




































 

 

 

 
46 

† Corresponding author 
© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

ANALYSIS OF RURAL YOUTHS PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY FARMING IN BENUE STATE, 
NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY 

 

Mbah, E.N1† --- Ezeano, C.I.2 --- Odiaka, E.C.3 
1,3Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria 

2Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria  
 

 

ABSTRACT 

The survey analyzed rural youths participation in family farming in Benue State, Nigeria. Structured questionnaire/interview 

schedule were 6sed in collecting data for the study. Frequency, percentage, mean score, standard deviation, factor analysis and 

binary logistic regression model were used for data analysis.  Findings revealed that about 75.00% of the respondents were 

males, single (63.70%), had formal education (98.90%), having farming as a major occupation (92.40%). Major roles 

performed by the respondents in family farming include site selection (M = 2.70), harvesting of crops (M = 2.61), applying 

fertilizer to crops (M = 2.55), clearing of farm land (M = 2.54), soil tillage (M = 2.51), among others.  These were further 

classified as land preparation, management and technical roles. The study recommends that rural youths should be encouraged 

to remain in agriculture by ensuring that they are provided with improved technologies for greater productivity. Basic amenities 

such as electricity, pipe borne water, good roads, etc should be made available in rural areas where they reside to prevent rural-

urban youth migration and sustain agriculture. 

Keywords: Rural youths, Participation, Roles, Family, Farming, Nigeria 

 

Received: 27 July 2016/ Revised: 19 September 2016/ Accepted: 14 October 2016/ Published: 21 October 2016 

 

Contribution/ Originality 

This study documents that rural youths are involved in family farming for household food security. They 

participate actively in family farming playing key roles in land preparation, management and technical areas of crop 

and livestock production. Efforts of these youths should be sustained for them to remain in family farming. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Family farming has been contributing significantly to global food security. Indeed, 70% of food supply today 

comes from more than 500 million family farms all over the world [1]. According  to Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO) [1] family  farming includes  all  family-based  agricultural  activities, linked  to  several  areas  

of agricultural development, namely; crop and livestock production, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture. It is 

observed that family farm differs from one country/region to another in terms of farm size, type of production, etc. 

About 70% of the world’s food products are produced by family farmers, whose activities are therefore crucial to 

combating hunger and malnutrition. In addition, small farms are often more productive than large industrial 

agricultural operations in terms of output per unit of land and energy use [2]. 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2016 Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.46 -56 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68/2016.3.3/68.3.46.56 
© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.18488/journal.68/2016.3.3/68.3.46.56


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
47 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

According to Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) [3] family farms represent a 

large percentage of the total agriculture sector in most African countries. It is a means of organizing  crop,  

forestry,  fisheries,  pastoral and poultry production which is managed and  operated by a family and primarily 

dependent on family labour, including both  men and women, the elderly and the youths. In addition, family farmers 

are instrumental in selecting a wide range of varieties of crops and breeds of animals which are more adapted to the 

diversity of the agro-ecological conditions (combination of soil, climate, altitude, etc.). Family farmers are creating, 

promoting and conserving the biodiversity of food crops and livestock, transferring the knowledge from the current 

generation to the next. At the same time, many family farmers are also developing quality products not only for 

their self-consumption, but also available in niche markets [3]. 

Family farming is currently the biggest employer of labour and has the potential to remain as such [4]. Young 

farmers constitute  a  formidable  force  for  development  of family farming in  any  nation particularly  the  

agrarian  ones. Youths are directly involved in farming activities through planting, weeding, livestock keeping and 

harvesting [5]. 

 Youths have been noted to play a vital role in family farming especially in developing countries, Nigeria 

inclusive, where their contribution is paramount. Studies have shown that youths contribute significantly in 

agricultural activities [6, 7]. 

Many countries in Africa for instance Nigeria have realized that in order to reduce food insecurity there must 

be policies for rural youths integration in family farming. This is through providing  incentives to young people 

who are engaged in agriculture, availing  fair market opportunities for youths,  providing  training opportunities in 

new technologies and presenting agriculture as  a profitable  venture [8]. 

Akpan [9] and Rutta [10] observed that perceptions of greater job opportunities, poor physical 

infrastructures, lack of social amenities, use of local farming tools in rural areas and general dislike of village life are 

some of the factors hindering youths’ participation in family farming. According to Ayanda, et al. [11] in spite of 

the roles performed by rural youths, agriculture remains unattractive to the youths leading to their movement to 

other sectors of the economy for better employment opportunities. In recent times, migration of young and vibrant 

people to cities in search of greener pastures has reduced availability of labor force for agricultural production in 

Nigeria. Despite all these challenges being faced by rural youths, there is no choice but to remain in agriculture. 

This raises the following pertinent questions. What are socio-economic characteristics of the respondents? 

What are roles performed by rural youths in family farming? 

The specific objectives of the study were to:   

1.   describe socio-economic characteristics of the respondents; and 

2.   identify roles performed by rural youths in family farming. 

 

1.1. Hypothesis of the study 

Based on the specific objectives of the study, the following null hypothesis were stated and tested.  

H01: Socio-economic characteristics of rural youths have no significant relationship on the roles performed in family 

farming. 

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

The survey was carried out in Benue state, Nigeria. Benue state was created in 1976 from the former Benue-

Plateau state. It lies within the lower river Benue through the middle belt region of Nigeria. It shares boundaries 

with five other states namely; Nasarawa state to the North, Taraba state to the East, Cross-River state to the South, 

Enugu state to the South-West and Kogi state to the West. The state has a tropical climate made up of wet and dry 

seasons. The state has three agricultural zones, namely; Zone A (Eastern zone), Zone B (Northern zone) and Zone 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
48 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

C (Central zone). Benue state has a land area of 2,882km2 with a population of 4,253,641 people. The state is 

inhabited by the Tiv, Idoma and Igede as the major ethnic groups. The study area consists of twenty three (23) 

local government areas as shown with the map in Figure 1. Benue State lies within the lower river Benue in the 

middle belt region of Nigeria. Agriculture is the mainstay of the state. It has agricultural development potentials 

and the major crops produced are yam, cassava, rice, sesame, maize, sorghum, millet, groundnut, soybeans, fruits 

and vegetables. 

 

 
Key 

Kwande

  Ushongo

 
Figure-1. Map of Benue State showing the study area 

Source: Wikipedia, 2014 

 

The population of this study comprises youths who are actively involved in farming activities in Benue State, 

Nigeria. Benue state is divided into three (3) zones namely; A, B and C. Zone A which represents Benue North East 

was selected purposively for the study. Zone A comprises seven (7) Local Government Areas (LGAs) namely; Logo, 

Ukum, Katsina-Ala, Vandeikya, Konshisha, Kwande and Ushongo. Two (2) LGAs in zone A namely; Kwande and 

Ushongo were selected from the seven (7) LGAs using simple random sampling technique. Two (2) communities 

were selected from each of the LGAs, giving a total of four (4) communities namely; Mbakwen and Mbawer from 

Kwande LGA and Mbayegh and Utange from Ushongo LGA. Twenty (20) respondents were selected from each of 

the communities, giving a total of eighty (80) respondents used for the study. 

Data were collected using a well structured questionnaire/interview schedule. The questionnaire was divided 

into two (2) sections (A-B) based on the specific objectives of the study. Section A focused on socio-economic 

characteristics of the respondents. Section B centered on roles performed by rural youths in family farming. Data 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
49 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

for this study were analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean score, standard deviation, factor analysis and binary 

logistic regression model. 

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

3.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents 

3.1.1. Sex 

About 75.00% of the respondents were males, while 25.00% of the respondents were females (Table 1). There 

were more male youths in the study area who are involved in farming. This may be as a result of strenous nature of 

farming activities. This finding agrees with Okogun [12] who stated that males are more interested in farming 

activities because of the tedious nature of it. 

 

3.2. Age (Years) 

Results in Table 1 show that majority (67.50%) of the respondents were within the age bracket of 21 - 40 years, 

while 32.50% falls within the age bracket of ≤ 20 years. The mean age of the respondents was 24 years. This implies 

that the respondents were energetic and in their productive years, hence greater involvement in farming activities 

for economic empowerment. This finding agrees with Okwoche, et al. [13] who stated that youths in their active 

years are energetic and innovative to participate more in agriculture. 

 

3.3. Marital Status 

Majority (63.70%) of the respondents were single, while 36.30% were married. This implies that there were 

more unmarried youths participating in family farming than married youths in the study area. This finding is in 

contrast with the study of Proctor, et al. [14] which stated that married youths have the potentials to participate 

more in agriculture due to the fact that they have more family responsibilities than unmarried youths. 

 

3.4. Level of Education (Years) 

Results in Table 1 reveal that majority (73.80%) of the respondents had secondary education, while 13.80% and 

11.30% had tertiary and primary education, respectively. The mean number of years spent in school was 11.36 

years. This shows that majority of the respondents were literate. The need for education in agriculture cannot be 

over emphasized since the level of education of a farmer do not only increase his productivity but also enhances his 

ability to adopt innovations. The findings disagree with Abdullahi, et al. [15] who noted that farmers do not need 

any formal education. 

 

3.5. Household Size (Numbers) 

Entries in Table 1 reveal that 55.00% of the respondents had a household size of 6 - 10 persons, while 23.80% 

had household size of 1- 5 persons, among others. The mean household size was 9.08 persons. Having large 

household size is advantageous because it provides labour used in family farming.   

 

3.6. Farming Experience (Years)  

About 42.50% had 6 -10 years of farming experience, while 21.30% and 18.80% had 11- 15 years and 1-5 years, 

respectively (Table 1). The mean farming experience was 10.50 years. This implies that respondents in the study 

area had been farming for quite a number of years and have acquired enough knowledge and experience in family 

farming. This finding agrees with Abdullahi, et al. [15] who reported that a good number of youths in family 

farming had farming experience of 10 years and above and acquired experience and skills through informal sources 

such as parents, relatives, neighbors, etc. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
50 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

3.7. Farm Size (Hectares)  

Entries in Table 1 show that 50.00% of the respondents had 1.1 - 2.0 ha of farmland, while 43.80% had less than 

1.0 ha, among others. The mean farm size was 1.48 ha. This implies that the respondents had access to small 

portion of farmland which they use in farming activities. This agrees with World Farmers' Organization (WFO) 

[16] who noted that a large proportion of rural youths farm on a smaller scale which could be due to shortage of 

resources for production such as land, finance, labour, etc.  

 

3.8. Type of Farming 

Data in Table 1 show that more than half (57.50%) of the respondents engaged in crop production, 36.30% 

engaged in both crop and livestock production, while 6.20% of the respondents were livestock farmers. This 

indicates that majority of the respondents engaged in crop production. This could enable them sustain their families 

economically.  

 

3.9. Major Occupation 

Data in Table 1 reveal that majority (92.40%) of the respondents had farming as a major occupation, while 

3.80% were commercial drivers, among others. This indicates that farming is the major occupation of the 

respondents in the study area. This finding agrees with Abdullahi, et al. [15] who stated that majority of the 

youths in the study area had farming as their major occupation. 

 

3.10. Non-Farm Occupation  

About 41.30% of the respondents were petty traders, while 18.50% and 7.50%, were hair dressers and 

carpenters, respectively (Table 1). This indicates that petty-trading is the predominant non-farm occupation of 

respondents in the study area.  This may be attributed to the fact that petty-trading requires less start-up capital 

than other non-farm occupations which they need to be economically stronger to meet family responsibilities. 

 

3.11. Membership of Formal Organization  

Majority (87.50%) of the respondents did not belong to any formal organization, while 12.50% belonged to 

formal organizations (Table 1). This indicates that the respondents did not have interactions from formal 

organizations which can help them to improve productivity in family farming. Membership of formal organization 

could enhance putting resources together for easy access to credit facilities, production inputs and training 

opportunities for improved productivity. This study contradicts Mangal [17] who stated that most youths in rice 

production were members of formal organization. 

 

3.12. Contact with Extension Agents 

About 81.00% of the respondents did not have extension contact in the last one year, while 19.00% had 

extension contact. This may be attributed to low extension- farmer ratio in Nigeria. Lack of access to extension 

services deprives the youths opportunities of embracing the use of improved technologies that will boost their 

productivity in family farming. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
51 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

Table-1. Distribution of socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (n=80) 

Socio-economic characteristics Frequency Percentage Mean score 

Sex    

Male     60     75.00        

Female     20     25.00  

Age (years)    

≤20     22     32.50  

21 – 40     58     67.50      24.11 

Marital status    

Married     29     36.30  

Single     51     63.70  

Level of education (years)    

No formal education     1     1.10  

Primary education     9    11.30      11.36 

Secondary education    59    73.80  

Tertiary education    11    13.80  

Household size (numbers)    

1-5    19    23.80  

6-10    44    55.00      9.08 

11-15     9    11.20  

Above 15     8    10.00  

Farming experience (years)    

1-5    15    18.80  

6-10    34    42.50      10.50 

11-15    17    21.30  

Above 15    14    17.40  

Farm size (hectares)    

≤1.0    35    43.80  

1.1-2.0    40    50.00      1.48 

2.1-3.0     2    2.40  

Above 3.0     3    3.80  

Type of farming    

Crop production    46    57.50  

Livestock production     5    6.20  

Mixed farming    29    36.30  

Major occupation    

Commercial driving     3    3.80  

Farming    74    92.40  

Teaching     2    2.50  

Trading     1    1.30  

Non-farm occupation    

0kada riding     7    8.80  

Hair dressing    15    18.50  

Carpentry     6    7.50  

Petty trading    33    41.30  

Road-side mechanic     3    3.80  

Shoemaking     2    2.50  

Tailoring     4    5.00  

Teaching      7    8.80  

Commercial driving     3    3.80  

Membership of formal organization    

Yes     10   12.50  

No     70   87.50  

Contact with extension agents     

Yes     15   19.00  

No     65   81.00      2.07 

Estimated annual remittance from family members/relations     

Yes    8   10.00  

No    72   90.00  

Amount of money received (Naira)    

≤ 5000     5   6.30  

5001-10000     2   2.50     8125.00 

Above 10000     1   1.30  

          Source: Field Survey, 2016 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
52 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

3.13. Estimated Annual Remittance from Family Members/Relations and Amount of Money Received 

(Naira)   

Majority (90.0%) of the respondents did not receive remittance from family members/relatives, while 10.0% 

received remittance from family members/relatives. This indicates that many of the respondents did not receive 

remittance from family members/relatives which may lead to lack of proper and adequate farm resources/inputs 

such as land, fertilizer, agrochemical, etc.  Findings further revealed that those who received remittance from family 

members/relations 6.30% got less or equals to ₦5000, while 2.50% and 1.30% had ₦5001-₦10000 and above 

₦10000.00 respectively with a mean score of ₦8125.00 (Table 1). This implies that the respondents were unable to 

get reasonable amount of money from their family members/relations annually which could assist them in buying 

farm inputs for greater productivity. 

 

3.14. Roles Performed by Rural Youths in Family Farming 

Results in Table 2 show roles performed by rural youths in family farming which include site selection (M = 

2.70), harvesting of crops (M = 2.61), applying fertilizer to crops (M = 2.55), clearing of farm lands (M = 2.54), soil 

tillage (M = 2.51), herding/shepherding of animals (M = 2.46), irrigation of farm lands (M = 2.45), sowing of 

seeds/planting materials (M = 2.43) and gathering of fruits (M = 2.42), among others. The standard deviations of 

all the roles performed by rural youths in family farming were less than 1 except for one variable whose standard 

deviation was 1.08. This shows the disparity in terms of the responses on roles performed by rural youths in family 

farming. This indicates that rural youths perform key roles in farm activities. This agrees with Umeh and Odom 

[18] who reported that the youths play major roles in family farming with which rural development emerge as they 

provide greater percentage of the total workforce in agricultural production.  

 

Table-2. Mean score of respondents according to roles performed in family farming 

Roles Mean score Std. deviation 

Site selection      2.70      0.64 
Clearing of farm lands      2.54      0.61 
Stumping of trees on farm lands      2.39      0.83 
Cuting of fodder for feeding goat, sheep and cattle        2.25      0.86 
Soil tillage such as making ridges, mounds, etc      2.51      0.72 
Sowing of seeds/planting materials      2.43      0.72 
Irrigation of farm lands      2.45      0.72 

Digging of drainages farm lands      2.31      0.73 
Manual weeding of farm lands      2.40      0.73 
Applying fertilizer to crops       2.55      0.69 
Staking of crops such as yams, beans, etc      2.39      0.75 
Application of agrochemicals such as herbicides, pesticides, etc      2.41      0.80 
Detuberization of yams      2.25      0.84 
Harvesting of crops      2.61      0.64 
Gathering of fruits      2.42      0.86 

