,875

0.62

1983/84

128,453

206,200

1.61

326,237

260,456

0.80

356,088

909,804

2.55

179,025

397,253

2.22

178,156

458,520

2.57

47,414

39,533

0.83

1984/85

150,585

222,534

1.48

261,409

145,571

0.56

337,115

553,910

1.64

211,000

420,057

1.99

176,229

399,337

2.27

77,350

68,787

0.89

1985/86

128,878

159,991

1.24

412,460

315,827

0.77

401,069

1,080,104

2.69

226,071

519,963

2.30

154,773

414,784

2.68

69,625

94,440

1.36

1986/87

146,367

228,914

1.56

355,979

506,993

1.42

444,500

1,244,956

2.80

240,229

557,104

2.32

170,658

490,015

2.87

73,409

97,849

1.33

1987/88

152,100

275,132

1.81

348,355

316,578

0.91

472,059

1,321,765

2.80

259,520

596,896

2.30

165,622

438,108

2.65

66,793

80,575

1.21

1987/88

136,441

138,130

1.01

334,299

664,877

1.99

453,624

1,443,353

3.18

230,470

404,705

1.76

177,548

445,300

2.51

72,799

119,377

1.64

1988/89
1989/90

133,416
141,007

253,693
234,389

1.90
1.66

341,193
399,223

477,420
517,331

1.40
1.30

468,384
457,484

1,390,677
1,145,419

2.97
2.50

234,310
238,870

502,000
519,925

2.14
2.18

178,900
140,782

450,000
391,230

2.52
2.78

65,860
67,409

113,085
115,615

1.72
1.72

23

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

1970/71
1971/72
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91

Bungoma
Area
Prod.
39,702
43,771
41,300
46,347
43,456
49,637
45,902
44,880
39,900
41,491
50,000
61,000
66,528
66,000
78,000
84,690
93,000
98,766
83,570
72,210
78,248

100,711
111,035
104,765
162,000
117,000
134,829
144,000
148,500
111,000
93,355
112,500
137,345
179,628
138,546
143,640
248,663
261,100
250,538
188,030
162,470
179,950

Yield
(T/ha)
2.54
2.54
2.54
3.50
2.69
2.72
3.14
3.31
2.78
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.70
2.10
1.84
2.94
2.81
2.54
2.25
2.25
2.30

Kakamega
Area
Prod.
83,457
74,460
63,000
79,662
71,591
54,065
75,548
103,223
77,085
88,941
106,420
112,237
110,420
84,225
102,000
109,286
117,045
125,355
122,000
134,800
135,000

174,793
177,459
170,100
229,427
149,940
126,512
158,221
216,191
173,441
200,117
222,886
271,137
231,264
176,401
213,629
229,501
245,795
263,264
208,620
310,040
310,500

Yield
(T/ha)
2.09
2.38
2.70
2.88
2.09
2.34
2.09
2.09
2.25
2.25
2.09
2.42
2.09
2.09
2.09
2.10
2.10
2.10
1.71
2.30
2.30

24

Busia
Area

Prod.

18,133
16,142
34,140
13,881
12,795
7,960
10,076
15,308
13,308
17,905
30,000
25,331
29,600
28,000
31,000
33,000
33,000
35,063
24,900
27,300
25,630

31,486
36,319
59,281
24,103
22,217
13,822
17,496
26,580
23,108
31,090
52,092
52,796
51,398
38,880
48,717
53,550
59,400
60,884
26,890
29,485
29,475

Yield
(T/ha)
1.74
2.25
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
2.08
1.74
1.39
1.57
1.62
1.80
1.74
1.08
1.08
1.15

Kirinyaga
Area
Prod.
29,096
25,860
26,720
29,638
21,554
20,187
9,694
17,620
18,800
27,055
32,087
26,633
32,855
28,929
32,046
27,425
33,479
24,832
31,284
29,820
25,980

16,003
14,223
61,668
66,685
48,982
42,136
38,020
41,900
48,600
54,775
34,654
60,769
51,746
52,073
32,278
36,475
49,388
33,523
56,310
45,624
43,170

Yield
(T/ha)
0.55
0.55
2.31
2.25
2.27
2.09
3.92
2.38
2.59
2.02
1.08
2.28
1.57
1.80
1.01
1.33
1.48
1.35
1.80
1.53
1.66

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Nyandarua
Area

1970/71

8,700

1971/72
1972/73

Nyeri
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Muranga
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Kiambu
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

3,197

0.37

13,403

36,188

2.70

27,424

14,988

6,656

3,241

0.49

16,929

45,708

2.70

30,431

42,471

1.40

15,654

9,549

10,580

1.11

21,961

55,295

2.52

50,954

83,310

1.64

18,718

1973/74

7,911

17,996

2.27

24,884

67,187

2.70

36,342

31,727

1974/75

8,632

10,953

1.27

22,680

53,199

2.35

38,622

58,324

1.51

26,977

49,999

1.85

1975/76

5,865

13,420

2.29

19,511

56,180

2.88

30,702

76,264

2.48

21,884

39,391

1.80

1976/77

18,626

58,567

3.14

14,933

39,350

2.64

28,968

78,300

2.70

18,227

19,205

1.05

1977/78

16,137

50,882

3.15

15,329

34,490

2.25

33,544

75,492

2.25

17,028

30,650

1.80

1978/79

11,000

24,750

2.25

17,580

35,480

2.02

30,038

67,600

2.25

16,896

30,410

1.80

1979/80

12,570

9,050

0.72

15,934

27,442

1.72

23,690

39,024

1.65

18,700

40,500

2.17

1980/81

12,553

9,038

0.72

13,202

33,000

2.50

25,890

39,193

1.51

19,000

63,000

3.32

1981/82

13,992

44,075

3.15

15,518

26,296

1.69

35,000

42,804

1.22

21,000

58,800

2.80

1982/83

12,703

13,703

1.08

23,895

43,011

1.80

38,000

41,040

1.08

21,000

56,700

2.70

1983/84

15,596

28,072

1.80

25,556

43,295

1.69

43,504

39,154

0.90

37,000

59,940

1.62

1984/85

18,817

16,935

0.90

20,180

23,056

1.14

38,022

42,143

1.11

19,813

45,579

2.30

1985/86

19,816

25,808

1.30

21,332

28,798

1.35

47,210

61,373

1.30

30,584

76,460

2.50

1986/87

20,350

51,282

2.52

23,973

35,135

1.47

47,841

73,197

1.53

26,457

66,130

2.50

1987/88

17,800

11,570

0.65

22,742

21,380

0.94

45,860

45,400

0.99

25,207

26,257

1.04

1988/89

18,640

65,240

3.50

21,483

34,655

1.61

46,300

70,783

1.53

15,709

26,705

1.70

1989/90
1990/91

19,520
20,010

52,704
32,010

2.70
1.60

19,565
22,100

27,397
33,150

1.40
1.50

46,400
44,800

78,880
71,680

1.70
1.60

25,702
26,100

29,784
31,320

1.16
1.20

41,966

2.24

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Embu
Area

Meru
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Machakos
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Kitui
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

1970/71

15,168

12,882

0.85

23,681

71,091

3.00

137,491

117,209

0.85

17,725

8,479

0.48

1971/72

11,541

14,028

1.22

22,030

66,087

3.00

146,000

39,199

0.27

19,019

9,097

0.48

1972/73

14,782

25,543

1.73

26,386

79,155

3.00

129,574

110,420

0.85

48,383

23,142

0.48

1973/74

13,492

21,120

1.57

33,150

99,417

3.00

111,597

118,242

1.06

51,915

24,830

0.48

1974/75

17,896

55,271

3.09

33,362

66,800

2.00

114,511

120,719

1.05

60,600

28,985

0.48

1975/76

16,204

27,373

1.69

42,001

68,727

1.64

110,017

48,712

0.44

25,000

5,625

0.23

1976/77

18,067

14,554

0.81

35,950

37,600

1.05

137,115

128,557

0.94

24,000

10,000

0.42

1977/78

12,390

18,030

1.46

36,730

36,730

1.00

156,119

126,923

0.81

25,000

3,960

0.16

1978/79

11,406

20,530

1.80

44,457

56,823

1.28

128,440

179,020

1.39

30,000

10,500

0.35

1979/80

15,738

20,657

1.31

76,300

67,296

0.88

158,000

142,200

0.90

40,000

18,600

0.47

1980/81

20,000

10,829

0.54

82,100

36,945

0.45

150,000

76,650

0.51

41,000

10,000

0.24

1981/82

36,585

49,389

1.35

90,000

162,000

1.80

137,552

137,355

1.00

65,900

59,310

0.90

1982/83

54,752

66,196

1.21

99,000

178,200

1.80

154,443

180,698

1.17

64,060

57,623

0.90

1983/84

39,500

11,850

0.30

100,000

93,500

0.94

135,491

121,942

0.90

45,163

32,517

0.72

1984/85

56,000

27,100

0.48

47,928

47,310

0.99

106,000

38,380

0.36

45,690

26,728

0.58

1985/86

43,000

33,792

0.79

78,379

81,433

1.04

230,000

174,000

0.76

53,670

16,665

0.31

1986/87

42,000

30,240

0.72

66,563

23,748

0.36

178,853

178,783

1.00

60,530

49,975

0.83

1987/88

46,156

52,815

1.14

57,943

101,411

1.75

178,000

182,010

1.02

59,036

1,056

0.02

1988/89

46,300

75,400

1.63

53,815

162,000

3.01

172,000

319,000

1.85

54,991

98,827

1.80

1989/90
1990/91

50,600
41,507

75,900
82,050

1.50
1.98

53,585
68,705

97,100
108,914

1.81
1.59

172,000
256,962

228,143
254,034

1.33
0.99

55,958
51,151

70,827
57,677

1.27
1.13

25

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Marsabit
Area

Prod.

Isiolo

Yield (T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Kisumu

Yield (T/ha)

Siaya

Area

Prod.

Yield (T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield (T/ha)

1970/71

479

11,644

33,534

2.88

26,113

46,096

1.77

1971/72

18,212

52,450

2.88

43,347

76,519

1.77

1972/73

139

475

15,809

45,530

2.88

29,631

52,306

1.77

1973/74

2,956

274

813

7,907

22,722

2.87

23,886

42,165

1.77

1974/75

2,954

93

9,103

26,217

2.88

25,876

43,989

1.70

1975/76

2,658

269

0.10

957

1,142

1.19

14,668

40,509

2.76

15,828

27,941

1.77

1976/77

2,660

866

0.33

1,142

816

0.71

11,522

20,184

1.75

19,196

31,444

1.64

1977/78

11,320

2,609

0.23

758

810

1.07

8,334

20,335

2.44

27,521

68,985

2.51

1978/79

641

641

1.00

10,358

23,591

2.28

31,486

32,314

1.03

0.09

1979/80

359

433

1.21

8,495

13,762

1.62

23,111

32,203

1.39

1980/81

850

1,620

1.91

300

360

1.20

11,580

19,138

1.65

64,281

111,570

1.74

1981/82

5,235

3,912

0.75

739

972

1.31

13,400

21,708

1.62

45,089

63,160

1.40

1982/83

4,130

3,515

0.85

815

704

0.86

13,000

29,250

2.25

42,112

75,802

1.80

1983/84

2,800

2,520

0.90

653

647

0.99

9,796

26,449

2.70

42,222

82,100

1.94

1984/85

5,468

5,468

1.00

413

590

1.43

13,772

22,310

1.62

36,124

65,023

1.80

1985/86

6,722

9,075

1.35

689

861

1.25

14,254

23,091

1.62

36,834

66,528

1.81

1986/87

7,284

9,833

1.35

749

674

0.90

16,393

29,506

1.80

44,574

80,235

1.80

1987/88

6,695

9,038

1.35

525

525

1.00

17,441

30,600

1.75

43,574

58,823

1.35

1988/89

6,880

8,450

1.23

313

1,200

3.83

15,901

31,484

1.98

49,079

66,257

1.35

1989/90
1990/91

8,400
11,733

7,236
14,084

0.86
1.20

650
431

780
572

1.20
1.33

15,138

47,368

3.13

35,000

54,057

1.54

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

1970/71
1971/72
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91

Kisii
Area

Prod.

11,114
41,358
28,832
53,200
23,156
25,635
31,163
32,142
27,903
40,529
55,651
54,050
64,820
42,155
57,720
50,300
53,340
52,607
53,858

1,554
2,629
4,882
79,800
68,582
84,667
98,160
83,396
76,260
104,194
150,257
174,765
192,114
151,758
163,800
181,080
192,024
189,385
189,042

Yield
(T/ha)
0.14
0.06
0.17
1.50
2.96
3.30
3.15
2.59
2.73
2.57
2.70
3.23
2.96
3.60
2.84
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.51

South Nyanza
Area
Prod.
40,858
26,610
64,447
13,431
22,343
38,542
47,614
59,092
60,802
47,789
58,255
76,666
86,909
83,983
68,613
53,385
56,351
52,000
58,710

10,524
6,854
11,040
12,607
12,011
13,559
14,366
155,874
132,173
101,745
106,218
172,676
202,391
198,213
148,204
144,085
188,250
159,300
158,517

Yield
(T/ha)
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.94
0.54
0.35
0.30
2.64
2.17
2.13
1.82
2.25
2.33
2.36
2.16
2.70
3.34
3.06
2.70

26

Uasin Gishu
Area
Prod.
25,275
27,950
35,470
30,040
25,600
29,220
41,770
42,820
34,450
36,916
36,860
43,816
46,648
47,144
39,600
62,800
61,030
59,870
59,830
61,238
59,886

75,825
94,331
95,769
54,068
83,241
99,952
93,987
96,345
93,015
99,673
82,935
138,015
134,347
181,913
35,640
169,560
192,240
199,367
215,388
248,014
177,861

Yield
(T/ha)
3.00
3.37
2.70
1.80
3.25
3.42
2.25
2.25
2.70
2.70
2.25
3.15
2.88
3.86
0.90
2.70
3.15
3.33
3.60
4.05
2.97

Trans Nzoia
Area
Prod.
24,000
30,685
34,350
33,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
39,000
35,000
60,132
52,316
51,526
48,441
49,502
55,479
51,529
52,314
68,080
68,350
59,741

88,800
117,375
126,000
106,920
97,200
138,600
162,000
189,000
126,360
94,500
162,356
178,920
166,944
145,323
133,659
174,759
181,383
151,710
245,088
276,818
177,431

Yield
(T/ha)
3.70
3.83
3.67
3.24
3.24
3.47
3.24
3.15
3.24
2.70
2.70
3.42
3.24
3.00
2.70
3.15
3.52
2.90
3.60
4.05
2.97

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Nakuru
Area

Narok
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

1970/71

13,655

55,302

4.05

3,719

1971/72

5,050

18,180

3.60

1972/73

6,240

16,848

2.70

1973/74

4,650

18,800

1974/75

40,000

1975/76

Kericho
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

4,500

1.21

43,715

3,296

8,240

2.50

3,216

13,025

4.05

4.04

4,340

3,044

97,200

2.43

5,080

40,000

126,000

3.15

1976/77

45,500

67,500

1977/78

42,000

1978/79

Nandi
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

105,923

2.42

32,391

80,048

2.47

22,000

89,100

4.05

22,180

59,886

2.70

32,000

129,600

4.05

23,372

84,139

3.60

0.70

28,960

96,466

3.33

27,390

58,361

2.13

13,716

2.70

35,550

105,359

2.96

29,400

88,515

3.01

4,800

23,255

4.84

35,045

126,191

3.60

41,100

126,181

3.07

1.48

4,500

11,340

2.52

36,875

132,750

3.60

43,010

116,100

2.70

94,500

2.25

6,780

15,865

2.34

42,490

133,844

3.15

49,475

146,941

2.97

32,808

79,723

2.43

8,980

20,205

2.25

42,838

123,044

2.87

51,974

165,462

3.18

1979/80

26,700

48,060

1.80

9,755

21,939

2.25

45,572

161,928

3.55

49,475

144,000

2.91

1980/81

37,095

22,268

0.60

13,000

18,000

1.38

57,932

182,477

3.15

59,500

168,963

2.84

1981/82

37,485

101,209

2.70

18,396

57,947

3.15

70,232

221,231

3.15

62,977

162,000

2.57

1982/83

45,805

66,510

1.45

16,025

36,056

2.25

72,000

187,920

2.61

80,523

141,636

1.76

1983/84

44,480

158,445

3.56

12,769

41,067

3.22

72,000

266,400

3.70

59,496

175,500

2.95

1984/85

48,085

227,051

4.72

10,986

13,500

1.23

72,000

181,530

2.52

60,500

136,125

2.25

1985/86

61,500

166,050

2.70

15,699

25,432

1.62

74,000

199,800

2.70

52,278

164,918

3.15

1986/87

61,900

167,130

2.70

24,676

55,521

2.25

74,000

233,100

3.15

77,409

209,004

2.70

1987/88

64,350

104,247

1.62

25,949

28,541

1.10

74,200

247,086

3.33

60,289

192,960

3.20

1988/89

66,618

179,869

2.70

35,500

95,850

2.70

80,194

288,698

3.60

62,635

197,300

3.15

1989/90
1990/91

61,244
60,475

154,395
136,068

2.52
2.25

32,300
36,330

116,280
81,743

3.60
2.25

85,434
76,558

307,562
206,707

3.60
2.70

70,828
68,073

286,894
183,662

4.05
2.70

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Elgeyo Marakwet
Area

West Pokot

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Laikipia

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Baringo
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

1970/71

8,943

4,985

2,807

8,891

1971/72

2,085

1,930

3,425

3,435

1972/73

3,525

3,650

6,670

3,885

1973/74

12,540

10,167

0.81

7,270

3,620

0.50

6,350

6,858

1.08

4,364

7,238

1.66

1974/75

14,155

44,593

3.15

6,460

14,535

2.25

7,325

15,777

2.15

5,380

12,101

2.25

1975/76

16,360

57,434

3.51

4,340

17,330

3.99

7,800

25,272

3.24

8,350

22,545

2.70

1976/77

12,125

25,099

2.07

9,380

21,105

2.25

7,800

17,550

2.25

6,320

14,130

2.24

1977/78

17,590

39,578

2.25

15,070

33,899

2.25

9,100

20,475

2.25

7,310

16,448

2.25

1978/79

19,068

60,064

3.15

7,876

17,721

2.25

9,800

28,224

2.88

6,847

14,173

2.07

1979/80

19,500

43,875

2.25

6,139

19,828

3.23

7,060

15,903

2.25

6,369

14,328

2.25

1980/81

19,850

25,200

1.27

9,450

14,400

1.52

6,000

4,500

0.75

9,900

6,683

0.68

1981/82

22,008

55,460

2.52

10,100

33,633

3.33

8,300

18,675

2.25

9,926

23,400

2.36

1982/83

21,814

58,898

2.70

12,800

40,320

3.15

9,820

24,746

2.52

10,016

29,203

2.92

1983/84

21,118

59,400

2.81

13,200

51,300

3.89

12,500

34,560

2.76

10,000

39,690

3.97

1984/85

23,005

14,300

0.62

13,000

29,250

2.25

12,638

6,302

0.50

4,500

14,175

3.15

1985/86

18,557

50,104

2.70

14,712

33,102

2.25

15,490

41,823

2.70

11,406

31,586

2.77

1986/87

22,250

60,075

2.70

12,650

28,463

2.25

18,000

48,600

2.70

13,907

31,291

2.25

1987/88

24,600

38,610

1.57

12,450

28,013

2.25

16,574

25,358

1.53

17,134

24,705

1.44

1988/89

21,200

57,240

2.70

21,160

72,367

3.42

16,574

37,292

2.25

16,500

51,975

3.15

1989/90
1990/91

26,700
20,700

84,105
37,260

3.15
1.80

18,698
13,788

67,302
31,712

3.60
2.30

18,000
18,106

32,400
34,401

1.80
1.90

15,295
13,443

44,500
24,197

2.91
1.80

27

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Kajiado

Samburu

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

1970/71

2,700

1971/72

2,289

9,088

1972/73

2,912

9,173

1973/74

5,400

1974/75

Area

Turkana
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Taita Taveta
Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

1,650

1,672

1.01

3.97

1,822

1,832

1.01

85

3.15

790

36

0.05

9,720

1.80

675

1,519

2.25

7,400

3,996

0.54

680

1,519

2.23

100

120

1975/76

10,100

14,256

1.41

485

1,091

2.25

300

1976/77

10,600

17,172

1.62

300

540

1.80

1977/78

9,900

20,655

2.09

645

1,161

1978/79

7,140

17,501

2.45

650

1979/80

9,500

15,692

1.65

1980/81

7,800

13,680

1.75

1981/82

8,542

7,688

0.90

1,200

3,011

1982/83

3,589

10,013

2.79

600

1983/84

13,652

11,340

0.83

1984/85

3,299

4,454

1985/86

17,848

1986/87

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

13,333

3,386

16,369

1.20

486

1.62

110

153

1.39

16,955

45,779

2.70

1.80

120

162

1.35

5,952

11,900

2.00

1,346

2.07

90

138

1.53

4,834

9,660

2.00

750

1,350

1.80

139

250

1.80

3,117

4,499

1.44

1,300

120

216

1.80

4,170

5,626

1.35

2.51

200

6,509

8,716

1.34

648

1.08

650

585

0.90

8,080

8,888

1.10

1,288

1,391

1.08

650

585

0.90

3,870

6,966

1.80

1.35

3,511

7,876

2.24

32,396

1.82

1,100

1,485

1.35

200

90

0.45

7,198

12,956

1.80

18,919

34,054

1.80

1,986

3,575

1.80

200

144

0.72

7,715

12,556

1.63

1987/88

31,660

29,241

0.92

1,085

2,493

2.30

613

552

0.90

5,187

7,271

1.40

1988/89

4,134

7,441

1.80

1,200

3,240

2.70

6,089

20,308

3.34

1989/90
1990/91

28,960
29,324

63,857
52,783

2.21
1.80

1,300
1,060

2,808
1,590

2.16
1.50

4,545
4,109

10,282
7,586

2.26
1.85

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

0.09

Table 4b: Maize by District: Area, Production and Yield

Tana River

Lamu

Year

Area

Prod.

1970/71

3,911

1971/72

3,386

1972/73

Yield
(T/ha)

Mombasa
Yield
(T/ha)

Kilifi
Yield
(T/ha)

Kwale

Area

Prod.

Area

Prod.

Area

Prod.

984

850

26,074

34,000

3,566

1,605

1,923

1,469

661

0.45

0.45

5,000

2,700

1973/74

936

421

0.54

0.45

17,316

1,460

1974/75

4,300

1975/76

4,000

1976/77

1,214

2,201

3,300

1.50

930

837

0.90

32,579

14,661

0.45

6,995

10,500

1.50

1977/78

3,855

2,514

2,956

1.18

900

810

0.90

39,303

18,052

0.46

13,575

20,370

1.50

1978/79

1,804

96

0.05

1,798

2,700

1.50

620

558

0.90

25,000

5,027

0.20

7,871

11,805

1.50

1979/80

976

666

0.68

2,053

3,350

1.63

500

450

0.90

20,194

14,540

0.72

1,977

1,423

0.72

1980/81

845

1,274

1.51

1,591

2,665

1.67

540

486

0.90

26,716

24,729

0.93

7,842

8,562

1.09

1981/82

1,352

2,341

1.73

1,790

3,218

1.80

1,020

918

0.90

39,303

73,014

1.86

11,575

20,934

1.81

1982/83

2,649

3,688

1.39

2,960

3,228

1.09

1,000

700

0.70

26,450

8,050

0.30

11,557

8,321

0.72

1983/84

1,410

3,102

2.20

1,412

1,987

1.41

1,020

816

0.80

26,046

16,830

0.65

13,656

9,832

0.72

1984/85

5,400

6,000

1.11

1,520

1,824

1.20

1,480

1,924

1.30

37,241

26,605

0.71

28,198

24,558

0.87

1985/86

2,840

5,000

1.76

1,687

2,024

1.20

800

880

1.10

36,500

36,500

1.00

20,600

37,080

1.80

1986/87

3,912

4,049

1.04

1,819

2,686

1.48

700

700

1.00

40,000

48,000

1.20

19,263

29,858

1.55

1987/88

3,016

3,100

1.03

1,450

1,595

1.10

630

592

0.94

37,900

56,850

1.50

18,610

11,167

0.60

1988/89

3,209

4,493

1.40

1,620

2,025

1.25

847

999

1.18

49,801

74,702

1.50

11,233

16,850

1.50

1989/90
1990/91

4,072
2,620

4,261
1,925

1.05
0.73

1,641
1,547

1,924
1,598

1.17
1.03

661
700

808
749

1.22
1.07

38,400
45,800

57,600
62,411

1.50
1.36

22,254
16,800

44,395
44,869

1.99
2.67

Source: District Annual Reports (MOA); Area in hectares, production in tonnes

28

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Table 5: Sources of Growth: Wheat Area, Production and Yield

Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Trend Growth Rates (%,
p.a.)
Period
1963-70
1970-80
1980-90
1963-90

Area (000
ha)
118.1
121.2
131.4
137.8
150.9
167.3
164.6
128.1
115.1
104.9
107.3
105.1
117.2
119.6
137.8
119.0
87.2
99.9
118.8
120.0
110.0
110.3
110.5
125.0
127.0
119.0
123.0
120.0

Area

Production (000
ton)
144.3
160.1
147.9
200.6
268.0
249.8
239.4
196.6
189.2
166.2
153.2
175.3
179.9
200.8
184.3
175.0
172.3
215.7
214.4
247.5
251.3
144.4
225.0
252.0
207.0
234.0
244.2
190.1

Production
1.17
(2.46)
1.85
0.06

Yield
(ton/ha)
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.5
2.0
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.3
1.3
2.0
2.0
1.6
2.0
2.0
1.6

Yield (%
Change)
8.1
(14.8)
29.3
22.0
(15.9)
(2.6)
5.5
7.1
(3.6)
(9.9)
16.8
(8.0)
9.4
(20.3)
10.0
34.4
9.3
(16.4)
14.3
10.8
(42.7)
55.5
(1.0)
(19.2)
20.6
1.0
(20.2)

Yield
4.52
0.93
(1.26)
1.03

3.31
3.47
(3.05)
0.97

Sources: World Bank, Agricultural Growth Prospects Study; CBS, Economic Survey 1991; Ministry of
Agriculture, Crop Development to the Year 2000. 1989 and 1990 crop area is own estimate.

29

Table 6a: Wheat by Province: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Central
Area

Production

Eastern
Yield (T/ha)

1970/71

17,269

14,130

0.82

1971/72

15,732

16,758

1.07

1972/73

13,289

11,960

0.90

1973/74

8,914

9,882

1.11

1974/75

9,580

16,965

1975/76

10,820

1976/77

Area

Production

979

Rift Valley
Yield (T/ha)

Area

Production

Yield (T/ha)

1,397

1.43

99,780

142,945

1.43

680

927

1.36

90,915

137,910

1.52

1,741

3,684

2.12

81,730

130,851

1.60

6,868

15,300

2.23

97,225

143,731

1.48

1.77

6,950

14,503

2.09

88,295

136,341

1.54

11,466

1.06

7,260

14,503

2.00

111,110

166,518

1.50

8,786

12,089

1.38

7,250

15,500

2.14

124,340

185,283

1.49

1977/78

13,338

17,331

1.30

8,444

24,531

2.91

117,790

143,721

1.22

1978/79

8,346

16,267

1.95

8,429

24,531

2.91

86,628

114,552

1.32

1979/80

3,782

2,968

0.78

8,500

4,250

0.50

73,489

93,944

1.28

1980/81

6,785

11,351

1.67

7,640

8,595

1.13

66,638

111,382

1.67

1981/82

7,159

12,404

1.73

6,500

7,207

1.11

80,211

142,158

1.77

1982/83

5,637

8,001

1.42

8,020

12,990

1.62

77,126

130,876

1.70

1983/84

7,561

13,032

1.72

8,461

14,639

1.73

88,079

155,466

1.77

1984/85

2,968

2,444

0.82

8,797

16,372

1.86

70,955

61,755

0.87

1985/86

4,090

6,492

1.59

9,132

18,190

1.99

93,079

208,484

2.24

1986/87

5,711

11,844

2.07

8,197

18,156

2.21

121,230

208,190

1.72

1987/88

3,750

5,620

1.50

8,516

17,460

2.05

108,498

224,195

2.07

1988/89

5,893

9,516

1.61

8,799

17,526

1.99

142,466

305,202

2.14

1989/90
1990/91

5,234
5,961

11,266
8,345

2.15
1.40

8,649
6,934

13,771
14,731

1.59
2.12

134,045
114,323

287,435
173,561

2.14
1.52

30

Table 6b: Wheat by District: Area, Production and Yield

Year

Nyeri
Area

1970/71

7,836

1971/72
1972/73

Production

Nyandarua
Yield (T/ha)

Area

Production

Meru
Yield (T/ha)

7,507

0.96

8,890

15,075

1.70

6,093

7,129

1.17

9,636

11,274

1.17

6,535

11,763

1.80

6,753

2,019

0.30

1973/74

5,669

6,122

1.08

3,245

7,256

2.24

1974/75

5,605

5,108

0.91

3,972

9,593

1975/76

5,684

4,856

0.85

5,136

1976/77

2,718

3,919

1.44

1977/78

2,500

2,700

1978/79

2,146

1979/80
1980/81

Area

Production

979

Yield (T/ha)

1,397

1.43

680

927

1.36

1,741

3,684

2.12

1,937

2,441

1.26

2.42

1,701

14,503

8.53

6,611

1.29

7,250

14,503

2.00

6,050

8,170

1.35

7,750

15,500

2.00

1.08

10,838

14,631

1.35

8,429

24,521

2.91

2,317

1.08

6,200

13,950

2.25

10,760

14,293

1.33

1,698

1,464

0.86

2,084

1,504

0.72

8,500

4,250

0.50

2,706

3,119

1.15

4,019

8,232

2.05

7,640

8,595

1.13

1981/82

3,050

3,186

1.04

4,109

8,218

2.00

6,500

7,209

1.11

1982/83

3,596

4,531

1.26

2,041

3,470

1.70

8,020

12,990

1.62

1983/84

3,732

5,374

1.44

3,829

7,658

2.00

8,420

14,624

1.74

1984/85

747

1,445

1.93

2,221

999

0.45

12,325

11,475

0.93

1985/86

1,968

2,656

1.35

2,122

3,836

1.81

9,049

18,113

2.00

1986/87

2,791

4,137

1.48

2,920

7,750

2.65

8,130

18,150

2.23

1987/88

1,875

2,810

1.50

1,875

2,810

1.50

8,034

17,930

2.23

1988/89

3,173

1,956

0.62

2,720

7,560

2.78

8,710

17,420

2.00

1989/90
1990/91

2,274
2,616

3,474
3,662

1.53
1.40

2,960
3,345

7,992
4,683

2.70
1.40

8,530
6,430

13,728
14,700

1.61
2.29

Table 6b: Wheat by District: Area, Production and Yield

Laikipia

1970/71
1971/72
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91

Area

Prod.

3,400
3,240
3,249
3,790
3,050
3,800
4,600
4,000
4,200
3,676
3,390
4,550
4,450
4,700
3,700
4,940
8,000
5,054
5,040
6,200
6,550

5,200
3,674
3,411
3,843
5,130
7,452
4,680
7,560
6,089
3,258
6,880
8,411
6,426
999
13,338
26,640
6,823
13,608
16,974
10,742

Kericho
Yield
(T/ha)
1.53
1.13
0.00
0.90
1.26
1.35
1.62
1.17
1.80
1.66
0.96
1.51
1.89
1.37
0.27
2.70
3.33
1.35
2.70
2.74
1.64

Area

Prod.

2,420
2,225
1,975
2,800
2,790
1,870
2,700
2,000
1,500
882
939
2,000
1,300
1,170
892
985
1,198
840
600
834
530

5,040
4,520
3,036
4,860
2,520
2,025
1,111
1,690
4,215
2,106
2,178
1,284
1,773
3,235
2,268
1,080
1,501
1,193

Elgeyo Marakwet
Yield
(T/ha)

1.80
1.62
1.62
1.80
1.26
1.35
1.26
1.80
2.11
1.62
1.86
1.44
1.80
2.70
2.70
1.80
1.80
2.25

Area

Prod.

2,030
2,615
3,460
1,665
3,200
4,000
3,900
3,500
2,000
2,500
4,125
1,962
739
1,528
3,035
3,150
4,500
2,980

1,827
3,765
8,717
2,248
3,744
9,000
2,457
6,300
4,173
2,250
6,380
3,532
1,663
4,666
2,458
7,088
8,100
5,364

31

Yield
(T/ha)

0.90
1.44
2.52
1.35
1.17
2.25
0.63
1.80
2.09
0.90
1.55
1.80
2.25
3.05
0.81
2.25
1.80
1.80

Baringo
Area

Prod.

55
710
450
224
402
239
196
187
265
265
166
1,433
1,579
559

89
1,150
648
403
847
430
650
168
716
716
149
2,579
3,695
710

Nandi
Yield
(T/ha)

1.62
1.62
1.44
1.80
2.11
1.80
3.32
0.90
2.70
2.70
0.90
1.80
2.34
1.27

Area

Prod.

66
260
260
200
187
230
197
250
244
160
164

119
468
468
414
168
518
532
563
549
360
269

Yield
(T/ha)

1.80
1.80
1.80
2.07
0.90
2.25
2.70
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.64

Table 6b: Wheat by District: Area, Production and Yield

Trans-Nzoia

1970/71
1971/72
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91

Area

Prod.

6,230
3,300
3,840
3,670
5,000
6,180
6,500
6,550
3,000
5,924
5,300
7,269
4,419
6,046
4,095
3,497
4,000
10,000
28,991
3,100
3,800

10,341
5,240
7,650
5,800
7,875
11,902
12,870
9,618
621
6,089
15,454
12,985
9,902
10,883
7,371
7,238
9,981
18,000
78,278
6,975
9,120

Narok

Yield
(T/ha)

1.66
1.59
1.99
1.58
1.58
1.93
1.98
1.47
0.21
1.03
2.92
1.79
2.24
1.80
1.80
2.07
2.50
1.80
2.70
2.25
2.40

Area

Prod.

5,708
10,000
7,800
12,000
12,990
24,000
24,155
24,520
13,124
3,300
13,300
17,492
16,080
16,036
19,325
29,300
39,500
40,960
46,000
49,000
41,815

12,844
13,500
21,064
39,980
23,382
37,800
43,479
33,102
25,986
7,785
21,909
28,501
34,733
33,986
12,175
92,295
53,325
92,160
103,500
132,300
68,577

Uasin Gishu

Yield
(T/ha)

2.25
1.35
2.70
3.33
1.80
1.58
1.80
1.35
1.98
2.36
1.65
1.63
2.16
2.12
0.63
3.15
1.35
2.25
2.25
2.70
1.64

Area

Prod.

