The study was carried out in five villages situated in Amahlathi, Mbhashe, Mnquma, Ngcobo, and Ngquza Hill municipalities, Eastern Cape Province. This included Upper Ngqumeya, Ku-Bafazi, Dudumashe, Ntibane and Goso shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. A Convenient sampling technique was used to select villages based on youth involvement in agricultural activities and the respondents’ willingness to participate in the study.

A total of 104 respondents were interviewed using a pre-tested structured questionnaire, from October 2012 to February 2014. The questionnaire covered

Source of vegetation and dominant plant species: adopted from Mucina and Rutherford, 2006.

demographic characteristics, land ownership status, contact with extension personnel, involvement in farming activities, funding, and constraints. The interviews were conducted using the vernacular Xhosa language but later translated to English.

Collected data were analysed using the Statistical Analysis System of 2003, version 9.1 [18]. Frequencies were determined using the PROC FREQ procedures [18]. The chi-square test was used to determine associations between the youth and their involvement in agricultural activities. Statistical significance was tested at 95% level, with all results with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Table 2 showed that most respondents who participated in this study were male (59.6%) compared to females (40.4%). The dominance of male participation in agricultural activities aligned with the findings of [19] [20] [21] in Nigeria, Eastern

Significant at * P ≤ 0.05, ** P ≤ 0.001 and NS not significant at P ≥ 0.05.

Cape, and Tanzania, respectively. Similar trends were reported from surveys conducted in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Nigeria, where men constituted a higher proportion than women [22] [23], reflecting the tendency towards male dominance in the livestock industry in most rural communities in Africa. This is contrary to a survey conducted by [24], who reported more than 50% of youth who participated in Zambia’s agricultural activities were females. Less participation of females in the farming activities in the study areas might be due to females’ involvement in other activities outside agriculture such as domestic activities (cleaning, cooking, and taking care of kids) and or non-farm activities (fashion design and hairdressing). Alternatively, it might result in males being more energetic and could be readily available for energy-demanding jobs related to farming, which tend not to attract females [25].

The most represented age group was 20 - 35 years old (74%), followed by the age < 20 years old (26%) of the total sample (Table 2). These results concur with [25] [26], who reported that youth age above 20 years tends to dominate agricultural activities. This implied that respondents were mainly youth, going by the definition of youth as a person aged 14 and 35 years [27]. But [28] [29] [30] had different results in Nigeria, Pakistan, and South Africa, where the majority of youth involved in agricultural activities were in the age bracket of 15 to 22 years old. High involvement of youth above 20 years on-farm activities earns income to feed their families as most youths are married in the study areas. These findings also agreed with [30], who reported that rural youth families have long been directly and indirectly dependent on agriculture as a source of income for their livelihood.

About 47.1% of youth who participated in agricultural activities were married. This conformed with the findings of [31]. Contrarily with our findings, [32] reported a high percentage of youth that are single and involved in agricultural activities and perceived that high percentage of single youth might be due to lack of job or just starting on a new job and they do not want to be distracted with other activities. Table 2 reveals that 52.9% of youth attained senior secondary education, 33% having post-matric, and 13.5% had primary education. It is assumed that the more percentage of educated youth involved in different economic activities, there is likely to be more improvement in rural areas’ development challenges. In agreement with [29], 29.3% of youth interviewed were middle to matric, 26.7% were above matric, and 23.3% were up to primary education level. The present study’s findings negate [24] results, finding that half (50%) of the sampled youth had only attained primary education in Zambia.

Table 2 showed that most of the respondents (52.9%) had household sizes comprising members 6 - 10, while others had 37.5% and 9.6% had less than 5 and above 10 household sizes, respectively. The mean family size was 5.3 members per household with a standard deviation of 2.8. The figure obtained in this survey was higher than the provincial and national average family size of 3.9 and 3.3, respectively [9]. Contrary to our findings, [33] reported that Somalia’s average family size was 5.9 people in a household. In general, family size differences may be attributed to the low level of family planning awareness in rural areas. Alternatively, many household members might be advantageous in providing labour to perform various agricultural activities.

Our study also observed that more than 80% of the youth belong to families with a farming background, whereas only 11.5% belong to families with a non-farming experience. This implied that most youth might have gotten the inspiration to be involved in agriculture from their parents, who were also engaged in farming. This is in line with [34] findings that more than 80 % of Pakistan’s youth who participated in agriculture belong to families with farm backgrounds. [35] reported that parent’s influence is considered an essential source of social capital.