Making of storage barns for yams      2.38      0.71 
Sorting/grading of farm produce      2.21      0.79 
Dressing of crops for storage      2.19      0.84 
Milling of farm produce      2.24      0.88 
Driving farm tractors      2.06      0.91 
Operating of farm equipment e.g knapsack sprayer      2.35      0.82 
Haulage of farm produce      2.33      0.79 

Feeding of animals      2.38      0.76 
Herding/shepherding of animals      2.46      0.67 
Cleaning of pens      2.26      0.83 
Brooding of chicks in poultry farm       2.22      0.87 
Collection of eggs in poultry farm      2.30       0.86 
Milking of dairy animals      1.83      1.08 

     Source: Field Survey, 2016 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
53 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

3.15. Factor Analysis of Roles Performed by Rural Youths in Family Farming 

Results in Table 3 represent factor analysis of roles performed by rural youths in family farming. Based on the 

item loadings, factors 1, 2 and 3 were named land preparation, management and technical roles, respectively.  

Variables which loaded high under land preparation roles were site selection (0.41), stumping of trees on farm 

lands (0.57), sowing of seeds/planting materials (0.63), digging of drainages in the farm (0.57), manual weeding of 

farm lands (0.51), applying fertilizer to crops (0.62), staking of crops such as yams, beans, etc (0.58), detuberization 

of yams (0.55), sorting/grading of farm produce (0.61) and dressing of crops for storage (0.52). Sowing of 

seeds/planting materials, applying fertilizer to crops and manual weeding of farm lands remain key roles performed 

by rural youths in family farming. 

 Loadings under management roles were cutting of fodder for feeding goats, sheep and cattle (0.60), soil tillage 

such as making ridges, mounds, etc (0.43), irrigation of farm lands (0.43), gathering of fruits (0.67), milling of farm 

produce (0.51), feeding of animals (0.58) and herding/shepherding of animals (0.51). 

Technical roles comprised making of storage barns for yams (0.46), driving farm tractors (0.57), operating of 

equipment (0.67), brooding of chicks in poultry farm (0.56), collection of eggs in poultry farm (0.60) and milking of 

dairy animals (0.46). 

 

Table-3. Factor analysis of respondents according to roles performed in family farming 

Roles Factor 1 
(Land preparation 
roles) 

Factor 2 
(Management 
roles) 

Factor 3 
(Technical 
roles) 

Site selection    0.411    0.376    0.003 

Clearing of farm lands    0.132    0.352    0.112 

Stumping of trees on farm lands    0.579   -0.103    0.284 

Cuting of fodder for feeding goats, sheep and cattle      0.150    0.604    0.144 

Soil tillage such as making ridges, mounds etc    0.132    0.438    0.108 

Sowing of seeds/planting materials    0.639    0.131   -0.126 

Irrigation of farm lands    0.296    0.593   -0.065 

Digging of drainages farm lands    0.572    0.028    0.154 

Manual weeding of farm lands    0.513    0.227    0.036 

Applying fertilizer to crops     0.627    0.252   -0.069 

Staking of crops such as yams, beans etc    0.581    0.380   -0.056 

Application of agrochemicals such as herbicides, 
pesticides, etc 

   0.366    0.164    0.375 

Detuberization of yams    0.558   -0.105   -0.078 

Harvesting of crops    0.392    0.305    0.073 

Gathering of fruits    0.254    0.672    0.083 

Making of storage barns for yams    0.391    0.138    0.467 

Sorting/grading of farm produce    0.612   -0.032    0.200 

Dressing of crops for storage    0.528     0.165    0.118 

Milling of farm produce    0.104    0.510    0.338 

Driving of farm tractors    0.212    0.126    0.676 

Operating of farm equipment e.g knapsack sprayer    0.064   -0.054    0.732 

Haulage of farm produce    0.000    0.549    0.012 

Feeding of animals   -0.174    0.583    0.264 

Herding/shepherding of animals   -0.047    0.519    0.295 

Cleaning of pens    0.058    0.496    0.552 

Brooding of chicks in poultry farm     0.135    0.011    0.561 

Collection of eggs in poultry farm   -0.123    0.151    0.605 

Milking of dairy animals   -0.133    0.240    0.465 

Source: Field Survey, 2016 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
54 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

The three factors which loaded high based on roles performed by rural youths in family farming agrees with 

the findings of World Farmers' Organization (WFO) [16] who reported that rural youths play a significant role in 

acting as a catalyst for change in family farming development, given their propensity and willingness to adapt new 

ideas, concepts and have the energy to implement innovation.  

 

3.16. Test of Hypothesis 

The result of the binary logistic regression which was used to analyze the influence of socio-economic 

characteristics on level of youth participation in family farming is presented in Table 4. The non significance of 

Hosmer and Lemeshow Chi-square (X2 = 8.521, P = 0.10) implies that the model is not significantly different from 

the standard model. The result further reveals that the likelihood Chi-square test or model coefficient (22.194) was 

statistically significant at 1%. This implies that the socio-economic characteristics included in the model are 

significantly related to the roles in family farming. Hence, the null hypothesis which states that the socio-economic 

characteristics of rural youths have no significant relationship on the roles performed in family farming was 

rejected. 

 The influence of the individual coefficient shows that age (0.054), household size (0.017), farming experience 

(0.007) and access to credit (0.044) had a significant influence on the roles performed in family farming. Specifically, 

coefficient of age was positive and statistically significant at 10%. This implies that increase in age of the youths 

increases the probability of greater involvement in family farming. This goes to buttress the facts that as the youths 

advance in age they become more energetic and productive to carry out tedious activities in the farm. Although 

farming experience is gained with age, farming needs not to be dominated with aged population in any region as 

this could have negative implication on the future of food production in such region. This study is in consonance 

with the findings of Mangal [17] who stated that rural youths in their prime age have physical and mental ability 

to participate in agriculture and are the most productive people in any society. The coefficient of household size was 

positive and statistically significant at 10%. This implies that increase in household size of respondents enhances the 

probability of performance in family farming.  

 

Table-4. Binary logistic Regression analysis showing the relationship between socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and roles 

performed in family farming 

Variables     B S.E   Wald    Sig.  Exp.(B) 

Age  -0.179 0.091   3.712   0.054   0.839 

Sex -.1.002 0.697   2.069   0.150   0.367 
Level of education  -0.120 0.130   0.846   0.358   0.887 
Household size  -0.134 0.056   5.669   0.017   0.875 
Farming experience  -0.203 0.075   7.372   0.007   1.225 
Farm size -0.133 0.407   0.106   0.744   0.876 

Extension visits  0.596 0.485   1.512   0.219   1.815 
Access to credit facility 3.246 1.609   4.069   0.044   25.692 
Membership of formal organization -0.201 0.954   0.044   0.833   0.818 
Constant 2.691 2.956   0.829   0.363   14.746 
Likelihood Chi-Square   22.194     
Probability > X2 0.000     

Nagelkerke R Square  0.330     
Hosmer and Lemeshow Chi-Square   8.521     
Probability  Chi-square 0.384     

*,**,*** = wald test significant at 1%, 2% and 10% levels respectively. 

 

This may be due to the fact that as household size increases there will be more mouths to feed hence greater 

involvement in family farming. The coefficient of farming experience was positive and statistically significant at 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
55 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

10%. This implies that increase in the farming experience increases the probability of high level of youth 

performance in family farming. This goes to buttress the fact that as youths participate in family farming over time 

they acquire enough experience that will enable them to cope with challenges in farming.  

The coefficient of access to credit was positive and statistically significant at 10%. This implies that increase in 

access to credit increases the probability of high level of performance in family farming. This is because when these 

youths have access to credit facilities they have the start-up capital to use for farming. 

 

 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Majority of the respondents were males, single and in their productive age. They were also engaged in non-

farm occupations such as petty-trading in order to be economically stronger to take care of their responsibilities. 

Site selection, harvesting of crops, applying fertilizer to crops, clearing of farm land, soil tillage, among others were 

major roles of rural youths in family farming. These roles were further grouped into land preparation, management 

and technical activities. There arises the need for rural youths to be encouraged to remain in agriculture by 

ensuring that they are provided with adequate improved technologies for greater productivity. Basic amenities such 

as electricity, pipe borne water, good roads, etc should be made available in rural areas where they reside to prevent 

rural-urban youth migration and sustain agriculture. 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support. 
 

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
 

Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.  

 

REFERENCES 

[1] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "About family farming." Rretrieved from http://bit.ly/1qJp5x4 [Accessed 

on 05/09/2015], 2014. 

[2] Q. Conchi, "Family farming: Feeding the world, caring for the earth." Rretrieved from http://.astc.org/astc-

dimension/family-farming. [Accessed 17/11/2015], 2014. 

[3] Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), "How can we rejuvenate family farming? Discover 4 

routes to success proposed by the experts at CTA." Rretrieved from http://bit.ly/1tJkRH4 [Accessed on 

09/08/2015], 2014. 

[4] B. White, "Agriculture and the generation problem: Rural youth, employment and the future of farming," presented at 

the FAC – ISSER Conference ― Young People, Farming and Food, Accra, 2012. 

[5] J. K. Prosper, N. T. Nathaniel, and H. M. Benson, "Determinants of rural youth's participation in agricultural 

activities," International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, vol. 3, pp. 2348 -2386, 2015. 

[6] F. O. Ugwoke, O. M. Adesope, and F. C. Ibe, "Youth participation in farming activities in rural areas of Imo State," 

Journal of Agricultural Extension, vol. 8, pp. 136-142, 2005. 

[7] E. N. Ajani, R. N. Mgbenka, and O. Onah, "Empowerment of youths in rural areas through agricultural development 

programmes: Implications for poverty reduction in Nigeria," International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 

vol. 2, pp. 34-41, 2015. 

[8] M. A. Ommani, "Assessment of the socio-economic factors affecting rural youth attitude to occupation in agricultural 

(Case of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer - Ahmad Province, Iran)," International Journal of Agriculture Management and 

Development, vol. 1, pp. 15-19, 2011. 

[9] B. S. Akpan, "Encourage youths involvement in agricultural production and processing." Rretrieved from 

www.ifpri.org [Accessed 23/09/2015], 2010. 

[10] E. Rutta, "Current and emerging youths policies and initiatives with a special focus and links to agriculture Tanzania 

(Mainland)," Case Study Draft Report. RUTTA: South Africa2012. 

http://bit.ly/1qJp5x4
http://.astc.org/astc-dimension/family-farming
http://.astc.org/astc-dimension/family-farming
http://bit.ly/1tJkRH4
http://www.ifpri.org/


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(3): 46-56 

 

 
56 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

[11] I. F. Ayanda, F. Olooto, A. Motunrayo, G. T. Abolaji, O. J. Yusif, and S. K. Subair, "Perception of Kwara State 

university agricultural students on farming as means of future livelihood," Internal Journal of Agric Science, vol. 2, pp. 

1053-1061, 2012. 

[12] S. Okogun, "Youths participation in farming activities in Edo State," An Unpublished B.sc Project in the Department 

of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development University of Ibadan, Ibadan Nigeria, 2004. 

[13] V. A. Okwoche, A. I. Age, and F. O. Alegwu, "An assessment of youths participation in agriculture and rural 

development," Agricultural Journal, vol. 7, pp. 365 - 369, 2012. 

[14] J. Proctor, N. Nathaniel, and H. Benson, "Determinant of rural youth’s participation in agricultural activities," 

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, vol. 3, pp. 1-46, 2015. 

[15] Y. M. Abdullahi, A. S. Gidado, and S. A. Jibril, "Attitude of rural youths towards family farming in Dass, Bauchi State 

Nigeria and the implication for policy," Journal of Agricultural Extension, vol. 14, p. 22, 2010. 

[16] World Farmers' Organization (WFO), "Youth and agriculture: Uganda experience," E – Magazine, pp. 39-87, 2013. 

[17] H. Mangal, "Best practices for youth in agriculture: The Barbados," Grenada and Saint Lucia Experience. Final 

Report2009. 

[18] G. N. Umeh and C. N. Odom, "Roles and constraints of youths’ associations in agricultural and rural development," 

World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 515-519, 2011. 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  

[1] M. Bello, T. Madza, and S. Saror, "Nigeria youth involvement in rice production," Journal of Environmental Issues and 

Agriculture in Developing Countries, vol. 3, pp. 1-97, 2011. 

[2] A. N. Beyuo and B. Ernest, "Youth in agriculture: Prospects and challenges in the Sissala area of Ghana," Net Journal 

of Agricultural Science, vol. 1, pp. 60- 68, 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


