Mentorship models for supporting youth transition from agricultural education to commercial farming careers

Introduction

A degree in agriculture doesn't make a farmer. Across Nigeria, thousands of agricultural graduates enter the workforce each year with technical knowledge but without the practical connections, business skills, and confidence needed to start commercial operations [1] . The gap between classroom preparation and commercial reality is wide, and for most graduates, nobody helps them cross it. Mentorship, pairing inexperienced youth with established farmers, is frequently recommended as a solution [2] . But mentorship takes many forms, and not all work equally well. One-on-one relationships differ fundamentally from group mentoring, university-industry partnerships, peer networks, or digital platforms [3] . Evidence from South Africa and Ghana suggests that mentored graduates are two to three times more likely to establish enterprises [4] . But relative effectiveness of different structures remains unclear [5] . This research compared five mentorship models among recent agricultural graduates in Ogun State. The objectives were to assess commercial readiness across models, determine the dose-response relationship between mentorship hours and outcomes, and identify skill domains where mentoring adds most value.

Theoretical Framework

The research draws on Social Learning Theory, which holds that people learn most effectively through observation and modeling within social contexts [6] . In mentorship, proteges acquire not just technical skills but also tacit knowledge, networks, and professional identity that formal education cannot easily transmit. The theory predicts that models offering closer social proximity will produce stronger outcomes than distant models like digital platforms.

Material and Methods

Material: A cross-sectional comparative design included 216 agricultural graduates aged 22-30 from Ogun State institutions, graduated within three years. They were categorized by mentorship experience: one-on-one farmer (n = 48), group mentoring (n = 44), university-industry (n = 42), peer mentoring (n = 38), and digital mentoring (n = 44). The research was conducted between January and October 2024 at the College of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. Ethics approval was granted by FUNAAB Ethics Committee (Protocol FUNAAB-EC/2024/006, December 2023) [7] . Methods: Commercial readiness was measured through a 30-item index covering business planning, market knowledge, production, financial management, and risk assessment. Farm enterprise establishment was a binary outcome. Cumulative mentorship hours were self-reported and verified. One-way ANOVA compared readiness across models. Logistic regression assessed hours-to-enterprise effects. Skill domain analysis compared mentor-added value [8] .

Ethical Considerations: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Income and enterprise data were treated as confidential and reported in aggregate only. www.extensionjournal.com One-on-one farmer mentoring was most preferred (32.6%), while digital mentoring attracted the smallest share (10.5%), consistent with its lower effectiveness.

Results

Discussion:

The superiority of one-on-one mentoring aligns with Social Learning Theory's emphasis on social proximity. Direct access to a farmer's tacit knowledge and daily decisions provides learning unavailable through structured or remote channels [9] . The 120-hour threshold for meaningful enterprise establishment impact suggests casual mentoring exposure isn't sufficient [10] . University-industry linkages generated highest income despite lower readiness scores, likely reflecting commercial orientation and supply chain access embedded in industry partnerships [11] . One-on-one mentors may excel at confidence building while industry links better position graduates for profitable entry.

The skill domain analysis reveals that business planning and market access, areas with the highest mentor-added value, are exactly what formal education underdelivers. This calls for both curriculum reform and mentorship investment [12] . www.extensionjournal.com

Conclusions

Structured mentorship can substantially improve graduates' transition to commercial farming. One-on-one mentoring produced the highest readiness and enterprise rates, while university-industry links generated the best income outcomes. A minimum of 120 hours appears needed for meaningful impact. Agricultural universities should establish formal post-graduation mentorship partnerships. Extension services can coordinate mentor-mentee matching based on enterprise type and location. Future research should track transition trajectories longitudinally and assess economic returns to mentorship investment across different agroecological zones.

References

1. Adesugba MA, Mavrotas G. Youth employment, agricultural transformation, and rural labor dynamics in Nigeria. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2016;1579:1-42.
2. Yami M, Vogl CR, Hauser M. Informal institutions as mechanisms to address challenges in communal grazing land. Int J Sustainable Dev. 2011;18(1):78-87.
3. Bairwa SL, Kushwaha S, Meena LK. Agribusiness management education: Employment opportunities. Int J Scientific Research. 2014;4(2):1-4.
4. Afande FO. Factors affecting youth entrepreneurship within Kibera, Kenya. Int J Humanities Social Science. 2015;5(10):78-97.
5. Awogbenle AC, Iwuamadi KC. Youth unemployment: Entrepreneurship as intervention. African J Business Management. 2010;4(6):831-835.
6. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Prentice Hall; 1977.
7. Kothari CR. Research methodology: Methods and techniques. 3rd ed. New Age International; 2014.
8. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. 7th ed. Open University Press; 2020.
9. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press; 1991.
10. Adeyanju D, Mburu J. Youth agricultural entrepreneurship: Impact of training on agripreneurship in Ogun State. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):7946.
11. Okiror JJ, Matsiko FB. Extension agent-farmer contact and information flow in Uganda. J Social Sciences. 2005;10(3):179-185.
12. Tadele G, Gella AA. A last resort and often not an option: Farming and young people in Ethiopia. IDS Bulletin. 2012;43(6):33-43.
13. Proctor FJ, Lucchesi V. Small-scale farming and youth in an era of rapid rural change. IIED and HIVOS; 2012.
14. Sumberg J, Anyidoho NA, Leavy J. The young people and agriculture problem in Africa. IDS Bulletin. 2012;43(6):1-8.
15. Filmer D, Fox L. Youth employment in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank; 2014.
16. Mitra J, Abubakar YA. Knowledge creation and human capital: Graduate entrepreneurship. Education and Training. 2011;53(5):462-479.
17. Heinert SB, Roberts TG. Engaging rural youth through agricultural education. J Agricultural Education. 2016;57(4):168-182.
18. Ekanya W, Oluoch-Kosura W. Factors influencing agricultural enterprise choice among youth in Uganda. African J Agricultural Research. 2019;14(35):20252032.
19. Naamwintome BA, Bagson E. Youth in agriculture: Prospects and challenges in Ghana. Net J Agricultural Science. 2013;1(2):60-68.
20. Mueller V, Thurlow J. Youth employment, agricultural transformation, food security. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2019;1876:1-38.
21. White B. Agriculture and the generation problem: Rural youth and the future of farming. IDS Bulletin. 2012;43(6):9-19.