Sustainability of Rural Small-Scale Farmers Using a Thematic Content-Fed Analytic Hierarchy Process

Abstract

Small-scale dairy farming plays a pivotal role in the development of rural economies and has become a key source for job creation and poverty alleviation. However, the survival rate of these enterprises is compromised due to multifaceted challenges. As a result, the newly established or emerging small scale dairy businesses are not sustainable. The objective of this paper is to therefore investigate the determinants affecting sustainability of small-scale dairy enterprises and to develop a framework for failure minimization. The study used purposive snowball sampling techniques to invite small-scale dairy farmers (SSDFs) in Bojanala Platinum District, North West Province, South Africa. The data were analyzed using thematic content analysis (TCA) for factor derivation and ranked using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The study revealed the high cost of agricultural inputs, medication and electricity, followed by a lack of agricultural services, and unpredictable weather patterns due to climate change, which were regarded as priority factors proliferating high failure levels and unsustainability by the local farmers. Meanwhile, loadshedding and cattle theft were regarded as low priority factors affecting farming sustainability. The high level of failure in this industry diminishes the chances of farmers to obtain funding or credit; poorer farmers end up falling back into poverty as a consequence of market circumstances beyond their control. The paper concludes that small-scale dairy farming should be revised as part of a broader livelihood strategy by all stakeholders, while continuously pursuing alternative access points to achieve prosperous rural livelihoods, local market information and access, and risk optimization. With the prospects of future climate, geopolitical and environmental crisis, considering how local small-scale dairy farmers (SSDFs) react and use information technology is vital to their sustainability and providing policy relevant knowledge. Furthermore, the SSDFs should be exposed to agricultural funders in their localities, and also access to agricultural sector training authority (AGRISETA) services should be made available for local farmers to receive training for proposal writing to apply for funds.

1. Introduction

Small-scale dairy farming plays a pivotal role in the development of most economies, particularly in low class and middle-income countries, with job creation and poverty alleviation, and income distribution provision [1,2]. The creation and sustainability of these enterprises are critical for long term monetary prosperity, development of the rural market and local economic growth [3,4]. However, the survival rate of these enterprises is compromised due to multifaceted challenges which are socioeconomic and geopolitical, and further impede farming activities and rural development [5,6,7]. Although there is ample evidence in the literature that small-scale farming activities can improve rural economies [8,9,10], the concern of financial instability proliferations under the current operational structure suppresses this potential.

Small-scale dairy farmers (SSDFs) experience increasing failure of multiple extents [11,12] due to their different geographic and politically economic contexts. These differences are critical in understanding what constraints and opportunities they face, and which types of interventions can be effective. Disaggregating the small-scale dairy farming enterprises in relation to their context is essential for understanding the nature of the transformation challenges. A review of the three-fold context is solicited in this study: the first is the areas of prolonged crisis and conflict. The recent COVID-19 pandemic is a great example which overarches the prolonged crisis and conflicts felt in the small-scale dairy enterprises, which among all other agricultural activities were impeded by travel and movement restrictions to curb the spread of the pandemic. Several studies [13,14,15,16] endorsed adoption of technology, modifying business models, managerial resourcefulness and leadership, process innovations, and flexibility of the business as propellants of survival, achieving competitiveness during times of distress and improved business performance realization.

This narrative was reaffirmed by Ortiz et al. (2023) who reported that farmers were willing to pay for training courses on water governance, and adoption of water conservation practices [17]. However, due to lack of government support, lack of educational opportunities, location of farmers, low knowledge of digital technologies, low investments, financial deficiencies and bank reluctance to issue financial assistance in the form of loans to the SSDFs, most these local small-scale farmers are still to adopt technology usage to improve capital returns, on farm business performance and operational efficiency [18,19,20].

The second context is peripheral areas where there are inhibited environmental conditions for agriculture and services such as lack of proper roads, market access, agricultural extensions and financial assistance. Literature affirms that economic, environmental, and technological issues [21,22,23,24,25,26], also unpredictable weather patterns, disease, lack of agricultural services, lack of capital, poor roads and lack of market access [9,27,28,29,30,31,32] constrain the farmer sustainability, resilience and farming business performance. The third area encompasses environmental conditions and connectivity which provide potential for commercially oriented small-scale agriculture, but this potential has not yet been exploited in the rural small-scale dairy setting.

The rationalities of areas of prolonged crises and conflict may in some instances overlap with the other two contexts. Within any of these cited contexts, there exist a wide range of characteristics of individual farmer practices that can impede their commercial potential and poverty status. These include land size, economic activity, human capacity, socioeconomic and demographic factors. However, strategies to support the SSDFs in most of the developing economies neglect the effects of these characteristics and the context in which they occur. These risks lead to low productivity and unsustainability in the dairy activities [33,34,35]. Poorer farmers often find themselves falling back into poverty as a result of these irrationalities which are in most cases beyond their control [36,37].

The small-scale dairy farming industry needs to be revised as part of a broader livelihood strategy by all stakeholders while continuously seeking alternative entry points for prosperous rural livelihoods, local market access and risk optimization [38,39]. This means provision of support for transition to more collaborative farming and community supported agricultural activities for those with interest and resources [40,41,42,43,44,45,46].

These transitional approaches, however, might take some time to be realized and effected in the local small-scale dairy farming context, thus making the future for local small-scale dairy agriculture seem uncertain in terms of market access, technology, socioeconomic factors and political influence. Regardless of these seeming uncertainties, it is necessary to consider the transformation of small-scale dairy farming in terms of possible future scenarios. The first scenario is the business as usual approach; the future develops along patterns that do not address critical challenges of food security [47]. The situation for small farmers improves marginally in terms of general food security and access to new markets, but they are strongly affected by climate change, unequal distribution of economic development, technological innovation, and investments [48,49,50,51]. Another scenario is moving towards sustainability; improvements in socioeconomic and environmental domains improve reasonable and sustainable access to basic human services, improve food security, and significant progress towards resource-efficient production and consumption [47,49,50].

The benefits for SSDFs are reduction in income inequality, poverty, and hunger, and also gaining marginal access to basic services [5,18,52]. In stratified societies, a highly divided global society presents greater challenges to sustainability and inclusive development. The elite protect their self-interests and direct their decision-making power to unsustainable development, which gives rise to growing poverty and food insecurity, increased resource depletion, and exacerbated regional and global fragmentation resulting from protectionist policies [39,47,53]. The transformations of small-scale dairy agriculture can only be driven through deeper national and local understanding and alliances for change that creates political will for policy reform and public and private investments to optimize the efficiency, competitiveness, and sustainability of small-scale farmers who are trapped in rural poverty or transitioning to alternative employment [54,55].

The industry should further be re-envisioned to promote the production of healthy dairy products within environmental limits, while also enhancing peoples’ livelihoods, reducing pressure on young people to migrate, and achieving sustainable goals [43,56,57,58]. This can be through transformation of policy and practice that is grounded in systems thinking, supported by synthesis of research and underpinned by conceivable scenarios to assess trade-offs and policy options [59,60,61]. Facilitating research activities to determine the most effective policy options and management practices is seen from three aspects, namely the value-added aspect, the effectiveness aspect of waste absorption, and the market opportunity aspect [62,63].

The long-term effects of a well sustained small-scale agriculture are that when SSDFs earn more, they inject their incomes directly into the rural economy, creating growth and diversification [7,47,64]. To achieve this, there should be a direct linkage between farmers and consumers, where consumers purchase directly from the farmer [65]. This means investing in storage and transport infrastructure to reduce waste and it also means investing in digital technologies so that farmers can access market information and trends, especially during times of distress [66,67]. Another future aspect of improvement is investing in research and innovation that benefits local SSDFs; currently researchers tend to neglect these. This research needs to be complemented by technical advice, training and information and communication technology [62,63].

The South African democratic government inherited a dual agricultural sector in 1994. On the one hand, there were well-resourced and predominantly white-owned commercial farms. Additionally, there were poorly resourced small-scale and subsistence Black-owned farms [68]. The differences in fortune between these groupings of farmers stem from the enduring effects of segregation policies and systems from the previous colonial and apartheid regime. The most notable of these policies and institutional measures include the 1912 Land Bank Act and Land Act [69], 1926 Agricultural Credit Act [70] and 1968 Marketing Act [71].

The Bojanala Platinum District (BPD) in North West Province, South Africa experienced the negative ramifications of the apartheid regime. This changed during the post-apartheid transition, which came with an urge to reform and uplift the previously disadvantaged farmers and to make the South African agriculture sector inclusive. New farmers emerged, mainly as small farmers from Black communities. Some White farmers left the trade to coastal market which was more profitable [72,73]. The initiatives to uplift the small-scale farmers came as a variety of funding incentives for agricultural farming, the MAFISA (Micro Agriculture Finance Institution of South Africa) program was one of them and offers financial assistance to SSDFs to run existing agricultural businesses, start new agricultural businesses and be able to fully commercialize agricultural operations [74,75,76].

Other government funding opportunities include, the cooperative incentive scheme (CIS), land redistribution for agricultural development (LARD) which has a planning grant among land acquisition grants, Isvande Women’s Fund (IWF) to recruit and promote women in agriculture and the Agricultural Youth Fund (AYF) [77,78]. However, these schemes do not cover all fields of interventions (they are a startup capital to build an initial asset base), they lower the farmers’ costs of doing business. They need to be adapted to the socioeconomic setting of each area and leave room for financial innovations beyond the scope of the schemes. Additionally, it is difficult for rural SSDFs to secure this financial assistance because of the stringent conditions. In the BPD small-scale dairy farming sector, many SSDFs are not demonstrating the level of proficiency of historically White dairy farmers as milk quality and quantity is decreasing. Moreover, the SSDFs did not survive for long [79]. Apart from the milk scarcity and unsustainability of SSDFs in the area, other problems were also showing, such as the failure to contribute to employment and others [79,80]. The mass of problems within the SSDFs in the BPD need to be addressed, and a scientific study was warranted as a result to inform possible policy and managerial interventions. This study, therefore, seeks to investigate the factors affecting sustainability of the SSDFs using a hybrid method (AHP and thematic content analysis).

2. Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the AHP framework, which aids decision makers in the organization and analysis of complex problems in a hierarchical and systematical manner Saaty (1980) [81]. The AHP theory is a widely used technique, with a wide spectrum of applications, which includes human resources, the economy, transport administration, and sustainability in energy systems, and agriculture amongst others. The AHP method is pivotal when a numerical value needs to be assigned to a potential action or alternative. It is an effective technique which gives improved findings for tangible and intangible characteristics of a judgment. The AHP is completed by TCA.

Small-scale dairy farming contributes significantly to the disposable income of farm households and local economic growth. This sector generates employment opportunities and also supports ecological balance and sustainability. However, the affordability constraints impede the operational dynamics. This study discusses through literature, the variables which contributed to the unsustainability of the local SSDFs.

Despite the countless profitability benefits of cattle fattening yields, Jibrin et al. (2023) reports that the feed needed for cattle fattening takes over 83% of the total variable costs, making farmers unprofitable in a profitable market [82]. Feed boosts dairy production and accounts for approximately over 70% of total expenses [83]. However, in Sarica et al. (2022) over 72% of the total feed consumption was observed among SSDFs who had low milk production levels, highlighting the high cost of feed challenge and low productivity among farmers [84]. Jahan and Salam (2023) also underpinned the predicaments of feed affordability by small-scale farmers and their reliance on traditional feed, which affects the milk quality and production [85]. A breakdown of farmer profits and production contributions was solicited by Paternina-Acosta et al. (2021), feed for high and low milk producers accounted for 21.9% and 20.3%, respectively, while the total net income was USD 6.64 and USD 4.64 [86]. Their daily productions were 19.44 L/day and 13.85 L/day, respectively. The low producing farmers opted for cheaper feeds hence the low production levels. The high cost of medication/treatment was reported by Kizza et al. (2022), Lahari et al. (2023), and Tiantong et al. (2023) as an impediment in the operational dynamics of the farmers [87,88,89]. Researchers [90,91,92] on the other hand, reported that the high cost of electricity also compounded the farmers’ sustainability, with farmers spending more, around 5000 euros on electricity bills yearly.

Cattle sickness affects all farmers, and its effects are felt across the entire dairy supply chain, which includes the SSDFs. Heat stress, which is a series of conditions resulting in overheating of the body. Animals are also affected, and its occurrence is seen when heat gain from the environment and metabolism surpass heat loss by radiation [93] (Wang et al., 2020). In Molinari et al. (2023), the effects of heat stress contributed towards low production, however, when evaporative cooling was applied as a mitigation the latter was not observed [94]. In another study by Moje et al. (2023), the majority of the farmers administered medication to their sick cattle, around 57% vaccinated their cattle, and an adherence to the use of personal protective measures was observed [95]. The constraints farmers experienced were lack of footbaths, isolation areas for sick cattle or newly introduced cattle, and monitoring of the cattle health status. Nyokabi et al. (2023) profiled the use of cameras by farmers in capturing cattle sickness among other livestock farming constraints [96]. Mastitis was a common disease experienced by the zero-grazing farmers in the region. Roblin et al. (2023) highlighted the revenue losses due to cryptosporidiosis among farmers [97]. Other researchers [22,98,99,100,101,102,103,104] devised innovative approaches to track and mitigate livestock sickness occurrence in the dairy farming enterprises.

Concerning power outages, Huitu et al. (2020) reported that approximately 4.6% of the total monthly milk production loss was incurred by the dairy industry [104]. In Daly (2021) power outages proliferated cases of mastitis [105]. Food crises and diesel costs for generators further constrain the farmers as a consequence of power outage, which compromise their sustainability [106]. In many developing countries, livestock significantly contributes to people’s welfare, mainly in rural communities, but livestock theft [107,108] and predation [109,110,111] are some major challenges. It is important that farmers work together to alleviate some of the challenges experienced to safeguard the small-scale market and achieve sustainability.

To improve the efficiency of SSDFs, it is vital to invest in cost-effective machinery and equipment. However, in the BPD the lack of cost-effective tools is a common problem for many farmers. Various machinery and equipment are needed for small dairy farming, including shelter (i.e., a cowshed that protects cows from rain or cold winter weather), feeding, milking, cooling and storage equipment. Dairy farmers, especially in small-scale milk production, experienced challenges with most of these tools. Studies [67,112,113,114] have shown that SSDFs encounter barriers such as a lack of equipment/machinery and human resources and milking technology [19,115,116] which affects the quality of their milk production. The lack of local government and agricultural extension officers’ support is another constraint affecting farmer sustainability. Previous studies [7,117,118,119,120,121] report the findings of a lack of interaction and priority setting between agricultural extension services, lack of information dissemination concerning agricultural activities and lack of subsidies by the local government as major problems faced by dairy farmers.

Research Gap

To map the strength, weakness, opportunities and threat aspects (SWOT) of a small-scale dairy processing farm, Van Parys et al. (2023) used SWOT analysis blended with AHP to assess three collaborative scenarios using an aseptic filling machine case study to determine farmer perceptions and preferences [122]. Farmers preferred the mobile as it offered flexibility and less financial investment. Additionally, the issue of financial benefits was highlighted as an influencing factor for farmer collaboration. Ferdinanto et al. (2023), on the other hand, proposed dairy cattle manure waste management as a catalyst in proliferating income generation among farmers, reducing environmental pollution, ensuring farmer resilience and sustainability [62]. The AHP synthesis ranks vermicompost as a viable income generator from cow manure. Khan et al. (2023) propose that stakeholders should remain resilient and long-term sustainable in order to hierarchically perform their risk analysis in a livestock supply chain looking at the supply risk, production risk, post-harvest risk, market and price risk for informing their strategic planning and policy transformation [99]. In another study, Gebru et al. (2023) profiled using AHP with conservational preservation technologies for prolonging vegetable shelf life. Economic viability and applicability of the technology were the main criteria for farmer consideration, while capital cost and skill of the workers were the main sub-criteria farmers needed to consider when selecting best preservation technologies [123]. In Tunisia, Zlaoui et al. (2023) investigated the possibilities of solar power implementation in increasing the SSDFs profits [67].

From the cited studies above, the challenges affecting farming performance, sustainability, resilience and profitability were solicited. This increase in failure of multiple extents [11,12] (Ali et al., 2023; Rendahl & Akerman, 2023) is due to their varied geographic and politically economic contexts. These differences, however, are critical in understanding what constraints and opportunities they face, and which types of interventions can be effective. Disaggregating small-scale farming enterprises in relation to their context is essential for understanding the nature of the transformation challenges. However, most of these cited studies disregarded the issue of economic viability which is prominent in most rural small-scale dairy farming businesses. The studies also did not profile how rural small-scale farmers in developing economies can improve performance, remain resilient and sustainable in the long run with financial deficiencies. The results of the literature gap are summarized in

Table 1. Summary of knowledge gap areas.

Researcher	Focus	Findings	Knowledge Gap Areas
Van Parys et al. (2023) [122]	Evaluating collaborative scenarios for short food supply chains: a case study on high-level processing technology	Small-scale stakeholders preferred mobile packaging due to its flexibility in the financial aspect. Additionally, collaboration was mainly influenced by financial benefits.	Three collaborative scenarios are proposed, and some appear to have similar features. However, the connections and synergies between these collaborations is not adequately addressed. Additionally, the documentation on how the aseptic filling machine could address the need for adapted processing equipment is not known.
Ferdinanto et al. (2023) [62]	Dairy Cattle Waste Management as an Effort to Increase the Income of Producer Cooperative Members (Case Study on KPSBU Lembang, West Java Province)	Farmers should carry out dairy Manure waste management efforts to produce biogas, vermicompost, and compost, among others, to increase income generation	Focus was only based on cooperative membership and not inclusive of other farmers in and around the region to also take advantage of the novelty of waste management as a source of income generation.
Khan et al. (2023) [99]	Risk assessment in the livestock supply chain using the MCDM method: a case of emerging economy	The study found that farmer resilience and survival depend on their supply risk, production risk, post-harvest risk, market and price risk assessments, control and mitigation.	The study neglects the financial burden of farmers in developing economies and also it is not clear how the farmers could mitigate the risks incurred.
Gebru et al. (2023) [123]	Selection of conventional preservation technologies using an analytical hierarchy process.	The study reported economic viability and applicability of preservation technology as the main criteria for farmer consideration, while capital cost and skill were the main sub-criteria for consideration when selecting preservation technology.	The study shows great potential for sustainability and improving product lifespan mainly for medium and large enterprises who have capital power. However, the study did not profile long term alternatives for preservation technology inclusive of poverty borderline farmers.
Zlaoui et al. (2023) [67]	Can Small-Scale Dairy Farm Profitability Increase with the Use of Solar Energy Technology? An Experimental Study in Central Tunisia.	The results showed that investing in solar can improve the profitability of small-scale farmers.	The results lack generalizability when viewed in the context of South Africa, where load shedding is a norm, and lack of government support and financial instability in majority of the small-scale farmers. Affordability of solar panels is beyond reach.

Source: [67,99,122,123].

below. This study, therefore, attempts to profile the local small-scale farmer constraints, opportunities and long term transformative strategies to safeguard their profitability, resilience and sustainability.

3. Materials and Methods

This study used a qualitative, exploratory and descriptive research approach to answer the research objective. Given the lack of information on the challenges faced by SSDFs in the Bojanala Platinum District (BPD), North West Province (NWP), there is a need for exploratory qualitative studies. Kim, Sefcik and Bradway (2017) used a systematic research review to show that qualitative description research offers a detailed textual description of respondents [124]. This paper follows their approach. The study was conducted in the BPD of the NWP, South Africa. BDP is one of the four districts in the NWP. It is subdivided into five sub-regions (See Figure 1 below).

The area of the district is 18.333 km² and according to the census 2010 it boasted about 1,507,505 people, of whom 52.7% were men, and 47.3% were women [126] (Stats SA, 2011). The dominant ethnic group (55.3%) living in the area are Setswana-speaking people. The study participants consisted of small-scale dairy farmers (SSDFs), by SSDFs we mean farmers who produce less than 500 L of milk per day [127] (Manzana, 2008). The study population included all farm owners/managers/farm representatives of the registered small-scale dairy enterprises in the district. The study participants aged 18 years and older with three or more years of working experience managing the farm, who also agreed to participate in the study, were included in the study. Those who did not sign a consent form to participate in the study or decided not to participate for other reasons were excluded from the study. The study adopted non-probability, purposive, and snowball sampling techniques and recruited farm owners, managers, and representatives who met the inclusion criteria.

The researchers travelled to the locations where the participants resided to conduct in-depth face-to-face interviews. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide. The guide included questions related to participant demographics such as participant age, gender, race, place of residence, level of education, farm role, whether participants had any experience in farming and number of years farming, and the primary use for the cows and reasons for milking. To gain a clearer understanding of the challenges faced as a farmer, the following open-ended question was asked: “What are/were the challenges you are/were facing as a farmer?”. Though straightforward as it sounds, the guide was given to experts in the field for content validation and piloted before the actual data was collected.

The analysis was performed using the thematic content analysis technique [128,129] (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Braun & Clarke, 2012). The researchers first read through the transcripts several times to identify emerging themes that provided an understanding of the challenges faced by small-scale dairy farmers. After reading all transcripts, a list of similar topics was compiled, grouped per the theme. The AHP method is a widely used technique, with a wide spectrum of applications, which includes human resources, the economy, transport administration, and sustainability in energy systems, and agriculture amongst others [81]. The AHP method is pivotal when a numerical value needs to be assigned to a potential action or alternative. AHP is an effective technique which gives improved findings for tangible and intangible characteristics of a judgment [81]. TCA is a systematic approach used mainly by qualitative researchers to identify, organize, and offer insights into patterns of meaning within a data set. Through its flexibility, TCA propels the researcher to visualize and make sense of collective or shared meanings and perceptions. The method is a way of identifying what is common to the topic through dialogues and consultation and making sense of those commonalities that emerged [128,129]. In this study, the method TCA was used to select candidate challenges as criteria for inclusion in the AHP technique.

To ensure trustworthiness, Lincoln and Guba (1985) principles to ensure trustworthiness were applied [130]. Credibility was ensured through prolonged engagement with the farmers and member checks to enable them to correct or change what they viewed to be a wrong interpretation of their contributions. To ensure the dependability of the study findings, consistency was upheld in the detailed study methodology, such as data collection, which was checked for conveying a common message. Confirmability was confirmed by using multiple researchers to evaluate the results, interpretations, and recommendations. This study was part of a doctoral degree (PhD) research project of the first author, and as such, the ethical clearance for this study was obtained from Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University Research Ethics Committee (REF: SMUREC/S/324/2021:PG). All participants were informed of their confidentiality, benefits, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw from the study without penalty. The participants gave written informed consent before participating in the interviews. The study adhered to the principles of fairness, privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, and participants’ rights to voluntarily participate in the study.

4. AHP Application

The AHP process begins with breaking down the problems into objective, criteria and sub-criteria forming a hierarchical structure [81,131]. The values range from one to ten, which signify the relative importance of the criteria, sub-criteria in the hierarchy and alternatives (see

Table 2. Summary of Saaty, Ing’s and Rucitra’s intensity scale of importance.

Difference between Scores (lng (2021) [132])	Saaty’s (1987) [81] Intensity Scale of Importance	Definition	Explanation
0	1	Equal importance of criteria	Two challenges contribute equally to the objective
0.5	2	One criterion is slightly more important than the other	Experience and judgement slightly favor one challenge over the other
1	3	One criterion is moderately more important than the other	Experience and judgement moderately favor one challenge over the other
2	4	One criterion is moderately more (“plus”) important than the other	Experience and judgement moderately (“plus”) favor one challenge over the other
3	5	One criterion is strongly more important than the other	Experience and judgement strongly favor one challenge over the other
4	6	One criterion is strongly (“plus”) more important than the other	Experience and judgement strongly (“plus”) favor one challenge over the other
5	7	One criterion is very strongly more important than the other	A challenge is strongly favored and its dominance demonstrated in practice
6	8	One criterion is very, very strongly more important than the other	The evidence favoring one challenge over another is of the highest possible order of confirmation
≥7	9	One criterion is extremely more important than the other	The evidence favoring one challenge over another is of the highest possible order of confirmation

Source: Saaty (1987), lng (2021) and Rucitra (2018) [81,131,132].

).

As highlighted by Saaty (1987) the AHP methodology gives total authority to the decision makers, who are experts in the field of the study problem to give evaluations of decisions against each other lexicographically [81]. The decisions are classed according to the above table where each ranking asserts the priority of the decision according to the expert. In this study, the model developed (see Figure 2) was informed by discussion with local farmers who are still in the market, those who have left the formal market and is also complemented by extensive literature. The criteria were the challenges which the SSDFs have reported during interview sessions and grouped per theme using the TCA. To prioritize these challenges, we employed the approach by Ing (2021), which aggregates the total scores and finds the average of each criterion and sub-criterion (this is according to the main study objective) [132]. As stipulated by Saaty (1987) a consistency ratio below 10% is considered feasible to proceed with the analysis. The criteria and sub-criteria were obtained as themes and sub-themes from the thematic content analysis which minimizes the “expert biasness” observed in the standard AHP applications [81].

4.1. Evaluation Criteria

The thematic analysis of the data emerged with seven major themes, namely high cost, diseases, unpredictable weather patterns, power outage due to load shedding, cattle theft, Physical assets and agricultural services. The sub-themes were feed, fertilizer, medication, electricity, power failure, milking technology, equipment, government support and extension officers discussed below.

4.1.1. Theme 1: High Cost (HC)

More than two-thirds (72.22%) of the participants expressed extreme concern about the high costs of feed and fertilizer, which increases the burden on small-scale dairy farmers in rural areas. A tractor driver supported these operational costs, saying, “fertilizer and feeding these animals is very expensive”. This concern was also noted by one farmer representative in the production, who said, “We have a problem with high feed and fertilizer costs”. Concerning costs of animal medication, the processor stated, “Affordability of medication is our main problem”. One farmer supported this statement, who felt that “medication for cows is too costly, that is why we sell a few cows to afford medication for a longer period since we are not working”. The high electricity bills and frequent power failures experienced recently are major inhibiting factors in the dairy products supply chain. A participant made a remark, “High municipality bills (for electricity) cripple us”. Eight participants (33.3%) reported blackouts and the high electricity cost as hindering the farms’ running.

4.1.2. Theme 2: Diseases (D)

Vaccinations are designed to mitigate the risk and protect animals from many diseases. All the participants reported that their livestock get very sick too often, and it is sometimes difficult to identify whether the animal is sick or not. One of the farm owners supported this “tracking disease is challenging for us as small-scale farmers because we have to wait for the condition to be visible in some instances”.

Another farmer owner said, “sores in the teats make it hard to milk the cows and diarrhea in our cows is also another problem we are experiencing”. Despite these challenges, the participants believed that some form of medication is necessary to maintain the health of the animals, and to control and prevent diseases.

4.1.3. Theme 3: Unpredictable Weather Patterns (UWP)

Fifteen participants reported that seasonal fluctuations remain a concern in milk production, affecting the cows’ health and daily activities, including milking and feeding the cows. The farm owner said, “drought and irregular heat cause cows to die”. In contrast, the processor reported the impact of the changing weather patterns by saying, “unpredictable weather conditions cost us severely as cow wheels get swollen as a result of heavy rainfall”. The impact of rainfall was supported by a tractor driver who said, “when there is heavy rainfall, we cannot milk the cows and transportation of feed becomes more difficult”.

4.1.4. Theme 4: Power Outage Due to Load Shedding (POL)

Eight participants (33.3%) reported blackouts as hindering the farms’ running. A participant in the processing section of one SSDF said, “Load shedding … cripple us. Load shedding causes spoilage of milk due to temperature mismatch”. This concern was supported by another representative in the sanitation section who said, “Frequent power failure cause milk spoilage”. These echoes from various respondents emphasize that power failures experienced by SSDFs result in high milk spoilage. This in turn leads to high losses of revenue as spoiled milk cannot be used for commercialization anymore.

4.1.5. Theme 5: Cattle Theft (CT)

In recent years, livestock theft has become common in South Africa. Some participants reported that cow theft by employees and foreign nationals in the community negatively harms their business. One farm owner highlighted this, saying, “foreigners kill our cows at night and steal meat”. A farmer representation in the production supports this statement by saying, “theft of cows by foreigners is a problem”. Farmers also feared waking up in the morning to look for missing cows or cows with incomplete legs that end up dying. One of the farm owners highlighted this by saying, “employees and community members steal our cows”.

4.1.6. Theme 6: Physical Assets (PA)

To improve the efficiency of small-scale dairy farmers, it is vital to invest in the right machinery and equipment, but the lack of the right tools is a major problem for many farmers. Fifteen participants indicated that lack of equipment in the plants affects the quality of milk produced due to quality issues, and maintaining the equipment is costly for small-scale farmers. One of the farm owners said, “the quality of milk is low due to poor equipment. We end up using two-liter bottles because packaging equipment is costly”.

Some of the participants reported relying on manual labor and using outdated types of machinery. This statement was supported by a person in the production section who said, “Most of the work is done manually since there are not enough machines for us to use and the available machines are old and outdated”. Another person in the maintenance section said, “Tools we use are too old and outdated, and in some instances, manual operations are required to avoid machine failure and to affect production”.

4.1.7. Theme 7: Agricultural Services (AS)

The local government and agricultural extension officers’ support was said by all participants to be not as forthcoming as expected. Twenty-one (87.5%) participants indicated that the local government is not assisting the rural market adequately in terms of subsidies and agricultural extension services. As a result, small-scale farmers cannot improve in bridging the existing market gap due to a lack of access to essential information about the market and industry itself. One (4.2%) farm owner said, “Government is not inclusively supporting and funding the small-scale market, initiatives happen in certain districts and us, we are excluded in the initiatives”. Another farm owner said, “In our area, we lack empowerment. We rely on inherited or acquired knowledge and no access to market research”.

Another respondent indicated limited access to the market. He said, “No monitoring systems to accommodate all farmers entering the market, tighter rules for farmers to access the market, no milk vehicles in the rural areas, no research for rural farmers”. Further, another person in the production said, “lack of market information, management of animal health and poor access to extension services from the government” to highlight the need and urgency of extension officers to safeguard the collapse of the rural dairy market.

4.2. Obtaining Priority Weights and Consistency Ratio

To calculate the priority weights and consistency ratio, the AHP software calculator version 27.8.11 by Goepel (2013) was used [133].

Consistency ratio is calculated using the formula:

$$\mathrm{CI}=\frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}$$

CR = $\frac{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}}{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}$, RI is the random index.

5. Results

Demographic Characteristics

This study included a total of 24 SSDFs (all males). Their median age was 38 years (interquartile range: 34 years). Most (75%, n = 18) were aged 30 years and older. More than half (58.2%, n = 14) had primary education, 20.8% (n = 5) had secondary education, and 20.8% (n = 5) had tertiary education. Nearly two-thirds (65.2%, n = 16) of the participants were farm representatives and only 34.8% (n = 8) were farm owners. The reasons for milking were multipurpose, that is, no farmer was milking for a single reason as each one had multiple reasons for milking and the total reasons were 40. Some of the reasons were to sell to the community (70.8%, n = 17) and for household use (54.2%, n = 13 (see

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics for Participants (n = 24).

	n (%)
Age (years)
<30	6 (25.0%)
30–50	11 (45.8%)
>50	7 (29.2%)
Level of education
Primary	14 (58.2%)
Secondary	5 (20.8%)
Tertiary	5 (20.8%)
Farm Role
Owners	8 (34.8%)
Farm representatives	16 (65.2%)
Years of farming experience
<5	2 (8.3%)
5–10	8 (33.4%)
>10	14 (58.3%)
Reason for milking
Household use	13 (54.2%)
Sell to community	17 (70.8%)
Sell to other farmers	10 (41.7%)

Source: Primary Data.

)).

In

Table 4. Summary of themes and sub-themes that emerged from the interviews.

Themes	Sub-Themes
The high cost (HC)	Feed (F)
	Fertilizer (Fe)
	Medication (M)
	Electricity (E)
Disease (D)
Unpredictable weather patterns (UWP)	Cattle sickness (CS)
	Power failure (PF)
Power outage due to load shedding (POL)
Cattle theft (CT)
Physical assets (PA)	Milking technology (MT)
	Equipment (EQ)
Agricultural services (AS)	Government support (GS)
	Agricultural extension officers (EO)

Source: Primary Data.

, criteria and sub-criteria generated for the AHP analysis are given as themes and sub-themes obtained from the series of interviews. Seven main themes and ten sub-themes about the factors affecting sustainability of SSDFs in the BPD emerged. The themes were grouped according to what the farmers highlighted during the interview session, as an example, one farmer said, when asked “what is the challenge you are facing as a farmer” that “animal medication is not affordable”, which was classified under high cost as high cost of medication. Other themes and sub-themes were also classified in a similar manner and the results are summarized below.

Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical framework realized from the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the interview questions. The dependent variable is the sustainability of SSDFs, and the independent variables are given as the themes and sub-themes. The framework was derived to assist SSDFs in the region to identify the impeding factors at the farm level to realize sustainability and profitability. Level 1 consists of the objective of the study, and in level 2 and level 3 we find criteria which represent the factors which impede sustainability of the farmers.

The study went on to evaluate factors in level 2 according to the objective (level 1) using the AHP approach. The AHP synthesis yielded the themes according to their contribution to the overall goal. In completing the pairwise comparison matrix this study adopted the approach by Ing (2021), which finds the difference between each criterion and sub-criteria [132] and converts it to an equivalent form in Saaty’s intensity scale of importance [81]. The study AHP ranking revealed that HC had the greatest priority of 0.5713 and was ranked first, followed by UWP with 0.1578, D with 0.0786. The criterion with the least contribution was cattle theft 0.0386. The study findings are summarized in

Table 5. Evaluation of the sustainability criteria using AHP.

Criteria	Score	Weight	Rank
HC	34	0.5713	1
D	9	0.0786	3
UWP	15	0.1578	2
POL	8	0.0403	6
CT	8	0.0386	7
PA	14	0.0499	5
AS	21	0.0635	4
Total	109

Source: Primary Data.

.

The study also investigated the impact of level 3 factors according to their level 2 predecessors. The results were further assessed in relation to the main goal (level 1). The results revealed that under HC, M (weight = 0.3778) and F (weight = 0.0916) were the main sub-criteria affecting sustainability of the SSDFs. In the UWP the sub-criteria found problematic was CS (weight = 0.1420). Lack of equipment was also identified as a challenge by SSDFs (EQ, weight = 0.0789). The negative ramification of the lack of agricultural services was also raised by the farmers, with GS (weight = 0.0556) being the sub-criteria affecting the farmers. The results show that the SSDFs in the region lacked support from the government and experience, as seen with prolonged cattle sickness, and hence, was the reason why the farmers remained unsustainable. The results are summarized in

Table 6. Evaluation of sub-criteria using the AHP approach.

High Cost = 0.5713
Sub-criteria	Score	Weight	Contribution to level 1 (HC × Sub-criteria)	Rank
Fe	12	0.1249	0.0714	3
F	5	0.1603	0.0916	2
M	13	0.6613	0.3778	1
E	4	0.0534	0.0305	4
Total	34	1.00
Unpredictable weather patterns = 0.1578
Sub-criteria	Score	Weight	Contribution to level 1 (UWP × Sub-criteria)	Rank
CS	11	0.9	0.1420	1
PF	4	0.1	0.0158	2
Total	15	1.00
Physical Asserts = 0.0499
Sub-criteria	Score	Weight	Contribution to level 1 (PA × Sub-criteria)	Rank
MT	5	0.1430	0.0071	2
EQ	9	0.8570	0.0428	1
Total	14	1.00
Agricultural Services = 0.0635
Sub-criteria	Score	Weight	Contribution to level 1 (AS × Sub-criteria)	Rank
GS	13	0.8750	0.0556	1
AEO	8	0.1250	0.0079	2
Total	21	1.00

Source: Primary Data.

.

6. Discussion

This study intended to investigate the factors affecting sustainability of the SSDFs in BPD. From this study, the negative ramification of the main criteria HC (weight = 0.2982), followed by UWP (weight = 0.1578), AS (weight = 0.0635) and PA (weight = 0.0499) affected the SSDFs. HC had within its sub-criteria, F (weight = 0.0916), Fe (weight = 0.0714), M (weight = 0.3778), and E (weight = 0.0305), that were prioritized according to the main study objective using AHP and TCA. The findings are consistent with that of other researchers [84,85,86,88,89] who reported that farmers were constrained by feed and fertilizer unaffordability which resulted in low milk productivity and low net profits. However, for those farmers who can afford high quality feed, great net returns were observed, and their milk production quotas were high [86]. High costs of electricity were also reported in literature, where farmers spent around 5000 euros on electricity for production yearly [90,91,92] and proposed as an alternative the use of solar power to alleviate the high electricity bills and production glitches [67]. This solar approach innovation in the South African context appears somewhat far-fetched given the exorbitant pricing of solar power systems due to the unavoidable load shedding and farmers’ lack of financial capacity [67,105].

Concerning animal disease as observed in the study, Lebedev et al. (2023) reported similar challenges, while Adam (2021) reported how the adequate knowledge of farmers about zoonosis which is an infectious disease transferred between animals to humans and humans to animals, assisted farmers in mitigating the challenge of animal disease [134]. In our study a lack of knowledge concerning disease was observed, apart from poor educational background, the lack of local workshops on awareness of animal disease burden and importance of animal vaccination might be a contributing factor. In a study by Molinari et al. (2023) the effects of heat stress on cattle contributed towards low production, while when evaporative cooling was applied the latter was not observed [94].

In another study by Moje et al. (2023), the majority of the farmers administered medication to their sick cattle, around 57% vaccinated their cattle, while a lack of adherence to the use of personal protective measures was observed [95]. Additionally, lack of footbaths, isolation areas for sick cattle or newly introduced cattle, and monitoring of the cattle health status were the drawbacks faced by the SSDFs. One innovative approach by Nyokabi et al. (2023), using cameras in capturing cattle sickness among other livestock farming constraints can be adopted by the local SSDFs to improve their mitigation strategies for animal disease [96]. The financial deficiencies due to animal diseases are not a new phenomenon in the small-scale dairy fraternity. This is supported by Roblin et al. (2023) who highlights the revenue losses due to cryptosporidiosis among farmers [97]. While issues persist and sustainability is questioned in the small-scale dairy sector, many researchers [22,98,99,100,101,102,103,104] devised innovative approaches to track and mitigate livestock sickness occurrence in the dairy farming enterprises, and SSDFs in the region need to be concerted about the available tools which they can use to track and safeguard their livestock from diseases.

Several studies [9,32,135] have shown that weather conditions, particularly drought, have caused feed and seed shortages, resulting in feed prices being very high and unaffordable for SSDFs. Similarly, UWP were observed in this study, which compromised the sustainability of farmers, more especially in off seasons (winter) where farmers’ experience significant losses. These challenges are not under farmers’ control and have several implications, including crippling the farmer’s chances of surviving in the market.

Power failure and high electricity costs are national crises experienced by all sectors in second world countries, affecting the supply chain and causing significant loss of profit. In this study, the AHP and TCA results exposed high electricity costs and frequent power failure as sustainability challenges. Similar results were also reported by Huitu et al. (2020), who reported that approximately 4.6% of the total monthly milk production loss was incurred by the dairy industry due to load shedding [104]. Russ, daily (2021) also reports that the effects of load shedding affects milk production loss, storage facilities and returns, and it also proliferates cases of mastitis [105]. Food crisis, diesel costs for generators further constrain the farmers as a consequence of the power outages, which compromise their sustainability [106].

In low-income countries, livestock significantly contributes to people’s welfare, and rural upliftment. However, livestock theft [107,108] and predation [109,110,111] are major challenges, especially in areas along the borders of neighboring countries. In this study, even though the severity level of livestock theft was low (CT, weight = 0.0702), SSDFs mentioned that employees and foreign nationals kill their livestock at night, affecting their production and profit. In Botswana, a study conducted to determine the causes of livestock theft found that high unemployment rate, absence of police in the area and the readily available market for stolen livestock contributed to stock theft [136]. Though the causes of livestock theft in the BPD are unknown, a study carried out in two provinces of South Africa found that a lack of appropriate preventative measures led to the rise in stock theft [137].

To improve the efficiency of SSDFs, it is vital to invest in cost-effective machinery and equipment. However, the lack of cost-effective tools in BPD is a common problem for many SSDFs. Various machinery and equipment needed for small dairy farming includes shelter (i.e., cowsheds that protect cows from rain or cold winter weather), feeding, milking, cooling and storage equipment. Dairy farmers, especially in small-scale milk production, experienced challenges with most of these tools. Studies [67,112,113,114], have shown that SSDFs encounter barriers such as a lack of equipment/machinery and human resources and milking technology [19,115,116] and are a challenge for many farmers, which affects the quality of milk production. This study also reports a lack of equipment and milking technology. Another finding of the present study was AS. Previous studies [7,117,118,119,120,121] have also shown similar findings that the lack of interaction and priority setting between agricultural extension services, the lack of information concerning agricultural activities and lack of subsidy by the local government were the major constraints faced by the SSDFs. To achieve a more locally sustainable small-scale dairy farming business, a re-evaluation of the industry needs to happen inclusive of all role players and stakeholders to source innovations and insights. Additionally, the local small-scale dairy farming industry needs to be revised as part of a broader livelihood strategy while continuously seeking alternative entry points for thriving rural livelihoods, local market access and risk optimization [38,39]. This suggests that support for transition to more collaborative farming and community supported agricultural activities for those with interest and resources should be invoked [40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Other studies affirm that when events are carried out in sync/collaboratively failure experienced by an individual farmer can be easily mitigated, this can occur through synergy and crowdsourcing of information and assistance [41,138,139,140,141,142,143]. Local SSDFs in BPD need to work together as a collective to mitigate failure occurrence, improve farm performance, and become resilient and market competitive.

7. Conclusions

The study applied AHP in new applications, namely in the BPD area to highlight the challenges of SSDFs. This application to a new area led to development of a new framework for use in interventions to improve the conditions of the local SSDFs in BPD, demonstrating the study originality. Priority areas in the problems faced by the local SSDFs have also been exposed, reducing speculations regarding problem areas for sustainability of SSDFs, and easing a path for potential efforts towards improvement of small-scale dairy activities. While the quest to understand the full ramifications of sustainability challenges on small-scale dairy farming businesses have begun in earnest, the full understanding might not be straightforward. This is a consequence of the emergent nature of the industry, the varying levels of SSDFs preparedness and the geopolitical contextual differences surrounding the environment within which the small-scale dairy business finds itself. Nevertheless, with the prospects of future climate, political and environmental crises, considering how small-scale farmers react and use information communication and technology and farmer collaboration is vital in providing policy-relevant knowledge. Furthermore, the SSDFs should be exposed to agricultural funders in their localities, and also, access to AGRISETA services should be made available for local farmers to receive training in proposal writing to apply for funds. In future, studies can look at the knowledge and literacy of farmers in sourcing funds to support their dairy farming business.

8. Study Limitations

Despite the contributions made by this study, similar to any other study, it does come with some shortfalls that must be acknowledged. By choosing a single case of BPD in North West, South Africa as the context of this research there may be concerns about its generalizability. As a result, applying the findings from this work to other countries may be problematic, as different countries might have different geopolitical and socioeconomic contexts. However, the findings are transferable to other developing countries who may share similar settings. Additionally, this study has limitations that tend to be common in many exploratory studies, such as the small sample size that resulted from the use of 24 SSDFs. While we did reach a saturation point with the findings, there is the likelihood that the findings may not comprehensively represent the general population; consequently, the ability to generalize the findings presented in this study might be limited. Nevertheless, the findings of this study are relevant in providing the theoretical underpinnings upon which future studies can interrogate other disruptions affecting the local small-scale dairy farming community.