Sustainable Small Ruminant Production in Low- and Middle-Income African Countries: Harnessing the Potential of Agroecology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the paper addresses a research on an original and still little investigated topic; the method is clear and the final evaluations are well explained; to better analyze and deepen the final comments of the results obtained; comparisons with similar international studies are also lacking

medium quality of language

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a research on an original and still little investigated topic; the method is clear and the final evaluations are well explained; to better analyze and deepen the final comments of the results obtained; comparisons with similar international studies are also lacking.

 

Response to comment

Thank you for your comment. The analysis of agroecological practices concerning small ruminants in low- and middle-income countries is discussed comprehensively in Section 5 (Lines 577-578, 586 – 614 of the attached updated manuscript). While the manuscript primarily focuses on specific African countries, it also incorporates intercontinental perspectives. For instance, Table 2 references interventions from diverse regions: reference 107 from France, reference 108 from Europe and Australia, and reference 109 from Turkey. Additionally, references 92 and 95 pertain to India, reference 94 to China, and reference 96 to the USA. The study also includes references from African nations such as Ghana (references 115 and 118) and South Africa (references 116 and 117). These diverse references provide a broader and intercontinental context to the discussion, enriching the overall analysis of agroecological practices for small ruminants.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors presented an interesting paper on the sustainability of small ruminant production in low and middle-income countries. The paper is adequately elaborated, well-organised, and presents a very extensive review of vital problems.

It deserves publication, however, in my opinion, the methodology of the conducted study is not described in sufficient detail. It would raise the scientific soundness of the article if the Authors presented the steps of the research they have carried out. 

It would also be advisable to discuss the recommendations for policymakers in the countries mentioned. It would be also interesting to learn if there were any limitations to the study conducted.

There is also one minor remark: the page numbering is misleading. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors presented an interesting paper on the sustainability of small ruminant production in low and middle-income countries. The paper is adequately elaborated, well-organised, and presents a very extensive review of vital problems.

It deserves publication, however, in my opinion, the methodology of the conducted study is not described in sufficient detail. It would raise the scientific soundness of the article if the Authors presented the steps of the research they have carried out.

Response to comments

Thank you for your comment. This paper is a narrative review, and therefore, it does not adhere to a specific protocol regarding methodology. Nonetheless this description: “it extensively draws upon journal articles, books, and other published materials sourced from prominent databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed Central, and Scopus” (Lines 85 -88) has been added to give clarity to how the review was carried out.

The review format of this manuscript aligns with that of several articles published in Sustainability, such as:

1. Shurson, G. C. “What a Waste”—Can We Improve Sustainability of Food Animal Production Systems by Recycling Food Waste Streams into Animal Feed in an Era of Health, Climate, and Economic Crises? Sustainability 2020, 12 (17), 7071. DOI: 10.3390/su12177071.
2. Tayengwa, T.; Mapiye, C. Citrus and Winery Wastes: Promising Dietary Supplements for Sustainable Ruminant Animal Nutrition, Health, Production, and Meat Quality. Sustainability 2018, 10 (10), 3718. DOI: 10.3390/su10103718.
3. Giamouri, E.; Zisis, F.; Mitsiopoulou, C.; Christodoulou, C.; Pappas, A. C.; Simitzis, P. E.; Kamilaris, C.; Galliou, F.; Manios, T.; Mavrommatis, A.; et al. Sustainable Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Small Ruminants Farming. Sustainability 2023, 15 (5), 4118.
4. Elevitch, C.; Mazaroli, D.; Ragone, D. Agroforestry Standards for Regenerative Agriculture. Sustainability 2018, 10 (9), 3337. DOI: 10.3390/su10093337.

Comment to Authors

It would also be advisable to discuss the recommendations for policymakers in the countries mentioned. It would be also interesting to learn if there were any limitations to the study conducted.

Response to comments

The primary objective of this review was not to offer detailed policy recommendations for the countries under consideration. However, a brief paragraph outlining the role of policymakers can be found in lines 510 to 516: “Policymakers in African countries should prioritize a tailored implementation of agroecological practices, aligning strategies with each nation's distinctive socio-economic, environmental, and cultural contexts. This can be achieved through investments in localised research initiatives, fostering collaboration with local agricultural experts and communities to identify region-specific challenges and solutions. Adequate resources should be allocated to strengthen extension services, ensuring the widespread dissemination of knowledge about sustainable small ruminant farming practices.”

Comments to Authors

There is also one minor remark: the page numbering is misleading.

Response to comment

The issue with the page numbering has been resolved.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents a good and useful literature review about sustainability and small ruminant production in some of Africa´s countries. By this, the title should reflect this fact: Africa´s countries.

Despite the interesting literature review about agroecology principles used/implemented in the different countries studied, the results shown have a low level of scientific sound. In my opinion, the authors should do a deep analysis of the different agroecology methods/strategies implemented in the African countries to obtain the “commons” between them and the success level of these methods. One objective should be advice to specific recommendations for the application of some strategies used in Africa’s countries.

This analysis should be concerned about the items shown in Table1,2 and 4.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a good and useful literature review about sustainability and small ruminant production in some of Africa´s countries. By this, the title should reflect this fact: Africa´s countries.

Response to comments

Thank you for your comments. The manuscript primarily focuses on African countries but it makes references to other Low- and Middle-Income countries across different continents. Hence, the authors prefer to retain the current title of the manuscript to reflect this broader scope.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the interesting literature review about agroecology principles used/implemented in the different countries studied, the results shown have a low level of scientific sound. In my opinion, the authors should do a deep analysis of the different agroecology methods/strategies implemented in the African countries to obtain the “commons” between them and the success level of these methods. One objective should be advice to specific recommendations for the application of some strategies used in Africa’s countries. This analysis should be concerned about the items shown in Table1,2 and 4.

Response to comments
The analysis of diverse agroecology methods and strategies implemented in African countries to achieve the "commons" and their corresponding success levels are presented in Lines 223-244 (Table 1), Lines 291-300 (Table 2), and 586-614 (Table 4).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Table 1 enumerates the main countries mentioned in the study, all from Africa. The manuscript title should reflect correctly the study location.

Table 4. is a summary, but the question seeks a more scientific meaning of this information. Looking for regularities through the different countries to find some connection between country-strategies. When you do this, then you can extrapolate to other countries of similar income.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 1 enumerates the main countries mentioned in the study, all from Africa. The manuscript title should reflect correctly the study location.

Response to reviewer

The word “Africa” has been included in the title as suggested. The title now reads: “Sustainable Small Ruminant Production in Low- and Middle-Income African Countries: Harnessing the Potential of Agroecology” (Lines 2 -3).

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 4. is a summary, but the question seeks a more scientific meaning of this information. Looking for regularities through the different countries to find some connection between country-strategies. When you do this, then you can extrapolate to other countries of similar income.

 

Response to reviewer

Thank you for your comment. This is a narrative review exploring the potential benefits to the sustainability of small ruminant production systems in LMICs by harnessing the principles of agroecology and makes recommendations on how to facilitate this. A ‘deep analysis of the different agroecology methods/strategies implemented and the level of success of these methods’ would be in-keeping with a systematic review (ideally incorporating a meta-analysis), an excellent idea for another review article. Nonetheless, we have provided some narratives on the regularities in different countries (Lines 587 – 590), ways in which the challenges in Table 4 can be addressed (Lines 607 – 640) and how the regularities can be extrapolated to other countries of similar income (653 – 660).

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Changes that improve the manuscripts have been done