48,000
41,150
33,700
45,465
32,986
41,860
49,720
37,920
31,430
36,155
37,600
41,358
40,767
50,350
40,500
40,770
41,100
42,210
44,000
52,532
47,713

55,019
48,146
43,810
65,469
47,520
64,836
67,122
42,660
42,430
58,571
63,000
86,303
73,382
95,557
36,450
91,732
111,132
103,202
99,000
118,197
78,249

Nakuru

Yield
(T/ha)

1.15
1.17
1.30
1.44
1.44
1.55
1.35
1.13
1.35
1.62
1.68
2.09
1.80
1.90
0.90
2.25
2.70
2.44
2.25
2.25
1.64

Area

Prod.

36,460
31,000
30,060
27,540
28,850
30,000
35,000
37,545
28,644
19,202
26,322
31,319
35,680
28,000
24,525
22,512
27,240
29,000
43,642
29,104
31,256

61,008
56,845
32,222
45,439
35,100
47,250
47,307
25,780
17,280
54,975
66,010
64,497
63,000
16,554
70,913
74,448
65,250
137,473
62,867
51,260

Yield
(T/ha)

1.67
1.83
1.17
1.58
1.17
1.35
1.26
0.90
0.90
2.09
2.11
1.81
2.25
0.68
3.15
2.73
2.25
3.15
2.16
1.64

Area in hectares; production in tonnes

Table 7: Sorghum: Area, Production and Yield

Year
Area (ha)
Production (tons)
1970/71
116,994
44,526
1971/72
107,954
38,513
1972/73
85,513
41,783
1973/74
35,332
13,958
1974/75
49,785
16,496
1975/76
57,230
19,714
1976/77
54,931
29,110
1977/78
79,510
74,565
1978/79
84,914
88,386
1979/80
66,624
54,141
1980/81
81,914
61,314
1981/82
84,617
61,702
1982/83
104,999
58,744
1983/84
79,858
71,291
1984/85
109,640
80,389
1985/86
116,940
79,215
1986/87
97,756
81,196
1987/88
103,968
53,258
1987/88
143,902
101,149
1988/89
156,040
139,430
1989/90
117,960
100,962
* Sum of District Data; Area in hectares; production tonnes

32

Yield (T/ha)
0.38
0.36
0.49
0.40
0.33
0.34
0.53
0.94
1.04
0.81
0.75
0.73
0.56
0.89
0.73
0.68
0.83
0.51
0.70
0.89
0.86

Table 8: Sorghum by District: Area, Production and Yield

Embu

Area

Prod.

1970/71

2,146

2,428

1971/72

2,301

814

1972/73

1,565

1973/74

Meru

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

1.13

540

665

0.35

600

739

939

0.60

600

798

214

0.27

1974/75

922

289

1975/76

2,259

1976/77

Machakos

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

1.23

1,052

1.23

759

745

1.24

481

1,218

610

0.50

0.31

2,017

1,284

543

0.24

1,225

4,368

1,049

0.24

1977/78

896

629

1978/79

1,212

1979/80
1980/81

Kakamega

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

0.00

7,958

7,003

0.88

0.01

8,425

7,414

0.88

87

0.18

9,025

7,942

0.88

743

134

0.18

6,160

5,421

0.88

0.64

976

195

0.20

5,779

5,085

0.88

1,150

0.94

946

189

0.20

8,888

7,821

0.88

1,130

950

0.84

1,050

210

0.20

2,000

1,760

0.88

0.70

3,222

2,577

0.80

1,100

220

0.20

6,320

5,562

0.88

1,636

1.35

1,878

1,502

0.80

907

181

0.20

3,394

1,832

0.54

1,811

1,856

1.02

1,558

1,246

0.80

500

100

0.20

3,478

2,504

0.72

4,356

3,485

0.80

1,996

1,596

0.80

1,060

212

0.20

3,494

2,795

0.80

1981/82

7,563

5,445

0.72

2,333

1,856

0.80

3,971

794

0.20

6,875

5,498

0.80

1982/83

6,500

7,020

1.08

1,910

1,337

0.70

2,056

411

0.20

6,185

3,896

0.63

1983/84

5,781

6,359

1.10

4,220

2,954

0.70

1,454

290

0.20

6,850

4,062

0.59

1984/85

6,843

7,529

1.10

3,154

2,207

0.70

6,731

1,346

0.20

7,000

4,072

0.58

1985/86

3,045

3,349

1.10

8,862

5,456

0.62

8,138

1,627

0.20

6,646

4,404

0.66

1986/87

8,037

8,841

1.10

9,632

11,012

1.14

4,060

812

0.20

6,940

3,997

0.58

1987/88

9,163

2,634

0.29

9,336

13,077

1.40

9,000

3,080

0.34

7,990

4,697

0.59

1988/89

9,200

8,190

0.89

11,475

10,071

0.88

6,110

4,100

0.67

4,510

3,250

0.72

1989/90
1990/91

10,075
10,800

9,066
9,718

0.90
0.90

9,940
9,002

9,940
7,213

1.00
0.80

2,689
4,763

1,798
3,265

0.67
0.69

4,300
4,240

3,440
4,240

0.80
1.00

Area

Prod.

Area

Prod.

Table 8: Sorghum by District: Area, Production and Yield

Busia

Area

Prod.

1970/71

9,640

3,856

1971/72

10,621

4,248

1972/73

10,839

1973/74

Bungoma

Yield
(T/ha)

Kisumu

Yield
(T/ha)

Kisii

Area

Prod.

0.40

837

126

0.15

17,216

15,494

0.90

244

292

1.20

0.40

2,008

392

0.20

9,323

8,391

0.90

325

389

1.20

4,335

0.40

850

467

0.55

18,985

17,086

0.90

303

363

1.20

7,177

2,871

0.40

780

429

0.55

2,484

2,235

0.90

274

247

0.90

1974/75

6,579

2,632

0.40

578

318

0.55

4,470

4,023

0.90

219

197

0.90

1975/76

10,001

4,000

0.40

417

229

0.55

2,784

2,505

0.90

414

447

1.08

1976/77

7,915

3,166

0.40

522

278

0.53

5,270

5,141

0.98

197

213

1.08

1977/78

6,594

2,700

0.41

9,286

8,914

0.96

3,518

3,166

0.90

13

14

1.08

1978/79

13,095

5,238

0.40

8,924

5,801

0.65

3,458

2,999

0.87

620

602

0.97

1979/80

5,922

2,369

0.40

4,580

2,977

0.65

2,754

1,586

0.58

989

801

0.81

1980/81

11,548

4,619

0.40

236

113

0.48

2,805

2,344

0.84

1,035

1,118

1.08

1981/82

8,635

3,454

0.40

427

314

0.74

5,030

4,024

0.80

755

875

1.16

1982/83

11,967

4,787

0.40

400

224

0.56

10,000

10,800

1.08

564

500

0.89

1983/84

12,500

9,000

0.72

350

220

0.63

7,327

7,913

1.08

645

871

1.35

1984/85

13,900

9,104

0.65

1,500

990

0.66

8,817

8,464

0.96

2,352

2,352

1.00

1985/86

11,750

7,696

0.65

1,446

911

0.63

10,324

9,911

0.96

960

1,152

1.20

1986/87

12,000

9,100

0.76

870

525

0.60

11,562

6,474

0.56

425

510

1.20

1987/88

11,200

10,752

0.96

910

582

0.64

12,000

7,560

0.63

595

804

1.35

1988/89

13,140

11,825

0.90

1,440

910

0.63

8,550

8,951

1.05

731

987

1.35

1989/90
1990/91

17,940
16,420

17,920
13,135

1.00
0.80

970
1,070

620
1,070

0.64
1.00

8,819
8,701

9,877
10,441

1.12
1.20

434

521

1.20

33

Yield
(T/ha)

Yield
(T/ha)

Table 8: Sorghum by District: Area, Production and Yield

South Nyanza

Area

Prod.

1970/71

36,646

14,658

1971/72

40,213

16,085

1972/73

24,548

1973/74

Siaya

Yield
(T/ha)

Kwale

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

0.40

40,715

0.40

33,369

10

32

9,819

0.40

18,317

1,373

659

0.48

14,055

1,138

0.08

1974/75

13,075

1,255

0.10

15,040

1,218

1975/76

13,319

1,455

0.11

16,781

1976/77

18,576

12,163

0.65

1977/78

24,186

15,721

1978/79

26,115

1979/80
1980/81

Kilifi

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

0.08

11

1,359

0.08

44

11,823

1,182

0.10

222

0.65

23,711

30,231

1.27

31,326

1.20

23,801

28,646

1.20

35,276

31,748

0.90

9,002

7,202

0.80

30,200

21,744

0.72

23,830

19,447

0.82

24

1981/82

29,762

21,429

0.72

17,610

15,849

0.90

96

58

0.60

1982/83

40,728

25,245

0.62

22,540

2,504

0.11

139

70

0.50

1983/84

33,861

36,570

1.08

5,118

1,512

0.30

80

29

0.37

112

56

0.50

1984/85

40,815

39,400

0.97

16,200

3,222

0.20

384

250

0.65

384

250

0.65

1985/86

31,261

33,761

1.08

26,518

1,574

0.06

405

263

0.65

405

263

0.65

1986/87

24,015

26,936

1.12

10,158

987

0.10

245

221

0.90

902

360

0.40

1987/88

20,600

32,960

1.60

18,018

1,557

0.09

187

133

0.71

1,000

5,400

5.40

1988/89

24,464

33,025

1.35

16,164

1,034

0.06

863

171

0.20

1989/90
1990/91

24,228
17,485

34,975
15,388

1.44
0.88

7,287

6,477

0.89

109
60

98
54

0.90
0.90

360
985

520
985

3.20

Yield
(T/ha)

1.44
1.00

Table 8: Sorghum by District: Area, Production and Yield

Turkana

Area

Prod.

1970/71

1971/72

1972/73

1973/74

West Pokot

Yield (T/ha)

Area

Prod.

50

1974/75

45

89

1975/76

12

150

16

1976/77

82

185

2.25

230

311

1977/78

24

43

1.80

240

1978/79

58

104

1.80

1979/80

74

133

1980/81

100

1981/82

Lamu

Area

Prod.

288

270
119

Elgeyo Marakwet

Area

Prod.

0.11

1.35

1,545

2,503

1.62

324

1.35

200

140

0.70

200

324

1.62

1,152

1,555

1.35

120

84

0.70

175

284

1.62

1.80

365

329

0.90

130

91

0.70

185

300

1.62

180

1.80

550

693

1.26

180

126

0.70

500

842

1.68

100

180

1.80

600

810

1.35

260

156

0.60

600

960

1.60

1982/83

1,000

900

0.90

600

810

1.35

310

186

0.60

100

54

0.54

1983/84

1,000

900

0.90

300

405

1.35

160

96

0.60

100

54

0.54

1984/85

1,000

900

0.90

200

126

0.63

140

98

0.70

220

79

0.36

1985/86

5,500

8,000

1.45

168

227

1.35

200

200

1.00

312

421

1.35

1986/87

5,700

9,990

1.75

360

446

1.24

320

270

0.84

530

716

1.35

1987/88

4,963

9,863

1.99

346

720

2.08

280

252

0.90

900

810

0.90

1988/89

5,050

6,818

1.35

2,755

3,719

1.35

700

567

0.81

1989/90
1990/91

4,443
1,637

2,929
1,721

0.66
1.05

2,241
1,424

2,420
1,538

1.08
1.08

182

146

1,500
1,620

1,215
1,296

0.81
0.80

1.98

Yield (T/ha)

Yield (T/ha)

0.80

Yield (T/ha)

Note: A dash means that the information was not available or was not reported. Area in hectares; Production in
metric tonnes
Source: District Annual Reports

34

Table 9: Millets: Area, Production and Yield

Year
Area (Ha)
Production (Tonnes)
Yield (T/ha)
1970/71
19,480
8,545
1971/72
39,611
20,721
1972/73
47,346
24,146
1973/74
41,898
22,487
1974/75
40,697
28,444
1975/76
54,227
30,280
1976/77
57,972
30,473
1977/78
48,357
29,678
1978/79
63,377
48,984
1979/80
45,951
34,906
1980/81
47,546
37,126
1981/82
52,040
35,113
1982/83
48,246
32,357
1983/84
48,141
32,273
1984/85
63,207
31,597
1985/86
52,243
30,505
1986/87
44,319
32,343
1987/88
39,747
29,061
1988/89
85,327
62,386
1989/90
107,310
79,760
1990/91
96,933
69,762
* Data obtained from summation of District data; Area in hectares; production in tonnes

0.44
0.52
0.51
0.54
0.70
0.56
0.53
0.61
0.77
0.76
0.78
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.50
0.58
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.74
0.72

Table 10: Millets by District: Area, Production and Yield

Embu

Meru

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

1970/71

2,025

1,134

0.56

180

75

1971/72

1,439

806

0.56

3,000

1,250

1972/73

3,660

2,076

0.57

3,200

1973/74

982

172

0.18

1974/75

871

328

1975/76

6,942

1976/77

Machakos

Yield
(T/ha)

Kakamega

Area

Prod.

0.42

845

61

0.07

3,728

745

0.20

0.42

1,964

15

0.01

5,926

1,185

0.20

609

0.19

1,112

82

0.07

8,480

1,296

0.15

8,963

4,850

0.54

378

26

0.07

5,800

1,160

0.20

0.38

8,354

6,265

0.75

638

44

0.07

5,748

1,149

0.20

1,054

0.15

8,950

6,235

0.70

1,670

117

0.07

4,698

752

0.16

5,638

1,268

0.22

7,200

4,342

0.60

1,650

115

0.07

10,412

1,666

0.16

1977/78

2,237

1,829

0.82

6,742

4,719

0.70

2,041

143

0.07

3,810

609

0.16

1978/79

9,713

13,113

1.35

7,350

5,145

0.70

1,090

76

0.07

3,426

1,850

0.54

1979/80

4,338

6,715

1.55

5,676

3,973

0.70

1,500

105

0.07

2,853

2,568

0.90

1980/81

4,338

5,206

1.20

6,134

4,293

0.70

1,040

73

0.07

2,722

2,178

0.80

1981/82

8,061

5,884

0.73

6,267

4,386

0.70

3,462

242

0.07

2,623

2,098

0.80

1982/83

7,937

5,715

0.72

6,940

4,858

0.70

2,803

196

0.07

1,032

650

0.63

1983/84

8,019

5,613

0.70

6,056

4,239

0.70

2,440

171

0.07

940

593

0.63

1984/85

13,357

9,349

0.70

6,340

4,438

0.70

8,769

614

0.07

980

606

0.62

1985/86

7,657

5,359

0.70

12,506

10,020

0.80

9,862

690

0.07

1,334

827

0.62

1986/87

8,963

6,274

0.70

7,465

8,404

1.13

4,489

314

0.07

3,300

2,077

0.63

1987/88

9,000

6,802

0.76

10,991

10,947

1.00

5,061

354

0.07

2,210

1,141

0.52

1988/89

9,000

7,305

0.81

13,400

13,376

1.00

1,260

2,796

2.22

2,190

1,773

0.81

1989/90
1990/91

10,072
9,000

9,004
6,938

0.89
0.77

13,945
16,437

15,060
14,715

1.08
0.90

1,802
3,041

147
2,131

0.08
0.70

3,220
3,450

1,610
2,415

0.50
0.70

35

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Table 10: Millets by District: Area, Production and Yield

Busia

Area

Prod.

1970/71

3,864

2,704

1971/72

6,848

4,794

1972/73

19,104

1973/74

Bungoma

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

0.70

2,290

1,381

0.70

8,255

4,953

13,373

0.70

5,220

14,298

10,009

0.70

1974/75

14,374

10,062

1975/76

20,753

1976/77

Kisumu

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

0.60

123

61

0.60

234

117

3,132

0.60

424

2,400

1,440

0.60

0.70

2,933

1,759

14,527

0.70

3,965

20,737

14,515

0.70

1977/78

17,086

11,960

1978/79

16,445

1979/80
1980/81

Kisii

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

0.50

879

562

0.64

0.50

3,568

2,141

0.60

212

0.50

2,263

1,448

0.64

90

48

0.53

1,670

1,002

0.60

0.60

128

69

0.54

1,868

1,009

0.54

2,379

0.60

115

62

0.54

2,024

1,275

0.63

359

215

0.60

151

169

1.12

1,997

1,258

0.63

0.70

517

310

0.60

72

17

0.24

2,900

1,624

0.56

11,511

0.70

600

360

0.60

133

85

0.64

4,825

3,474

0.72

21,830

8,281

0.38

1,668

1,001

0.60

160

102

0.64

3,875

2,480

0.64

11,620

8,134

0.70

2,736

1,641

0.60

125

67

0.54

7,496

6,025

0.80

1981/82

11,455

8,248

0.72

2,862

1,831

0.64

250

112

0.45

5,791

4,407

0.76

1982/83

13,540

9,749

0.72

2,385

1,575

0.66

405

750

1.85

2,386

1,527

0.64

1983/84

13,240

9,533

0.72

2,400

1,728

0.72

240

444

1.85

5,328

3,847

0.72

1984/85

13,120

9,360

0.71

4,190

2,260

0.54

174

313

1.80

4,330

2,311

0.53

1985/86

8,700

5,568

0.64

3,117

1,683

0.54

74

47

0.64

4,080

2,935

0.72

1986/87

9,500

6,240

0.66

2,585

1,163

0.45

92

51

0.55

2,584

2,297

0.89

1987/88

10,500

7,596

0.72

1,810

1,140

0.63

185

0.04

2,236

2,254

1.01

1988/89

6,500

4,680

0.72

2,500

1,800

0.72

85

23

0.27

3,513

2,846

0.81

1989/90
1990/91

9,750
8,070

7,020
6,460

0.72
0.80

1,270
1,170

635
935

0.50
0.80

100
112

60
72

0.60
0.64

2,940
3,156

3,993
2,525

1.36
0.80

Table 10: Millets by District: Area, Production and Yield

South Nyanza

Siaya

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

1970/71

2,498

1,498

1971/72

6,850

4,110

1972/73

3,197

1973/74

Nakuru

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

0.60

0.60

1,427

100

1,350

1,918

0.60

686

500

5,266

3,159

0.60

1,095

500

320

1974/75

2,533

1,519

0.60

290

1,740

500

1975/76

3,777

2,379

0.63

1976/77

6,523

3,914

0.60

200

216

1.08

1977/78

7,903

4,426

0.56

269

169

1978/79

15,094

9,660

0.64

441

1979/80

9,759

6,246

0.64

1980/81

7,130

6,417

1981/82

7,387

1982/83

Elgeyo Marakwet

Area

Prod.

Yield
(T/ha)

Area

Prod.

740

324

0.44

2,308

13.50

1,720

2,665

750

0.64

2,110

1,356

700

448

4,500

9.00

1,280

1,120

600

1,500

2.50

1,742

1,250

88

79

0.90

1,423

1,281

0.90

1,594

1,435

0.90

0.63

1,780

1,442

0.81

3,000

2,430

0.81

238

0.54

239

215

0.90

1,221

989

0.81

2,800

2,268

0.81

237

171

0.72

125

81

0.65

1,380

1,118

0.81

2,550

2,066

0.81

0.90

125

230

1.84

200

270

1.35

1,380

1,242

0.90

2,500

1,350

0.54

4,654

0.63

230

166

0.72

92

207

2.25

1,750

1,575

0.90

1,810

1,303

0.72

8,033

5,205

0.65

860

366

0.43

75

101

1.35

1,750

1,575

0.90

100

90

0.90

1983/84

6,447

3,610

0.56

860

464

0.54

171

231

1.35

1,800

1,620

0.90

200

180

0.90

1984/85

2,882

1,614

0.56

100

153

1.53

246

110

0.45

8,450

324

0.04

269

145

0.54

1985/86

1,968

1,240

0.63

100

162

1.62

530

270

0.51

93

84

0.90

1,467

1,320

0.90

1986/87

1,730

2,746

1.59

127

195

1.54

300

270

0.90

328

288

0.88

2,249

2,024

0.90

1987/88

2,910

3,193

1.10

99

32

0.32

300

324

1.08

315

312

0.99

2,400

2,160

0.90

1988/89

3,430

3,404

0.99

87

21

0.24

270

243

0.90

1,350

1,215

0.90

2,000

1,620

0.81

1989/90
1990/91

3,440
3,448

3,704
1,655

1.08
0.48

180

73

0.41

635
362

800
460

1.26
1.27

595
1,102

540
992

0.91
0.90

3,200
1,800

2,304
1,620

0.72
0.90

Area in hectares; production in metric tonnes

Source: District Annual Reports

36

Prod.

West Pokot

Yield
(T/ha)

6.00

Area

0.64

Yield
(T/ha)

0.64