This study assessed the livelihood status of smallholder dairy producers across four dairy production systems (DPSs) in southern Ethiopia: cash crop-based (CCB), cereal-based (CB), enset-based (EB), and diversified crop-based (DCB). Using data from 360 household interviews (CCB = 60, CB = 87, EB = 101, and DCB = 112), the study identified significant variations in livelihood capital endowments. Among these, CCB had higher social, physical, and financial capital endowments than the other systems. Social capital was highest in the CCB system followed by CB, alongside higher index values for dairy support access and dairy training programs, while cooperative membership proved was more prominent among producers in the DCB system. Physical capital in the CCB system was higher, particularly in terms of upgraded housing and increased ownership of improved cattle breeds, and financial capital growth was higher in association with increased dairy income and stronger savings. The overall human and natural capital indices did not differ significantly across DPSs ( P > 0.05). Among key indicators, CCB showed the highest values for education access, market access, and labor utilization. For natural capital, grazing land was most abundant in DCB and EB, while CCB demonstrated the highest cow dung utilization for biogas, despite no significant differences in overall natural capital values across DPSs. Significant positive correlations were observed between social-financial capital ( r = 0.455, P < 0.01) and social- physical capital ( r = 0.529, P < 0.01). The livelihood radar analysis further showed distinct configuration of livelihood capitals across the systems, with relatively higher capital levels in the CCB system and lower levels in the EB system. These findings highlight differences in livelihood capital configurations across DPSs and suggest that interventions should be tailored to system specific gaps within the five capital frameworks to enhance sustainable livelihoods and resource use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azeze et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: