Farm to Fork: Indigenous Chicken Value Chain Modelling Using System Dynamics Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The present study is very interesting. The proposed initial integrated model for indigenous chicken is closer to real-life indigenous chicken micro-farm operations. The integrated value chain for indigenous chicken is the first step to understanding issues in indigenous chicken micro-farming. This study also proposes to develop and test policy scenarios to make an optimal value chain model. The issue that you dealt with is well described in the paper, and your work complements previous knowledge and opens up the possibility for further research. The Paper is technically and clearly written. The discussion is clearly written. The methodological details are explained well.
Remarks: The linguistic quality of the paper should be revised more carefully once more by an English expert.
The title summarizes the organization of the work well. On the contrary, the abstract deserves further study, especially for the part relating to the results.
The objectives of the manuscript could be improved with the other main aim of the study.
The Introduction does not indicate the status of current knowledge. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be a clear research hypothesis formulated. Please insert references about poultry nutrition and meat quality and why this is important, where can be used etc.
The experimental design is appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study. The experimental techniques are appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study. Also, the figures are very clearly presented.
If the suggested changes and information are correctly clarified, I believe that the manuscript is suitable for publication in Journal. Certainly, the results are important to scientific literature. My recommendation is to publish the paper after a MAJOR revision of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Warmest Greetings
I have tried to address all comments in my best capacity. Thanks for considering my paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewed study is interesting and concerns an important research problem. To improve the study, I recommend a few changes.
1. I propose to explain what the "value chain" and "integrated value chain" mean in the study.
2. It is advisable to supplement the information on the production scale and structure of poultry farms in Malaysia as a background for the analyses.
3. Section 4.2 presents the hypothesis and its confirmation. This section should have a broader title and more content.
4. Why were two micro-farms of native chickens and one medium-scale production enterprise selected for the analysis?
5. The source in figures 2, 5, 7, and 9 needs to be specified.
6. There is no need to write what is presented in the following subsection at the end of each subsection.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Warmest Greetings
I have tried to address all comments in my best capacity. Thanks for considering my paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Farm to Fork: Indigenous Chicken Value Chain Modelling Using System Dynamics Approach”, submitted for publication to Sustainability. The manuscript analyzes and develops an integrative value chain for indigenous chicken by linking small value chains and simulates the proposed model to understand the dynamics of interaction and behaviour among sub-systems.
Abstract: The abstract introduces the theoretical background, clarifies the purpose of the research and the methods applied. However, the authors should try to enhance grammar and use a more fluid English. Further, the authors are asked to introduce some short outcomes of the research and highlight the study area, namely Malaysia (as declared in line 97).
Introduction: The link between farm to fork purposes and the indigenous chicken farming is not clear and must be enhanced. Lines 43-44 are not enough to justify that “indigenous chicken farming is one of the sustainable food choices that fir the F2F strategy”. Hence, before describing the main (positive) characteristics on indigenous chicken farming, the authors are asked to develop a theoretical background (problem statement) related to the main critical issues associated with chicken farming along the entire supply chain, from farm to fork. Please, see the subsequent articles, which could help strengthen the description of the problem statement, and define some environmental, social and economic statistics and facts:
Bux, C., Amicarelli, V. (2022). Material flow cost accounting (MFCA) to enhance environmental entrepreneurship in the meat sector: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Management, 313, 115001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115001
Bux, C., Amicarelli, V. (2022). Separate collection and bio waste valorization in the Italian poultry sector by material flow analysis. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 24, 811-823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-022-01366-0
Pelletier, N. (2017). Life cycle assessment of Canadian egg products, with differentiation by hen housing system type. Journal of Cleaner Production, 152 (2017), 167-180, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.050
Pelletier, N., Ibarburu, M., Xin, H. (2014). Comparison of the environmental footprint of the egg industry in the United States in 1960 and 2010. Poulty Science, 93(2), 241-5510.3382/ps.2013-03390.
Literature review: Please, add some more details to describe the supply chain of indigenous chicken meat. Try to adopt a life-cycle approach to describe the supply chain and highlight primary and secondary input, as well as primary output and co-products and by-products. If the authore are willing to, they could enhance Figure 1 by providing more graphical details related to the input/output together with functions, processes and actors. Although the research focuses on the value chain, it is useful to provide readers with the description of the entire supply chain under both material/environmental and economic/managerial perspective.
Overall, spell-check grammar and use acronyms. For instance, sometimes “system dynamics” is provided as “SD”, some others without acronym.
Methodology: The methodology must be clarified and should follow a clear research framework.
I suppose that “Problem identification” should be a sub-section of “3. Methodology”, hence “3.1. Problem identification”.
Problem statement: The problem statement must be clarified, since at current is it not clear. How the problem statement relates to indigenous chicken? Please, add some more details.
What is it the “historical data in Figure 1”? You say that “the first graph illustrates the rate of mature chicken sold. While the second graph indicates the rate of DOC produced”, but I cannot see two graphs. Please, check. I suppose it refers to another figure. Is it Figure 2? Further, please define “mature chicken” and “day old chicken” and include in the main body of the text the meaning of the acronym DOC.
Thematic Analysis and Key Variables identification: The data collection process seem to be not suitable for scientific purposes. How the sample has been selected? According to which sampling strategy? How companies have been contacted? According to which characteristics? Is the sample representative, or is it an exploratory/pilot research? Please, make it coherent and comprehensive, and include also the description of the main biases related to the present sample.
Further, how the semi-structured qualitative interviews have been developed? According to which literature? How much questions? Which actors have been involved in the interview? Please, add details related to the interviews.
In the field of the thematic analysis (line 229-230), how variables have been identified from the themes to develop an integrated value chain? Why variables have been distinguished between stock and flows? I cannot understand how variables have been selected.
The sub-sections “Dynamics Hypothesis” and “Casual-Loop Diagram” must be clarified and better contextualized within the methods. Figure 3 (a) and Figure 3 (b) must be clarified. How the authors have generated such diagrams? How positive and negative signs have been associated with the arrows? Sometimes, signs are too small and not clearly visible in the Figure.
Results: I cannot understand where the section “Results” begins. Could the authors please adopt the subsequent structure, as suggested by the guide for authors? “Introduction”, “Literature review”, “Materials and methods”, “Results”, “Discussion” and “Conclusions”.
Results could be enhanced and better explained according to the methods adopted. I cannot see any answer given by the interviews, nor any quantitative results.
Conclusions and Implications: The authors must include some more implications related to the farm to fork strategy and the adopted method to tackle hunger and poverty, introducing sustainable eco-friendly products. Hence, as highlighted in the abstract, the authors should include some social, economic and environmental implications, either under the managerial or the theoretical perspective, associated with their research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Warmest Greetings
I have tried to address all comments in my best capacity. Thanks for considering my paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper can be accepted for publication!
All the best!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Warmest greetings
I have made minor changes
Reviewer 2 Report
the Authors considered the submitted comments. I think they improved this article significantly. It seems that they did not understand my question number 5. I meant why two farms were selected for the analysis, not one, five, or ten. The numbering of subchapters in chapter four is wrong. In addition, the references should be formatted by the requirements of the Sustainability journal. I encourage the Authors to take these comments into account.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Warmest Greetings
I have made minor changes
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript entitled "Farm to Fork: Indigenous Chicken Value Chain Modeling Using System Dynamics Approach". The authors have substantially revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestion and have developed a clear research, which could be interesting either for academics or practitioners. In the current version of the manuscript, the authors have improved the section "Introduction", as well as the section "Literature review" and the "Materials and Methods", making the research comprehensive. In its current version, I can suggest the acceptance of the manuscript for publication to Sustainability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Warmest Greeting
I have made changes. Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
