Efficiency Analysis and Identification of Best Practices and Innovations in Dairy Sheep Farming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with a very important topic, since at this time of ecological transition all livestock sectors are under the magnifying glass. The article is basically well articulated, but needs some important revisions before being published. 

Specific comments: 

 Introduction

The introduction to the article also contains the literature review for both the sector in general and the topic of innovations. 

In order to improve this part, I recommend dividing this section into two subsections.

In the first, the introduction, in which the problem is set out and the hypothesis research question and literature gap are clearly stated.

In the second, literature review, the topic should be better focused and the theoretical contribution enriched. I suggest to read these 3 papers to see how to improve this two part

 Vecchio, Y., De Rosa, M., Pauselli, G., Masi, M., & Adinolfi, F. (2022). The leading role of perception: the FACOPA model to comprehend innovation adoption. Agricultural and Food Economics, 10(1), 1-19.

Madau, F.A., Arru, B., Furesi, R. et al. Public perception of ecosystem and social services produced by Sardinia extensive dairy sheep farming systems. Agric Econ 10, 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00225-8

Almadani, Mohamad Isam, Peter Weeks, and Claus Deblitz. "COVID-19 Influence on Developments in the Global Beef and Sheep Sectors." Ruminants 2.1 (2021): 27-53.

Materials and methods and results

The materials and methods are well presented, also in an expository manner as well as the results

 Conclusions

The conclusions should be strengthened with some additional policy considerations. In the concluding section, therefore, once the results have been discussed, one should consider how the findings can contribute to filling the literature gap on the one hand and to policy discussions on the other, thus providing policy implications. To this end, I suggest reading the following article that may help to add interesting results

I recommend reading the following article

Atzori, Alberto Stanislao, et al. "Sustainability in the Sardinian sheep sector: A systems perspective, from good practices to policy." Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (2022).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, attached you will find the file with our repsonses to your comments. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major comments

In my opinion, it would be better if the title contains the geographical indication (e.g., "... dairy sheep farming in France", or "...in French dairy sheep farming") like the previous papers of the corresponding Author.

Pag. 5 - lines 189-198: the Authors stated that small-sized semi-estensive dairy sheep farms in France are positively associated with efficiency. But these findings are in contrast with previous studies that showed that large-sized herds (intensive dairy sheep in Greece and extensive meat sheep in France) were positively associate with technical efficiency. Any explanations or hypothesis about this difference? Please report.

Furthermore, the Authors suggested that sheep farms, in order to increase their production value and productivity, could "adjust to an optimal size"? What would the optimal size be? Based on...? Please explain.  

Minor comments

Pag. 1 - line 1: please select the type of paper

Pag. 8 - line 270: please delete double parenthesis ))

Pag. 9 - line 289: are the Authors sure that the reported percentage value (2%) is correct?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, attached you will find the file with our repsonses to your comments. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article investigated the technical efficiency of extensive or semi-extensive dairy sheep farms in France and identified practices and innovations which could improve farm efficiency. It is essential to understand the differences between “efficient” and “less efficient” farms in existing farming systems to able to improve farm technical efficiency and therefore their sustainability. This research brings new information to the dairy sheep sector.

Well written paper.

 

General comments

Abstract: The results are missing from your abstract with only the last 2 sentences that briefly presented your results. I would suggest shortening the method and present the main differences identified between efficient and inefficient farms and the main observed practices implemented by efficient farmers.

Throughout the paper, in your model and analysis, you used the number of ewes in the flock. As your study is on dairy sheep farm, I assumed it was the number of ewes lactating. Please add this information in your text and tables.

Results & Discussion: This section is long with a lot of information, I would suggest adding some headings to help the reader and structure it a little more.

Conclusions: Your conclusion is too long and need to be shorten. I suggest removing paragraph 1 and 2 of your conclusions to really focus on your findings and output.

What would the next steps once inefficient farms become efficient with their existing farming systems? Your discussion and conclusion are lacking perspectives, maybe add that in these sections, as surely some changes can be done to these systems to improve their sustainability, especially related to purchased feed costs.

 

Specific comments

Abstract

Line 16: add a comma after “In this study”.

Line 19: change to “rear either Manech or Basco-bearnaise, and Lacaune breeds”

Line 22: I am not sure that “appropriate” is the right word here as the farm structure also depends on the situation of the farm and its resources. I would use optimum/optimal or most efficient farm structure.

Lines 23-26: I would remove this sentence to add more on your results.

 

Introduction

Line 45-47: please change to “On one hand, farmers and processors face …, while on the other hand, they need …”

Line 51: add a comma after “At European level”

Line 53: add a comma after “To cater those needs”

Line 56-58: I would change it to “Only farms that adopt innovative solutions and modernise their management practices will likely be able to increase their competitiveness and remain sustainable [10].”

Lines 69-70: I would change it to “The efficiency analysis identifies the farms that use the full potential of the existing production technology …”

Line 70: remove “Fully”

Line 79-82: long sentence, please rephrase it

Line 89: remove “herein”

Line 90: add “either” after rearing.

 

Materials and Methods

Line 126: add “either” after rearing.

Line 132: remove “the using”

Line 133: add a comma after the reference.

Line 134: clarify whether it is the number of ewes lactating.

Line 147: I am not sure to see the difference bet the “Reproduction” and “Breeding” categories as it is the same thing. Maybe clarify these in the methods and in the results as even with Table 7, I would have all of these practices in 1 category as it is the same thing.

 

Results & Discussion

Lines 163 and 165: add the symbol of percent and remove the words.

Lines 189-190: I would change it to “small-sized farms were more efficient than larger farms” instead of positively associated with as it is suggesting a relationship like the smaller the farms are the more efficient, which is not always the case.

Lines 193-194: same as previous comments, I would write as “were more efficient than”

Line 195: remove “one the other hand”

Line 198: what optimal size are you talking about here? adjusting their flock size can be a contributor/improvement of their use of resources, but it also depends on their geographical, economical and general situation and resources. Also, you found that farms with smaller flocks were more efficient than those with larger flocks, so do you mean that farms should reduce their flock size when you mention the optimal size? Need to clarify this point.

Line 201: change to “The composition of the gross revenue per ewe”

Line 208: when you say “diversify”, do you mean differ?

Lines 230-231: could this be due to a breed difference?

Lines 246-247: both groups do rely more on purchased feed, but combined, the inefficient farmers have lower feeding costs. Do feeding costs impact technical efficiency?

Lines 261-262: the numbers do not match Table 5 as in Roquefort area, efficient farms = 432 in Table 5 and 387 in the text, and inefficient farms = 457 in Table vs. 428 in the text.

Lines 275-276: I am not sure about this conclusion, even if I agree with it. In the Roquefort area, there are similar feeding costs between efficient and inefficient farms with slightly greater cost of purchased feed for efficient farms. Same in the Pyrenees, but with a greater global feed cost per ewe for the efficient farms. So I would say that it shows that the technical efficiency did not depend on feed cost per ewe, but it could be a significant way of improving the sustainability of the farm by using more home grown feed?

Line 289: I think the “(2%)” should be a (22%)

Lines 317-319: yes, but AI is harder to implement in sheep and therefore the success is more variable

 

Conclusions

Line 361: need to define GHG as you did not used it before

Lines 377-379: I would remove this sentence.

 

Tables

Table 4: change to “technically efficient” in the caption.

Add either in the table or as a note that it is the number of ewes lactating

 

Table 5: could you add, as you have done in Table 4, the TE values for the different efficient/inefficient groups in both areas? Are both inefficient groups similar in TE score and are the average farms the same?

In the “Labor” line, change the unit to “ewe/ALU”

 

Table 6: please complete the caption, what does “Highly important” means here?

Describe what are the types of practices in the caption.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, attached you will find the file with our repsonses to your comments. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Despite the author's efforts, I did not find any substantial improvement in the introductory and concluding parts. The added considerations are a continuation of what had already been stated, without contextualisation. There is a lack of enrichment of the literature as recommended. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for addressing the comments, it makes the paper clearer to read.

Author Response

Thank you for helping us improve our manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The article improved the structure a lot. The indications requested in the previous round of revisions have been implemented. After minor revision can be accepted: 

 

The revision is the need to better explain the role of the DEA in the study. 

I mean, in the line 130-134 is better to explode that part. 

 

I suggest to read this article:

 

Giulio Fusco, Pierluigi Toma & Yari Vecchio (2022): Efficiency, gender diversity and public aid: evidence from Italian agrifood sector, Applied Economics, DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2022.2128175

 

I hope to see soon published this article. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf