CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT INTERPRITATIONS

This chapter focus on analysis and presentation of results on the factors associated with the

interest of agricultural graduates to venturing into agribusiness enterprise among Agricultural

graduates of Nigerian Universities. SPSS 26 statistical package was utilized in this work. A total

of three hundred (300) responses were analyzed.

Table 4.1: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents

Items Frequency Percent

Age 20-30 211 70.3

31-40 81 27
41-50 5 1.67
51-60 2 0.67
61-70 1 0.33
Total 300 100
Gender Male 189 63
Female 111 37
Total 300 100
Marital Status Married 100 33.3
Single 197 65.7
Widowed 3 1
Total 300 100
Religion Christianity 203 67.7
Islam 93 31
Traditional 2 0.7
Total 300 100

Source: Field survey, 2021

From Table 4.1, Majority of the respondents (70.3%) falls within the age group 20-30, 27% of

the respondents falls within the age group 31-40, 1.67% of the respondents falls within the age

group 41-50, 0.67% of the respondents falls within the age group 51-60 while the remaining

0.335 of the respondents falls within the age group 61-70. 63% of the respondents are male while

the remaining 37% of the respondents are female. 33.3% of the respondents are married while

65.7% of the respondents are single and 1% of the respondents are widow. 67.7% of the

respondents are Christian, 31% of the respondents are islam while 0.7% of the respondents are

traditional.

Table 4.2: Parent Educational qualification

Educational Qualification Father Mother

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Associateship in
28 9.3 24 8.0
Education
Bachelor 92 30.7 52 17.3
HND 65 21.7 64 21.3
Masters 11 3.7 6 2.0
NCE/OND 30 10.0 66 22.0
No Formal Education 14 4.7 23 7.7
PhD 2 .7 - -
Primary Education 17 5.7 17 5.7
SSCE 21 7.0 40 13.3
Technical College 20 6.7 8 2.7
Total 300 100.0 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.2 shows the educational qualification of the respondent’s parent, Majority of the

respondent’s fathers had Bachelor (30.7%) and HND (21.7%) as their educational qualification

while 4.7% of the fathers had no formal education. Majority of the respondents mothers are

NCE/OND holder (22%) and HND (21.3%).

Table 4.3: Family Size

Frequency Percentage
5 24 8.0
6 192 64
above 5 84 28.0
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.3 shows the family sizes of the respondents. 8% of the respondents admitted that their

family size is 5, 64% of the respondents agreed that their family size is 6 while 28% of the

respondents admitted that their family size is above 5. It can be deduced that the family size of

majority of the respondents are 6 and above 5, which implies that the large family size enable to

parents engage their children in farming.

Table 4.4: Did you undergo Farm Practice Year or IT in Agriculture

Frequency Percent
No 11 3.7
Yes 289 96.3
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

From the table 4.4, Majority of the respondents (96.3%) undergo farm practice year or IT in
Agriculture while 3.7% of the respondents does not engaged in farm practice year in Agriculture

Table 4.5: Effectiveness of the Farm practice

Frequency Percent
Effective 165 55.0

Highly Effective 73 24.3

Ineffective 3 1.0
Less Effective 21 7.0
Neutral 32 10.7
Not Applicable 6 2.0
 Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

From table 4.5 above, 55% of the respondents admitted that the farm practice are effective,

24.3% of the respondents admitted that the farm practice is highly effective, 1% of the

respondents agreed that the farm practice are ineffective, 7% of the respondents admitted that the

farm practice are less effective, 10.7% of the respondents agreed that the farm practice

effectiveness is neutral while the remaining 2% of the respondents admitted that farm practice

were not applicable.

Table 4.6: Ownership of Agricultural venture

Frequency Percent
No 233 77.7
Yes 67 22.3
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

From table 4.6, 77.7% of the respondents does not own an agricultural venture while 22.3% of

the respondents have Agricultural venture

Table 4.7: Availability of any form of miscredit, loan or grant for your Agribusiness

Frequency Percent
No 233 77.7

Yes 67 22.3
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

From table 4.7, it can be deduce that 77.7% of the respondents admitted that there is no

availability of any form of miscredit, loan or grant for their Agribusiness while 22.3% of the

respondents infer that there is availability of any form of miscredit, loan or grant for their

Agribusiness.
Table 4.8: Range of Investment

Frequency Percent
Less than N100,000 100 33.3
N1,000,001 - N5,000,000 10 3.3
N100,000 - N500,000 136 45.3
N500,001 - N1,000,000 16 5.3
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

From table 4.8, 33.3% of the respondents have less than #100000 as their range of investment,

45.3% of the respondents have their range of investment between N100,000 - N500,000,5.3% of

the respondents have N500,001 - N1,000,000 as their range of investment while 3.3% of the

respondents have N1,000,001 - N5,000,000 as their range of investment. This implies that

majority of the respondents lack enough capital to invest in agribusiness

Table 4.9: Specialization in Agricultural operation

Frequency
Percentage
Consulting 19 19
Export 15 5
Fish and poultry farming 97 32.3
Horticulture 12 4
Primary Production 56 18.7
Produce buyer 40 13.3
Production 5 1.67
Raising of birds and dogs 45 15
Value Addition 11 3.67
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

From table 4.9, 19% of the respondents specialize in Agribusiness consultancy, 5% of the

respondents engage in export, 32.3% of the respondents specialize on fish and poultry farming,

4% of the respondents specialize in horticulture, 18.7% of the respondents deals with primary
production, 13.3% of the respondents deals with produce buyer, 1.67% of the respondents deals

with production, 15% of the respondents specialize in raising of birds and dogs while the

remaining 3.675 of the respondents deal with value addition.

Table 4.10: Scale of operation

Frequency Percent

Large 35 11.67
Medium 181 60.3
Small 84 28
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

From table 4.10, 11.67% of the respondents practice large scale of operation, 60.3% of the

respondents practice medium scale of operation while 28% of the respondents practice small

scale of operation. This indicated that majority of the respondents practice medium scale of

operation due to insufficient capital to expand the agribusiness.

Table 4.11: Range of Expenditure per year

Frequency Percent
Above N5,000,000 1 .33
Less than N100,000 10 3.33
N1,000,001 - N5,000,000 43 14.33
N100,000 - N500,000 95 31.67
N500,001 - N1,000,000 157 52.33
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.11 shows the range of expenditure per year. 0.33% of the respondents admitted that their

expenditure rate over a year is above #5,000,000, 3.33% of the respondents infer that their

expenditures ranges per year is less than #100,000, 14.33% of the respondents affirm that their

expenditure per year ranges from #1,000,001-#5,000,000, 31.67% of the respondents affirm that
their expenditure per year ranges from #100,000-#500,000 while the remaining 52.33% of the

respondents admitted that their expenditure per year ranges from #500,001-#1,000,000

Table 4.12: Preferred course of study of the respondents

Preffered course Frequency Percentages

Agriculture 67 22.3
Medicine 46 15.3
Biochemistry 44 14.6
Microbiology 24 8
Food science Technology 27 9
Chemical Engineering 32 10.7
Electrical Engineering 24 8
Pharmacy 36 12
Total 300 100
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.12 reveals that majority (22.3%) of the students wanted to study agriculture before admission into

the university. This implies that about 77% of the students were forced to study agriculture as a career as

a last resort to pursuing higher education. Among the most preferred courses of study were Medicine

(22.3%), Biochemistry (14.6%), Biology (8%),Food science Technology (9%), Chemical Engineering

(10.7%), Electrical Engineering (8%) and Pharmacy (12%). This is in line with the findings of Ayanda et

al. (2013) which reported the most preferred courses to be Medicine, Microbiology and Biochemistry as

either first or second choices.

Research question one: The entrepreneurial elements of the Agricultural curriculum in

each of the three universities

Table 4.13: The entrepreneurial elements of the Agricultural curriculum in each of the

three universities

Items Frequency Percentage

Animal Production, Aquaculture and fisheries production, Marketing of 96 32

Agricultural products, Food processing and farm record keeping

Crop production, Poultry production, Value chain in Agriculture, 58 19.3

Marketting of Agricultural products

Animal production, Farm record keeping, Food processing and extension 65 21.7

services, Operating farm machineries/equipment

Snail rearing, crop production, pest control/fumigation, food processing 45 15

and general value addition

All the areas listed 36 12

Source: Field survey,2021

From the above table 4.13, Majority of the respondents (30%) choose Animal Production,
Aquaculture and fisheries production, Marketing of Agricultural products, Food processing and farm
record keeping as the areas of the curriculum covered, 19.3% of the respondents admitted that the
curriculum covered are Crop production, Poultry production, Value chain in Agriculture, Marketing of
Agricultural products,21.7% of the respondents admitted that the curriculum covered are Snail rearing,
crop production, pest control/fumigation, food processing and general value addition while 12% of the
respondents infer that all the area listed in the curriculum were covered.
Research question two: Factors contributing to learning during undergraduate education
Table 4.14: Rate of learning factors during the undergraduates education

S/ Factors Poor Fair Neutral Good Exce Mean SD Decision

N llent

1 Teaching spaces 28(9 119(39 28(9.3% 101(33 24(8 2.91 1.19 Fair
(e.g. lecture .3%) .7%) ) .7%) %)
theatres, tutorial
rooms,
laboratories)
2 Student spaces 26(8 127(4 57(19%) 79(26. 11(3 2.74 1.05 Fair
and common .7%) 2.3%) 3%) .7%)
areas
3 Online learning 61(2 102(3 25(8.3% 72(24 40(1 2.76 1.36 Fair
materials 0.3% 4%) ) %) 3.3%
) )
4 Computer/IT 49(1 112(3 25(8.3% 101(33 13(4 2.93 1.30 Good
resources 6.3%
 ) 7.3%) ) .7%) .3%)
5 Assigned books, 28(9 116(3 31(10.3 56(18. 69(2 3.07 1.36 Fair
notes and .3%) 9.7%) %) 7%) 3%)
resources
6 Laboratory or 28(9 117(3 23(7.7% 88(29.3 44(1 3.00 1.28 Fair
Practical .3%) 9%) ) %) 4.7%
equipment )
7 Library resources 22(7 112(3 46(15.3 85(28. 35(1 3.00 1.18 Fair
and facilities .3%) 7.3%) %) 3% 1.7%
)

Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.14 shows that seven items were listed for respondents to indicate factors contributing to

learning during undergraduate education. All items produces high mean scores which were

above the bench mark of 2.5. These items include item 1. Teaching spaces (x̅ =2.91; SD=1.19),

item 2: Student spaces and common areas (x̅ =2.74; SD=1.05), item 3: Online learning materials

(x̅ =2.76; SD=1.36), item 4: Computer/IT resources (x̅ =2.93; SD=1.30), item 5: Assigned books,

notes and resources (x̅ =3.07; 1.36). item 6: Laboratory or Practical equipment (x̅ =3.00; 1.28).

Item 7: Library resources and facilities (x̅ =3.00; 1.18).

Table 4.15: How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the following learning results
towards soft skills development the end of your undergraduate education

Effectiveness Decision
of agricultural
Not Less Highly
course to soft Neutral Effective
Effective effective Effective Mean SD
skills
S/N development
Critical 62(20.7% 3.55 1.13 Effective
1 thinking Skills 15(5%) 54(18%) 24(8%) 145(48.3%) )
Ability to solve 3.50 1.12 Effective
complex 47(15.7%
2 problems 17(5.7%) 55(18.3%) 34(11.3%) 147(49%) )
Ability to work 80(26.7% 3.80 1.10 Effective
3 with others 12(4%) 42(14%) 19(6.3%) 147(49%) )
Confidence to 3.69 1.06 Effective
learn 61(20.3%
4 independently 10(3.3%) 48(16%) 27(9%) 154(51.3%) )
5 Communicatio 13(4.3%) 43(14.3%) 29(9.7%) 156(52%) 59(19.7% 3.68 1.07 Effective
 n skills )
Record keeping 3.45 1.16 Effective
/ Accounting
6 skills 21(7%) 57(19%) 34(11.3%) 141(47%) 47(15.7%)
Business plan 55(18.3% 3.37 1.27 Effective
7 writing skills 32(10.7%) 58(19.3%) 30(10%) 125(41.7%) )
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.15 shows that seven items were listed for respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of the

learning results towards soft skills development at the end of undergraduate education. All

items produces high mean scores which were above the bench mark of 2.5. These items include

item 1. Critical thinking skills (x̅ =3.55; SD=1.13), item 2: Ability to solve complex problems

(x̅ =3.50; SD=1.12), item 3: Ability to work with others (x̅ =3.80; SD=1.1), item 4: Confidence to

learn independently (x̅ =3.69; SD=1.06), item 5: Communication skills (x̅ =3.68; 1.07). item 6:

Record keeping/Accounting skills (x̅ =3.45; 1.16). Item 7: Business plan writing skills (x̅ =3.37;

1.27)

Table 4.16: How will you evaluate the contribution of the following challenges to effective
learning during your undergraduate education
Disagree Agree Mean SD Decision
Complet Disagree Neutral Agree Complet
S/N Challenges ely ely
Learning 1.73 0.68 Disagre
materials did not e
contribute to 113(37. 162(50.7 19(6.3% 15(5%
1 know 7%) %) ) ) 1(0.3%)
Class size did 2.51 0.97 Disagre
not encourage 33(11% 145(40.3 52(17. e
2 learning ) %) 63(21%) 3% 7(2.3%)
Lecturers were 2.55 0.90 Disagre
not audible 147(49% 102(34% 41(13. e
3 enough 18(6%) ) ) 7%) 3(1.0%)
Courses were 2.75 1.06 Disagre
not practical e
enough to
transfer 147(49% 44(14.7 74(24. 17(5.7%
4 knowledge 18(6%) ) %) 7% )
Knowledge 2.49 0.68 Disagre
transfer skills of e
the lecturers 22(7.3 114(38% 111(37% 50(16.
5 were poor %) ) ) 7%) 3(1%)
 The curriculum 2.55 1.12 Disagre
of the e
programme was 45(15% 135(45% 54(10
6 outdated ) ) 48(16%) %) 18(6%)
Practical/ 2.47 1.11 Disagre
laboratory e
sessions did not
stimulate 60(20% 118(36.7 54(18.7 57(19 11(3.7
7 learning ) %) %) %) %)
The programme 2.78 1.15 Disagre
did not e
encourage 36(12% 110(36.7 56(18.7 78(26 20(6.7
8 entrepreneurship ) %) %) %) %)
2.78 1.15 Disagre
The programme
e
lacked field 34(11.3 89(29.7 64(21. 17(5.7
9 trip/excursion %) 96(32%) %) 3%) %)
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.16 shows that nine items were listed for respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of the

learning results towards soft skills development at the end of undergraduate education. Six

items produces high mean scores which were above the bench mark of 2.5. These items include

item 2. Class size did not encourage learning (x̅ =1.73; SD=0.68), item 3: Lecturers were not

audible enough (x̅ =2.55; SD=0.90), item 4: Courses were not practical enough to transfer

knowledge (x̅ =2.75; SD=1.06), item 6:Curriculum of the programme was outdated (x̅ =2.55;

SD=1.12), item 8: The programme did not encourage entrepreneurship (x̅ =2.78; 1.15). item 9:

The programme lacked field trip/excursion (x̅ =2.78; SD=1.15). while the items below the

benchmark of 2.5 are, Item 1: Learning materials did not contribute to know (x̅ =1.73; SD=0.68),

Item 5: Knowledge transfer skills of the lecturer are poor (x̅ =2.49;SD= 0.68), and Item 7:

Practical/Laboratory sessions did not stimulate learning (x̅ =2.47; SD=1.11)

Research Question three: Attitude of the respondents towards Agribusiness

Table 4.17: Attitude of the respondents towards agribusiness

Disagree Agree Decision

Disagre
S/N Items Complet Neutral Agree Completel
e
ely y
1 Starting an agribusiness 5(1.7%) 41(13.7 28(9.3%) 169(56.3 57(19%) Agree
 venture is capital
%) %)
intensive
Agribusiness yields less Disagree
123(41 56(18.7% 89(29.7%
2 satisfaction than most 30(10%) 2(0.7%)
%) ) )
other occupations
Agribusiness is not for 106(35.3 119(39. 43(14.3% Disagree
3 27(9%) 5(1.7)
young people %) 7%) )
It is impossible to attain Disagree
149(49. 46(15.3%
4 Social well-being with 48(16%) 54(18%) 3(1%)
7%) )
agribusiness
I feel that I would be Disagree
doing my children an 109(36.3 102(34 46(15.3% 37(12.3%
5 6(2%)
injustice for choosing %) %) ) )
agribusiness as career
Agribusiness furnishes a 44(14.7 71(23.7% 157(52.3 Agree
6 2(0.7%) 28(6.7%)
means of existing %) ) %)
Agribusiness would give Agree
41(13.7 151(50.3
7 me a great deal of 2(0.7%) 58(19.3% 48(16%)
%) %)
pleasure
Agribusiness requires Disagree
58(19.3 88(29.3 83(27.7% 64(21.3%
8 less intelligence than 7(2.3%)
%) %) ) )
most other occupation
Agribusiness is a 35(11.7 53(17.7% 167(56.7 Agree
9 6(2%) 39(13%)
fascinating business %) ) %)
Agribusiness involves Disagree
14(4.7% 99(33% 91(30.3% 85(23.3%
10 too many distasteful 11(3.7%)
) ) ) )
tasks
Agribusiness is 59(19.7 130(43. 53(17.7% Disagree
11 54(18%) 4(1.3%)
uninteresting business %) 3%) )
Agribusiness tends to Disagree
37(12.3 137(45.
12 isolate a person from the 59(19.7%) 63(21%) 4(1.3%)
%) 7%)
world
Agribusiness requires Agree
47(15.7 75(25% 103(34.3 71(23.7%
13 less education than most 4(1.3%)
%) ) %) )
other vocations
I like agribusiness well Agree
42(14% 56(18.7%
14 enough to make it my 5(1.7%) 156(52%) 41(13.7%)
) )
life career
The disadvantages of Disagree
37(12.3 104(34. 88(29.3% 65(21.7%
15 agribusiness outweigh 6(2%)
%) 7%) ) )
its advantages
Agribusiness deadens 86(28.7 105(35 46(15.3% 57(19.7% Disagree
16 4(1.3%)
person’s ambition %) %) ) )
The standard of living of Disagree
127(42. 65(21.7%
17 an agripreneur is below 51(17%) 51(17%) 6(2%)
3%) )
that of other people
Agribusiness has more Disagree
social disadvantages 114(38 79(28.3%
18 66(22%) 66(22%) 3(1%)
than most other %) )
occupation
 Agribusiness offers Disagree
insufficient 43(14.3 124(41. 65(21.7%
19 66(22%) 2(0.7%)
opportunities compare to %) 3%) )
other careers
I can achieve my goal in Agree
32(10.7 157(52.3
20 life by taking 6(2%) 60(20%) 45(15%)
%) %)
agribusiness as a career
You cannot make quick 100(33. Disagree
21 39(13%) 50(16.7%) 91(30.3%) 20(6.7%)
money in Agribusiness 3%)
49(16.3 165(38.3 112(37.3 Neutral
22 Agribusiness is too risky 11(3.7%) 13(4.3%)
%) %) %)
There is little support Agree
from the Government 154(51.3
23 9(3%) 45(15%) 61(30.3%) 31(10.3%)
compare to other %)
businesses
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.17 shows the attitude of the respondents towards agribusiness. Majority of the

respondents agreed that: Starting an agribusiness venture is capital intensive (75.3%), Agribusiness

furnishes a means of existing (59%), Agribusiness would give me a great deal of pleasure (66.3%),

Agribusiness is a fascinating business(68.7%), i like agribusiness well enough to make it my life career

(65.7%), i can achieve my goal in life by taking agribusiness as a career (67.3%), there is little support

from the Government compare to other businesses (61.6%) while majority of the respondents disagreed

that: Agribusiness is not for young people (75%), it is impossible to attain Social well-being with

agribusiness (65.7%), i feel that I would be doing my children an injustice for choosing agribusiness as

career (70.3%), Agribusiness requires less intelligence than most other occupation (48.6%), Agribusiness

involves too many distasteful tasks (37.7%), Agribusiness is uninteresting business (63%), Agribusiness

tends to isolate a person from the world (58%), the disadvantages of agribusiness outweigh its

advantages, Agribusiness deadens person’s ambition (47%), the standard of living of an agripreneur is

below that of other people (59.3%), Agribusiness has more social disadvantages than most other

occupation (60%), Agribusiness offers insufficient opportunities compare to other careers (55.6%), you

cannot make quick money in Agribusiness (46.3%) while majority of the respondents are undecided that

Agribusiness is too risky (38.3%). Agribusiness requires less education than most other vocations

(34.3%)
Research Question four: Challenges associated with starting agribusiness venture
Table 4.18: Challenges associated with starting agribusiness venture

Major Minor Not a Decision

S/N Items
constraints constraints constraints
Lack of initial capital to start an Major
1 256(85.3%) 30(10%) 14(4.7%)
agribusiness venture constraint
Major
2 Lack of land 162(54%) 105(35%) 33(11%)
constraint
Lack of basic knowledge on Major
3 140(46.7%) 73(24.3%) 87(29%)
agribusiness constraint
Lack of machineries and other Major
4 176(58.7%) 110(36.7%) 14(4.7%)
agricultural inputs constraint
Major
5 Inadequate credit facilities 182(60.7%) 107(35.7%) 11(3.7%)
constraint
Minor
6 Drudgery of agriculture 92(30.7%) 193(64.3%) 16(5%)
constraint
Minor
7 Poor market linkage 105(35%) 172(57.3%) 23(7.7%)
constraint
Minor
8 No agricultural insurance 92(30.7%) 188(62%) 22(7.3%)
contraint
High cost of agricultural Major
9 187(62.3%) 97(32.3%) 16(5.3%)
input/machineries constraint
Unfavourable/inconsistent government Major
10 162(54%) 125(41.7%) 13(4.3%)
policy in agriculture constraint
High interest rate placed on Major
11 agricultural loan collected from 187(62.3%) 97(32.3%) 16(5.3%) constraint
commercial banks
Low patronage of locally produced Major
12 116(38.7%) 131(43.7%) 53(17.7%)
agricultural produce by the consumers constraint
Minor
13 High risks associated with agribusiness 127(42.3%) 157(52.3%) 16(5.3%)
Constraints
Paucity of infrastructural facilities to Minor
14 boost agribusiness / Poor storage 123(41%) 166(55.3%) 11(3.7%) constraint
facility/Poor road network
Climate change and unreliable weather Major
15 142(47.3%) 137(45.7%) 21(7%)
forecasting system constraint
Minor
16 Too many regulatory bodies 132(44%) 148(49.3%) 20(6.7%)
constraint
Minor
17 Difficulty in meeting standards 94(31.3%) 127(42.3%)
79(26.3%) constraint
Cost of approval/registration of Minor
18 business/inspection fee is high 108(38%) 173(57.7%) 19(6.3%) constraint
(e.g.NAFDAC)
To obtain registration is difficult and Major
19 152(50.7%) 127(42.3%) 21(7%)
cumbersome constraints
Laboratory to carry out Minor
20 acceptability /microbial tests not 130(43.3%) 146(48.7%) 24(8%) constraints
available in Nigeria
Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.18 shows the Challenges associated with starting agribusiness venture. Majority of the

respondents admitted that the major constraints among the challenges associated with starting

agricultural business are: lack of initial capital to start an agribusiness venture (85.3%), lack of land

(54%), lack of basic knowledge on agribusiness (46.7%), lack of machineries and other agricultural

inputs(58.7%), inadequate credit facilities (60.7%), high cost of agricultural input/machineries (60%),

unfavourable/inconsistent government policy in agriculture (54%), high interest rate placed on

agricultural loan collected from commercial banks (62.3%), climate change and unreliable weather

forecasting system (47.3%), to obtain registration is difficult and cumbersome (50.7%). the majority of

respondents admitted that the minor constraints associated with starting agribusiness venture are: Low

patronage of locally produced agricultural produce by the consumers (43.7%), drudgery of agriculture

(64.3%), poor market linkage (57.3%), no agricultural insurance (62%), high risks associated with

agribusiness (52.3%), paucity of infrastructural facilities to boost agribusiness / Poor storage facility/Poor

road network (55.3%), too many regulatory bodies (49.3%), difficulty in meeting standards (42.3%), cost

of approval/registration of business/inspection fee is high (e.g.NAFDAC) (57.7%), laboratory to carry out

acceptability /microbial tests not available in Nigeria (48.7%)

Table 4.19: Severity of challenges associated with starting agribusiness venture

S/N Items Not Severe Less Neutral Sever Highly Decision

Severe e Severe

1 Lack of initial capital to 106(25.3% 57(19%) 11(3.7%) 6(2% 120(40% Highly

start an agribusiness ) ) ) Severe
venture
2 Lack of land 16(5.3%) 108(36%) 35(11.7%) 107(3 34(11.3 Less
5.7%) %) Severe
3 Lack of basic knowledge 50(16.7%) 83(27.7%) 27(9%) 118(3 22(7.3% Severe
on agribusiness 9.3%) )
4 Lack of machineries and 6(2%) 52(17.3%) 30(10%) 172(5 40(13.3 Severe
other agricultural inputs 7.3%) %)
5 Inadequate credit facilities 7(2.3%) 51(17%) 25(8.3%) 136(4 81(27%) Severe
 5.3%)
6 Drudgery of agriculture 12(4%) 61(20.3%) 85(28.3%) 115(3 27(9%) Severe
8.7%)
7 Poor market linkage 10(3.3%) 60(20%) 78(26%) 116(3 36(12%) Severe
8.7%)
8 No agricultural insurance 9(3%) 61(20.3%) 76(25.3%) 122(4 32(10.7 Severe
0.7%) %
9 High cost of agricultural 8(2.7%) 46(15.3%) 33(11%) 161(5 52(17.3 Severe
input/machineries 3.7%) %)
10 Unfavourable/ inconsistent 10(3.3%) 45(15%) 33(11%) 168(5 44(14.7 Severe
government policy in 6%) %)
agriculture
11 High interest rate placed 10(3.3%) 40(13.3%) 30(10%) 124(4 96(32%) Severe
on agricultural loan 1.3%)
collected from commercial
banks
12 Low patronage of locally 16(6.3%) 83(27.7%) 52(17.3%) 114(3 35(11.7 Severe
produced agricultural 8%) %)
produce by the consumers
13 High risks associated with 8(2.7%) 51(17%) 65(21.7%) 142(4 34(11.3 Severe
agribusiness 7.3%) %)
14 Paucity of infrastructural 9(3.3%) 49(16.3%) 87(29%) 113(3 42(14%) Severe
facilities to boost 7.7%)
agribusiness (storage
facilities, bad road
network)
15 Climate change and 8(2.7%) 48(16%) 38(12.7%) 169(5 37(12.3 Severe
unreliable weather 6.3%) %
forecasting system
Too many regulatory 12(4%) 56(18.7%) 45(15%) 153(5 34(11.3% Severe
16
bodies 1%) )
Difficulty in meeting 25(8.3%) 97(32.3%) 42(14%) 118(3 18(6%) Severe
17
standards 9.3%)
Costofapproval/registration 11(3.7%) 56(18.7%) 74(24.7%) 136(4 23(7.7%) Severe
18 of business/inspection fee 5.3%)
is high (e.g.NAFDAC)
To obtain registration is 9(3%) 57(19%) 40(13.3%) 151(5 43(14.3% Severe
19
difficult and cumbersome 0.3%) )
 Laboratory to carry out 14(4.7%) 51(17%) 45(15%) 104(5 26(8.7%) Severe
20 acceptability tests not 4.7%)
available in Nigeria

Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.19 shows severity of challenges associated with starting agribusiness venture. Majority

of the respondents admitted that the following items are highly severe: lack of initial capital to start

an agribusiness (40%) while the a few respondents affirm that the following items are severe: too many

regulatory bodies (51%), difficulty in meeting standards (39.3%), cost of approval/registration of

business/inspection fee is high (e.g.NAFDAC (45.3%), to obtain registration is difficult and cumbersome

(50.3%), Laboratory to carry out acceptability tests not available in Nigeria, lack of basic knowledge on

agribusiness (57.7%), Lack of machineries and other agricultural inputs (57.3%), inadequate credit

facilities (45.3%), drudgery of agriculture (38.3%), poor market linkage (38.7%), no Agricultural

insurance (40.7%), high cost of agricultural input/machineries (53.7%), unfavourable/inconsistent

government policy in Agriculture (56%), high interest rate placed on agricultural loan collected from

commercial banks (41.3%), low patronage of locally produced agricultural produce by the consumers

(38%), high risks associated with agribusiness (47.3%), paucity of infrastructural facilities to boost

agribusiness (storage facilities, bad road network) (37.7%), climate change and unreliable weather

forecasting system(56.3%)

Research Question five: How available and accessible are the farm resources
Table 4.20: Availability of resources

S/N Items Available NotAvailable

1 Land 167(55.7%) 133(44.3%)

2 Capital 55(22%) 234(78%)
3 Labour 191(63.7%) 109(36.3%)
4 Farm machinery 60(20%) 240(80%)
5 Credit 56(18.7%) 244(81.3%)
6 Extension services 124(41.3%) 176(58.7%)
7 Farm inputs 127(42.3%) 173(57.7%)
8 Agribusiness information 212(70.7%) 88(29.3%)
9 Agribusiness Training Programme 193(64.3%) 107(35.7%)
10 Agribusiness Insurance Service 87(29%) 213(71%)
11 Processing and Storage Facilities 100(33.3%) 200(66.7%)

Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.20 shows the availability of the resources to the respondents. Majority of the respondents

admitted that the available resources are: land (55.7%), labour (63.7%), Agribusiness information

(70.7%), Agribusiness Training Programme (64.3%) while the respondents affirm that the resources not

available are: capital (78%), farm machinery (80%), credit (81.3%), extension services (58.7%), farm

inputs (57.7%), Agribusiness insurance service (71%), processing and storage facilities(66.7%)

Table 4.21: Accessibility of the resources

S/N Items Accessible Not

Accessible

1 Land 187(62.3%) 113(37.7%)

2 Capital 71(23.7%) 229(76.3%)
3 Labour 206(68.7%) 94(31.3%)
4 Farm machinery 82(27.3%) 218(72.7%)
5 Credit 74(24.7%) 226(75.3%)
6 Extension services 146(48.7%) 154(51.3%)
7 Farm inputs 151(50.3%) 149(49.7%)
8 Agribusiness information 218(72.7%) 82(27.3%)
9 Agribusiness Training Programme 199(66.3%) 101(33.7%)
10 Agribusiness Insurance Service 91(30.3%) 209(69.7%)
11 Processing and Storage Facilities 110(36.1%) 190(63.3%)

Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.21 shows the accessibility of the resources. The respondents admitted that the resources

that are accessible are land (62.3%), labour (68.7%), farm inputs (50.3%), Agribusiness

information (72.7%), Agribusiness training programme (66.3%) while the respondents also

affirm that the resources not accessible are capital (76.3%), farm machinery (72.7%), credit

(75.3%), extension services (51.5%), Agribusiness insurance service (69.7%), Processing and

Storage facilities (63.3%)

Table 4.22: Accessibility of Financial resources and Agribusiness equipment

S/N Items Accessible Not Accessible

1 Rural credit/loan 97(32.3%) 203(87.7%)

2 Agricultural banks 70(23.3%) 230(76.7%)
3 Community micro finance bank 94(31.3%) 206(68.7%)
4 Daily contribution 209((69.7% 91(30.3%)
)
5 Self-help group 202(67.3%) 98(32.7%)
6 Cooperative society 205(58.3%) 95(31.7%)
7 Friends/family 226(75.3%) 74(24.7%)
8 Non-governmental organization 84(28%) 216(72%)
9 Grant 76(25.3%) 224(74.7%)

Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.22 shows the accessibility of Financial resources and Agribusiness equipment. Majority

of the respondents admitted that the financial resources and Agribusiness equipment accessible

are: daily contribution (69.7%), self- help group (67.3%), cooperative society (58.3%),

Friends/Family (58.3%) while the respondents affirm that the financial resources and

Agribusiness not accessible are rural credit/loan (87.7%), Agricultural banks (76.7%),

community micro finance bank (68.7%), Non-governmental organization (72%) and grants

(74.7%)
Table 4.23: Accessibility to modern agriculture equipment and machineries

S/N Items Accessible Not Accessible

1 Farm Implements 144(48%) 156(52%)

2 Irrigation facilities 69(23%) 231(77%)
3 Storage facilities 97(32.3%) 203(67.7%)
4 Processing facilities 90(30%) 210(70%)
6 Pond Facilities 121(40.3% 179(59.7%)
)
7 Poultry pen 142(47.3% 158(52.7%)
)
8 Other animal husbandry facilities 178(59.3% 122(40.7%)
)

Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.23 above shows Accessibility to modern agriculture equipment and machineries.

Majority of the respondents admitted that the modern agricultural equipment and machineries

that are accessible are: other animal husbandry facilities (59.3%) while the modern agricultural

equipment and machinery that are not accessible are: poultry pen (52.7%), farm implement

(52%), irrigation facilities (77%), storage facilities (67.7%), processsing facilities (70%), pond

facility (59.7%)

Table 4.24: Sources of Agribusiness information and knowledge

S/ Items Never Rarely Neutral Occasionall Frequentl Decision

N y y

1 Family/friends 6(2%) 47(15.7% 25(8.3%) 155(51.7%) 67(22.3%) Occasionall

) y
2 Fellow 3(1%) 27(9%) 26(8.7%) 151(50.3%) 93(31%) Occasionall
Agripreneurs y
3 Extension agents 23(7.7% 43(14.3% 73(24.4% 120(40%) 41(13.7%) Occasionall
) ) ) y
4 Radio/ 6(2%) 94(31.3% 94(31.3% 103(34.3%) 49(16.3%) Occasionall
 Television ) ) y
5 Non- 57(19%) 58(19.3% 42(14%) 104(34.7%) 39(13%) Occasionall
governmental ) y
organization
6 Poster/billboard 27(9%) 87(29%) 50(16.7% 107(35.7%) 29(9.7%) Occasionall
) y
7 Research 20(6.7% 35(11.7% 42(14%) 126(42%) 77(25.7%) Occasionall
officers ) ) y
8 Agribusiness 11(3.7% 29(9.7%) 39(13%) 105(35%) 116(38.7% Occasionall
seminars/trainin ) ) y
g
9 Newspapers 14(4.7% 36(12%) 76(25.3% 137(45.7%) 37(12.3%) Occasionall
) ) y
10 Social Media 7(2.3%) 22(7.3%) 36(12%) 107(35.7%) 128(42.7% Occasionall
) y
11 Agribusiness 13(4.3% 18(6%) 35(11.7% 158(52.7%) 76(25.3%) Occasionall
Groups ) ) y

Source: Field survey, 2021

Table 4.24 shows the sources of Agribusiness information and knowledge. Majority of the

respondents affirm that all the sources of agribusiness information and knowledge are available

only on occasionally basis such as Family/friends (51.7%), fellow Agripreneurs (50.3%), extension

agents (40%), radio/Television (34.3%), Non-governmental organization (34.7%), poster/billboard

(35.7%), research officers (42%), Agribusiness seminars/training (35%), newspapers (45.7%), social

media (35.7%), Agribusiness groups(52.7%)

Hypothesis Testing

Association between students selected socioeconomic characteristics and the factors associated with

the interest of venturing into Agribusiness enterprises among Agricultural graduates

Table 4.25: Association between students selected socioeconomic characteristics and the factors

associated with the interest of venturing into Agribusiness enterprises among Agricultural

graduates
Variables Chi square p-value Decision
value

Sex 1.725 0.174 Not significant

Age 3.458 0.259 Not significant

Marital status 13.586 0.014 Significant

Mothers education 2.407 0.523 Not significant

Fathers education 1.480 0.495 Not significant

Significant level=0.05
Source: Computed from collected data (2021)
Table 4.26: Association between credit availability and the interest of Agricultural
graduates in venturing into Agribusiness Enterprise?

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 141.157 112 .033
Likelihood Ratio 94.250 112 .887
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 168 cells (98.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .04.
From table 4.26, The p-value (0.033 < 0.05), indicate that we reject the null hypothesis and

conclude that there is significant association between credit availability and the interests of

Agricultural graduates in venturing into Agribusiness enterprise

Table 4.27: Association between Attitude of graduates towards agribusiness and there
interests in venturing into Agribusiness Enterprise?

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 263.167a 224 .037
Likelihood Ratio 162.003 224 .999
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 280 cells (98.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .04.

From table 4.27, The p-value (0.037 < 0.05), indicate that we reject the null hypothesis and

conclude that there is significant association between credit attitude of graduates towards

agribusiness and their interests in venturing into Agribusiness enterprise

Table 4.28: Association between source of agribusiness information and there interests in
venturing into Agribusiness Enterprise?

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 48.211 56 .761
Likelihood Ratio 59.592 56 .346
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 111 cells (97.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .27.
From table 4.28, The p-value (0.761 > 0.05), indicate that we accept the null hypothesis and

conclude that there is no significant association between source of agribusiness information and

their interests in venturing into Agribusiness enterprise

Table 4.29: Association between severity of challenges associated with starting
agribusiness and there interests in venturing into Agribusiness Enterprise?

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value Df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 124.030a 112 .004
Likelihood Ratio 105.706 112 .002
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 168 cells (98.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .07.
From table 4.30, The p-value (0.004 < 0.05), indicate that we reject the null hypothesis and

conclude that there is significant association between between severity of challenges associated with

starting agribusiness and their interests in venturing into Agribusiness enterprise

Table 4.30: Association between accessibility of financial resources and there interests in
venturing into Agribusiness Enterprise?

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 86.042a 56 .006
Likelihood Ratio 85.705 56 .006
N of Valid Cases 300
a. 111 cells (97.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .23.
From table 4.30, The p-value (0.006 < 0.05), indicate that we reject the null hypothesis and

conclude that there is significant association between accessibility of financial resources and

their interests in venturing into Agribusiness enterprise