Table 2 revealed that 72.1% of youths had an annual family income level < R20.000 while 24% has an income within R20.000 - R50.000 and 3.8% had income above R50.000. In agreement with [36], who attributed that parent’s contribution income increases youth involvement in agriculture activities by 0.2 %. High participation of youth in households where parents earn income rather than agricultural activities might be due to advanced technology like tractors rather than animals for soil preparation.

Table 2 showed that most (78.8%) of the youth were unemployed in the study areas. Similarly, [37] [38] reported high unemployed among youth in rural areas. High youth unemployment might lack job opportunities or skills and experience required in our study sites.

The majority of rural youth (51.9%) had been involved in agriculture for less than 5 years (Table 2). Another 39.4% had between 5 - 10 years, while the remaining 8.7% had above 10 years of farming experience. It is assumed that youth lacking experience might not have access to funding as they are incompetent. In contrast, youth with more than 5 years of farming experience can set realistic goals and are more committed to various farming activities. [39] [40] had different results when only most youth had 6 - 10 years and 11 - 15 years of farming experience in Imo and Katsina, Nigeria.

Land ownership is an essential asset for young people trying to earn a living in agriculture. The overall average landholding per household in the study area was 2.1 hectares (Figure 2). However, the average landholding per household varied among different gender, age group, farming enterprise, and family size. A significant proportion of land in the study area was allocated for homestead (55 %), followed by crop and vegetable production (30%) and rangelands (10%). A possible reason for this might be due to an increase in the human population, unfavorable land tenure systems, and customary practices. The findings concurred

with those reported by [41] in Kenya, where the average farm size per household in 2010 was 2.1 ha.

The association between youth demographic information, farm enterprise, and contact with extension personnel is shown in Table 2. Age (χ² = 5.519, P < 0.01) and farming experience (χ² = 43.981, P < 0.001) had a significant association with contact with extension personnel and farm enterprise, respectively. There was no significant difference between farm enterprise and contact with extension personnel with gender, marital status, educational level, household size, employment status, family background, and income per annum.

The majority of youth (70%) did not have extension contact in the past six months, while 30% had extension contact (Figure 3). This may be attributed to the low extension-farmer ratio. Lack of access to extension services deprives the youth of embracing improved technologies that will boost their productivity in family farming, especially those coming to a household with a primary income and no family farm background.

The results in Table 3 indicate that more than 50 percent of the youth were involved in vegetable and crop production, while 32.7% were in livestock and 10.6% in non-farming activities. Youth participation in agricultural activities is important for ensuring sustainable agricultural and rural development and food security [42]. More involvement of youth in vegetable and crop and livestock production might be due to the availability of arable land for production. It was also observed that youth are involved in non-farming activities such as fashion design and bricklaying. Due to agriculture’s physical nature, females have more

strength in planting, removing weeds, harvesting, feeding poultry and pigs, and marketing agricultural products. Males have more strength in activities that need intensive physical labour, such as planting, irrigation, herding of cattle, and milking.

Family support (38.5%) followed by government (20.0%), non-governmental organizations (24.0%), and own savings (8.7%) were the major source of funding for youth involvement in agricultural activities (Table 4). The observations agree with those reported by [43], who reported that the government is one of the major funding sources for any developmental programs in South Africa.

The results in Table 5 showed that land ownership (22%), high inputs costs (17%), access credit (15%), visibility of extension personnel (15%), access to market (11%), and low returns (8%) were the most rated constraints. This contrasts with [44], who reported that agricultural knowledge (26.7%) was the most reported constraint by rural Punjab in Pakistan. Among the constraints, landownership, high inputs costs, and access credits were the most ranked hindering the youth involvement in agricultural activities (Table 5). In agreement with [28],

who rated difficulty accessing credits, lack of access to production inputs, and low returns as significant constraints to youth participation. However, these findings contradict [45], who stated that commitment is a major impendent. High costs of mechanization (7%) and farming knowledge (5%) were amongst the least rated constraints (Table 5). [46] highlighted that access to credits and land availability was amongst the most critical challenges facing rural youth in Nigeria. Visibility of extension personnel remains crucial for training and exposure to market access. However, poor visibility of extension personnel in this study hinders youth participation and capacity development agreement with [47]. I observed that increased agricultural productivity and improved income for the youth are achievable when effective extension personnel are put in place.