Sustainable Growth through Thai Native Chicken Farming: Lessons from Rural Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article could be interesting and provide relevant information to enhance small-scale family farming; however, it has significant shortcomings in terms of scientific rigor. The methodology is poorly described. For example, it does not mention the instruments used for bird weight measurements or the conditions under which these measurements were taken. Were all birds weighed under the same conditions, such as at the same time of day, after feeding, before feeding, etc., to allow for meaningful comparisons? Comparisons are made with an experimental station, but its characteristics are not specified. Are the birds truly comparable?

Additionally, comparisons are made with feed provided by the project, but it is unclear whether the birds were initially provided with food and then not later. These details need to be documented. The conclusions drawn are not substantiated; for instance, the article claims that lower bird weight gain is due to food quality, yet no experimental study was conducted to establish causality. Numerous factors could influence lower weight gain, such as stress, predation, increased mobility resulting in higher caloric expenditure, and environmental conditions.

Most importantly, assertions are made about differences between groups without statistical evidence. What statistical test was used to indicate significant differences? Descriptive statistics are mentioned in the methodology, but analytical statistics are needed to support these conclusions, which were not mentioned. The graphs display absolute values; they should show averages with standard deviations, represented by box plots.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be improved. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your critical reading and efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript will meet your expectations. Our responses to each comment are listed below.

Comments 1: The article could be interesting and provide relevant information to enhance small-scale family farming; however, it has significant shortcomings in terms of scientific rigor. The methodology is poorly described. For example, it does not mention the instruments used for bird weight measurements or the conditions under which these measurements were taken. Were all birds weighed under the same conditions, such as at the same time of day, after feeding, before feeding, etc., to allow for meaningful comparisons? Comparisons are made with an experimental station, but its characteristics are not specified. Are the birds truly comparable?

Response 1: We have revised the sentences to clarify the data collection and statistical analysis methods. This includes detailing the tools used to measure bird weight, the conditions under which weight measurements were taken, the chicken diet and feed composition, and the statistical techniques employed to explain and compare the data. These revisions aim to enhance understanding. See lines 123-160.

Sentences in lines 123-160 is as follows.

“2.2 Data collection

The process began with assessing the readiness and area suitability of the participants. All selected farmers attended two training sessions and received ten eight-week-old Thai native chickens (two male and eight female Pradu Hang Dum) along with other production inputs, including commercial chicken feed, deworming medicine, and vitamins. The vaccination schedule for the chickens was as follows: Fowl cholera at 12 weeks of age during the fifth field visit, and Newcastle disease and infectious bronchitis at 14 weeks of age during the sixth field visit. Subsequently, according to the program, the chickens were re-vaccinated and dewormed during the eighth, tenth, and eleventh visits. Additionally, knowledge gained after completing the project on raising Thai native chickens was developed, and farmers were filmed to promote awareness of local farming practices. Details are shown in Figure 1.

All chickens were raised in an open-housing system with an average of 12 hours of natural light daily. They were fed ad libitum a commercial chicken crumble diet containing 21% crude protein, 3% lipids, 5% crude fiber, and 3000 Kcal/kg energy (Betagro 203A, Betagro PCL, Bangkok, Thailand), and there was clean water for chickens all times until the end of the experiment. All chickens were dewormed and vaccinated according to the Network Center for Animal Breeding and Omics Research (NCAB) guidelines against infectious bronchitis, Newcastle disease, and fowl cholera. Each farmer was provided with a manual weighing scale to weigh their chickens individually at 14 and 34 weeks of age. The weighing process was scheduled between 7 and 8 AM before feeding the chickens. The data recorded included survival rate and causes of death, body weight and average daily gain, egg production, number of cooperative farmers, number of hatches, number of chicks, and the number born alive at 8 and 12 weeks of age. This data collection was continuously monitored and followed up by project staff.

2.3 Statistical analysis

This study categorized farmers' native chicken farms into three chicken farm management groups (Good, Moderate, Poor) based on success indicators and production targets (Table 1). Thematic qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics were used to provide an overview of survival rates and causes of death among native chickens in the area. Data on body weight, average daily gain, egg production, and farmer cooperation in each farm management group were analyzed using a completely randomized design (CRD). The results are presented as the mean ± standard error (SE). Means were analyzed with ANOVA followed by Tukey's range test to determine significant differences in all parameters between farm groups. A probability level of p < 0.05 was considered significant.”

Comments 2: Additionally, comparisons are made with feed provided by the project, but it is unclear whether the birds were initially provided with food and then not later. These details need to be documented. The conclusions drawn are not substantiated; for instance, the article claims that lower bird weight gain is due to food quality, yet no experimental study was conducted to establish causality. Numerous factors could influence lower weight gain, such as stress, predation, increased mobility resulting in higher caloric expenditure, and environmental conditions.

Response 2:  We added more information about chicken feed provided by the project and feed composition. See in lines 136-139. While the sentence claims that “lower bird weight gain is due to food quality” due to an error in verifying sentence accuracy, we have deleted this sentence from revised manuscript. Throughout the study period, we provided chicken diet for the farmers to use in raising chickens until the end of the experiment, ensuring that the farmers did not need to supplement with additional feed. This helped eliminate other factors that could affect the discrepancy in the recorded data.

Sentences in lines 136-139 is as follows.

“They were fed ad libitum a commercial chicken crumble diet containing 21% crude protein, 3% lipids, 5% crude fiber, and 3000 Kcal/kg energy (Betagro 203A, Betagro PCL, Bangkok, Thailand), and there was clean water for chickens all times until the end of the experiment.”

In addition, we have added the sentences you suggested along with references as follows “Meanwhile, the growth performance results in this study showed that body weight and average daily gain (ADG) values were lower than those reported in previous studies (Tongsiri et al., 2018; Chaikuad et al., 2023). Several factors could contribute to this reduced weight gain, including stress, predation, increased mobility leading to higher caloric expenditure, and environmental conditions (Mosca et al.,2015; Bizeray et al., 2000; Soyalp et al., 2023; Boonkum et al., 2024).” in the discussion section. See lines 312-316.

References:

1. Tongsiri, S.; Jeyaruban, G.M.; Hermesch, S.; van der Werf, J.H.; Li, L.; Chormai, T. Genetic parameters and inbreeding effects for production traits of Thai native chickens. Asian Austral J Anim Sci. 2019, 32, 930-938.
2. Chaikuad, N.; Loengbudnark, W.; Chankitisakul, V.; Boonkum, W. Genetic comparisons of body weight, average daily gain, and breast circumference between slow-growing Thai native chickens (Pradu Hang Dum) raised on-site farm and on-station. Vet Sci. 2023, 10, 11.
3. Boonkum, W.; Chankitisakul, V.; Kananit, S.; Kenchaiwong, W. Heat stress effects on the genetics of growth traits in Thai native chickens (Pradu Hang dum). Anim Biosci. 2024, 37, 16-27.
4. Mosca, F.; Madeddu, M.;Mangiagalli, G.;Colombo, E.;Cozzi, M.C.;Zaniboni, L.;Cerolini, S. Bird density, stress markers and growth performance in the Italian chicken breed Milanino. J Appl Poult Res. 2015, 24, 529-535.
5. Soyalp, S.; Hartono, E.; Willems, O.W.; Bai, X.; Wood, B.J.; Aggrey, S.E.; Rekaya, R. Growth Rate Distribution and Potential Non-Linear Relationship between Body Weight and Walking Ability in Turkeys. Animals 2023, 13, 2979.
6. Bizeray, D.;Leterrier, C.;Constantin, P.;Picard, M.;Faure, M. Early locomotor behaviour in genetic stocks of chickens with different growth rates.Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 68, 231-242.

Comments 3: Most importantly, assertions are made about differences between groups without statistical evidence. What statistical test was used to indicate significant differences? Descriptive statistics are mentioned in the methodology, but analytical statistics are needed to support these conclusions, which were not mentioned. The graphs display absolute values; they should show averages with standard deviations, represented by box plots.

Response 3: We made several adjustments and decided to revamp this article to enhance its appropriateness and academic rigor by rewriting the statistical analysis section. The statistical data is accurately presented, displaying both descriptive and comparative statistics, with data shown as means and standard errors. See the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: English should be improved. 

Response 4: We have revised this article based on the reviewers' suggestions and have thoroughly checked the grammar for accuracy. However, if the reviewers believe further improvements are needed, or there are any additional concerns regarding the quality of the English, we will request time to send the article to a professional agency for review and correction later.

 

Best Regards

Wuttigrai Boonkum

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transformation about Thai Native Chicken Farming for Rural Community and Sustainable Production: Thungpong District Model" has been reviewed and evaluated. As authors stated in Abstract and Introduction sections, the aim of the current study was not well expressed. For instance, how to understand "serve as an educational resource for interested individuals" and "the chickens encountered minimal issues". Below are my specific concerns: (1) Abstract: The conclusion and aim of this study were not introduced well and clearly. Please specify them here. (2) Introduction: Does the current project has some references for other countries? This determines the application of the research. (3) Table 1: Timeline could be expressed in chart. (4) Figures: some figures could be grouped together, e.g., fig.4 and fig. 5. (5) Title: The current title could be shortened, "Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transformation about" is hard to know and catch.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The manuscript entitled "Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transformation about Thai Native Chicken Farming for Rural Community and Sustainable Production: Thungpong District Model" has been reviewed and evaluated.

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your critical reading and efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript will meet your expectations. Our responses to each comment are listed below.

As authors stated in Abstract and Introduction sections, the aim of the current study was not well expressed. For instance, how to understand "serve as an educational resource for interested individuals" and "the chickens encountered minimal issues".

Below are my specific concerns:

Comments 1: Abstract: The conclusion and aim of this study were not introduced well and clearly. Please specify them here.

Response 1: We revised the abstract and introduction sections to make them clearer and easier to understand. See the abstract on lines 10-25 and the introduction on lines 96-98.

Abstract sentences in lines 10-25 is as follows.

“Abstract: Thai native chickens hold significant value in rural communities due to their adaptability and suitability for local rearing conditions. However, there are challenges in the commercial raising of these chickens. This study aimed to promote sustainable Thai native chicken farming by creating a model community of knowledgeable farmers. This will generate income for the local community and serve as a valuable source of learning. Out of 110 farmers interested, 88 met preliminary conditions and 62 were well-prepared and willing to comply with project conditions. Some farmers were disqualified for not understanding project conditions or having inadequately prepared chicken coops. The survival rate of native chickens provided to farmers through the project was 52%. Among the surviving birds, 40% were male and 60% were female. The most common causes of death in the project were sickness, accidents, and fighting. The average body weights and average daily gains at different ages were significantly different among farm groups. The average egg production per hatch per hen was 13 eggs. The highest egg production was in the good farm compared to moderate and poor farms. Better farm management led to higher egg production. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that commercial raising of Thai native chickens is a viable and sustainable practice that can generate income for rural communities while emphasizing the importance of proper nutrition and management for optimal production outcomes.”

Sentences in lines 96-98 is as follows.

“Therefore, this study aimed to learn from the experience of raising Pradu Hang Dum chickens in the Thungpong subdistrict to develop a model for promoting sustainable native chicken rearing in rural areas.”

Comments 2: Introduction: Does the current project has some references for other countries? This determines the application of the research.

Response 2: There are many similar programs in other countries such as Indonesia, India and South Africa [Munawaroh et al, 2021; Yusuf and Popoola, 2022; Singh et al, 2023] that are interested in promoting indigenous chicken farming to build food and economic security in communities. Therefore, we added the sentence to show that there are current project has some references for other countries. See lines 38-41.

Sentences in lines 38-41 is as follows.

“Native chickens have been receiving attention in developing and promoting community-level economic development and served as rural animal protein sources in many countries, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, South Africa, and India [Sadef et al., 2015; Munawaroh et al., 2021; Yusuf and Popoola, 2022; Singh et al., 2023].”

References:

1. Sadef, S.; Khan, M.S.; Rehman, M.S. Indigenous chicken production in Punjab: a detailed survey through participatory rural appraisals. Anim. Plant Sci. 2015, 25, 1273-1282.
2. Munawaroh, S.; Rouf, A.A.; Rohmadi, D.; Anas, S.; Rosdiana; Nur, A. Additional income for poor families through native chicken farming (KUB and Sensi) development in Gorontalo Province. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Earth Environ Sci. 2021, 807, 032060.
3. Yusuf, S.F.G.; Popoola, O.O. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Training Offered to Smallholder Scavenging Chicken Farmers in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15735.
4. Singh, M.; Patton, R.N.; Mollier, R.T.; Pongener, N.; Yadav, R.; Singh, V.; Katiyar, R.; Singh, G.D.; Deori, S.; Doley, S.; Chaudhary, J.K.; Babu, S.; Kalita, H.; Mishra, V.K. Indigenous Chicken Production System in Different Agro-Ecology of Indian Himalayan Region: implication on food and economic security. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1244413.

Comments 3: Table 1: Timeline could be expressed in chart.

Response 3: We changed the timeline in Table 1 to a chart according to your advice. See Figure 1 in line 154.

Figure 1. Timeline of field visits and activities.

Comments 4: Figures: some figures could be grouped together, e.g., fig.4 and fig. 5.

Response 4: We have combined Figures 4 and 5 into a single figure and adjusted it to be more scientific, based on suggestions from other reviewers. Please refer to the new Figure 5 below.

 

Comments 5: Title: The current title could be shortened, "Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transformation about" is hard to know and catch.

Response 5: We have changed the title from “Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transformation about Thai Native Chicken Farming for Rural Community and Sustainable Production: Thungpong District Model” to “Lessons to Sustainable Growth: Thai Native Chicken Farming in Rural Communities” as you suggestion. See the revised Title.

 

Best Regards

Wuttigrai Boonkum

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In introduction section (lines 61- 67) the authors state that the present study focus on stakeholder participation to create a community multiplier effect, generate new careers, manage supply chains, and enhance grassroots economies. More specifically, they state that this study aims to develop a model for raising native chickens breed, which are popular in northeastern Thailand, as a family business. As the authors state, the goal is to empower potential farmers, generate income for the community, and serve as an educational resource for interested individuals.

The manuscript is interesting but it substantially suffers. Some comments and propositions are next given, that can help authors to improve it.

The most important weakness of the manuscript is that the title doesn’t reflect the content of the study. The authors conduct an experiment with sixty two (selected) farmers who attended a training session and received 10 chickens. The plan of the experiment is sufficiently described but the results doesn’t properly presented. A lot of critical data and results on which the discussion is based are missing.

Authors should clearly present the specific objectives of the study to facilitate the readers to understand it as well as how the goal and objectives of the study are achived.

In 3.2.1. "Survival rate" subsection it is reported a low survive rate of the birds. Authors should better define why this high percentage of the died birds in "native" chickens is observed.

The discussion section of the article is too poor, while some discussion points are not based on data and results that have (not) been previously presented. For example, those in lines 236-237, 242-244, 246-247, 261-263.

An in-depth discussion of the results of the present study in comparison with the results of previous similar or analogous studies is needed.

Some limitations of the study should be also given as well as some propositions for future research.

The conclusion does not include any generalisation that could attract the scientific community

The authors should make the manuscript more friendly to the audience of the journal.

They should also check if the requirements/guidelines of the journal in the citations and reference cite are met.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your critical reading and efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript will meet your expectations. Our responses to each comment are listed below.

Comments 1: In introduction section (lines 61- 67) the authors state that the present study focus on stakeholder participation to create a community multiplier effect, generate new careers, manage supply chains, and enhance grassroots economies. More specifically, they state that this study aims to develop a model for raising native chickens breed, which are popular in northeastern Thailand, as a family business. As the authors state, the goal is to empower potential farmers, generate income for the community, and serve as an educational resource for interested individuals.

Response 1: The objectives of this study were rewritten to align with the results and conclusions, as follows. See lines 96-98.

 

“Therefore, this study aimed to learn from the experience of raising Pradu Hang Dum chickens in the Thungpong subdistrict to develop a model for promoting sustainable native chicken rearing in rural areas.”

 

Comments 2: The manuscript is interesting but it substantially suffers. Some comments and propositions are next given, that can help authors to improve it.

Response 2: We are thankful for your suggestion. We will make our efforts to improve the manuscript to meet the requirements. We revised the title, introduction, study methods, results, discussion, and conclusions to enhance their scientific accuracy. See the revised Manuscript.

 

Comments 3: The most important weakness of the manuscript is that the title doesn’t reflect the content of the study. The authors conduct an experiment with sixty two (selected) farmers who attended a training session and received 10 chickens. The plan of the experiment is sufficiently described but the results doesn’t properly presented. A lot of critical data and results on which the discussion is based are missing.

Response 3: We have revised the sentences to clarify the data collection and statistical analysis methods. This includes detailing the tools used to measure bird weight, the conditions under which weight measurements were taken, the chicken diet and feed composition, and the statistical techniques employed to explain and compare the data. These revisions aim to enhance understanding. See lines 123-160 and revised the results section.

Sentences in lines 123-160 is as follows.

“2.2 Data collection

The process began with assessing the readiness and area suitability of the participants. All selected farmers attended two training sessions and received ten eight-week-old Thai native chickens (two male and eight female Pradu Hang Dum) along with other production inputs, including commercial chicken feed, deworming medicine, and vitamins. The vaccination schedule for the chickens was as follows: Fowl cholera at 12 weeks of age during the fifth field visit, and Newcastle disease and infectious bronchitis at 14 weeks of age during the sixth field visit. Subsequently, according to the program, the chickens were re-vaccinated and dewormed during the eighth, tenth, and eleventh visits. Additionally, knowledge gained after completing the project on raising Thai native chickens was developed, and farmers were filmed to promote awareness of local farming practices. Details are shown in Figure 1.

All chickens were raised in an open-housing system with an average of 12 hours of natural light daily. They were fed ad libitum a commercial chicken crumble diet containing 21% crude protein, 3% lipids, 5% crude fiber, and 3000 Kcal/kg energy (Betagro 203A, Betagro PCL, Bangkok, Thailand), and there was clean water for chickens all times until the end of the experiment. All chickens were dewormed and vaccinated according to the Network Center for Animal Breeding and Omics Research (NCAB) guidelines against infectious bronchitis, Newcastle disease, and fowl cholera. Each farmer was provided with a manual weighing scale to weigh their chickens individually at 14 and 34 weeks of age. The weighing process was scheduled between 7 and 8 AM before feeding the chickens. The data recorded included survival rate and causes of death, body weight and average daily gain, egg production, number of cooperative farmers, number of hatches, number of chicks, and the number born alive at 8 and 12 weeks of age. This data collection was continuously monitored and followed up by project staff.

2.3 Statistical analysis

This study categorized farmers' native chicken farms into three chicken farm management groups (Good, Moderate, Poor) based on success indicators and production targets (Table 1). Thematic qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics were used to provide an overview of survival rates and causes of death among native chickens in the area. Data on body weight, average daily gain, egg production, and farmer cooperation in each farm management group were analyzed using a completely randomized design (CRD). The results are presented as the mean ± standard error (SE). Means were analyzed with ANOVA followed by Tukey's range test to determine significant differences in all parameters between farm groups. A probability level of p < 0.05 was considered significant.”

 

 

Comments 4: Authors should clearly present the specific objectives of the study to facilitate the readers to understand it as well as how the goal and objectives of the study are achieved.

Response 4: The objectives of this study were rewritten to align with the results and conclusions, as follows. See lines 96-98.

 

Sentences in lines 96-98 is as follows.

 

“Therefore, this study aimed to learn from the experience of raising Pradu Hang Dum chickens in the Thungpong subdistrict to develop a model for promoting sustainable native chicken rearing in rural areas.”

 

Comments 5: In 3.2.1. "Survival rate" subsection it is reported a low survive rate of the birds. Authors should better define why this high percentage of the died birds in "native" chickens is observed.

Response 5: We added a sentence explaining why a high percentage of birds in the "native" chickens group died. See lines 197-202.

Sentences in lines 197-202 is as follows.

“The high death rate is usually due to various uncontrollable factors that occur in back-yard chicken raising, such as natural predators, dogs and cats living in the village, farmers' skills in observing chicken behaviors and diagnosing disease symptoms, safety and security of chicken coops are because most farmers do not have enough money to build new chicken houses that are safe from predators and have adequate disease prevention.”

 

Comments 6: The discussion section of the article is too poor, while some discussion points are not based on data and results that have (not) been previously presented. For example, those in lines 236-237, 242-244, 246-247, 261-263.

Response 6: Response:   It was rewritten in the discussion as listed below.

Lines 310-312:                  “For this reason, farmers should up their skills in observing chicken behaviors and basic diagnosing disease symptoms and learn more about biosecurity for disease prevention and timely treatment.”

Lines 319-323:                  Maternal ability and chick’s survival rate are found challenging. Factors, both controllable and uncontrollable, such as low maternal ability, poor feed quality, and predators can limit the chick's survival rate. To address these issues, it is crucial to conduct thorough area surveys before giving chickens, to ensure the safety and health of the chickens before delivery to the farmers.

Lines 323-326:                  Although most farmers cooperated well with the project, some farmers did not cooperate well. Future project implementation should develop a more rigorous selection process for participating farmers, with detailed inquiries regarding their readiness to raise them.

Lines 336-340:                  Despite Pradu Hang Dum chickens having some constraints, which are slow growth and low egg production, they are more well-adapted to harsh environments than commercial chicken breeds. Raising native chickens can thrive in areas with limited land for rearing ruminant livestock animals. The farming and feeding system can be improved and developed to be more appropriate for better chicken production performance.

 

Comments 7: An in-depth discussion of the results of the present study in comparison with the results of previous similar or analogous studies is needed.

Response 7: We have added an in-depth discussion of the results of the present study in comparison with the results of previous similar. See the discussion section in lines 303-316, 319-326, 336-340.

 

 

 

Comments 8: Some limitations of the study should be also given as well as some propositions for future research.

Response 8: Some limitations are given in lines 416-422.

 

“However, this study and the further related project still have some limitations due to government policy to support and promote Thai native chicken farming from upstream to downstream of the supply chain, especially the participation of both public and private sectors at the midstream and downstream levels in developing native chicken products to be suitable for the market, attractive to consumers, and have agricultural product standards. Farmers still do not have convenient access to various facilities such as equipment, inputs, technology, and knowledge and understanding of business and finance.”

 

 

Comments 9: The conclusion does not include any generalisation that could attract the scientific community

Response 9: We have revised the conclusion section as you suggestion. See the revised conclusion section in lines 424-430.

 

“The study highlighted the importance of stakeholder participation in creating a multiplier effect within the community, generating new careers, better supply chain management, and stronger local economies. By learning from the experience of raising Thai native (Pradu Hang Dum) chickens, the study aims to develop a model for promoting sustainable native chicken rearing in rural areas. The ultimate goal is to empower potential farmers, generate income for the community, and serve as an educational resource for interested individuals.”

 

 

Comments 10: The authors should make the manuscript more friendly to the audience of the journal.

Response 10: We edited the manuscript to make it more engaging, academic, and comprehensible. We also included empirical data on problem-solving, as well as suggestions and limitations necessary for readers who wish to apply the findings. Additionally, we made language corrections and adopted new presentation formats that are clearer than before. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript now meets the quality standards and is suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal.

 

 

Comments 11: They should also check if the requirements/guidelines of the journal in the citations and reference cite are met.

Response 11: We have reformatted the reference according to the journal’s guidelines.

 

 

Best Regards

Wuttigrai Boonkum

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the paper has more details than the one presented previously and improvements were attempted, there are still important shortcomings in terms of scientific rigor, since there is still no alignment between the objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions. Without coherence between these items that are the basis of a scientific article, it is difficult to approve its publication.

-----

Specific Comments:

Abstract: "You stated the following: 'In conclusion, the study demonstrates that commercial raising of Thai native chickens is a viable and sustainable practice that can generate income for rural communities while emphasizing the importance of proper nutrition and management for optimal production outcomes.' However, it is not possible to conclude this based on the study. The sustainability of production was not evaluated, nor was an economic study carried out. Additionally, data on the number of producers selling by-products and at what price was not provided, making it difficult to indicate that the practice generates income for the community. Although this may be known from the literature, the study's conclusions must be based on the results.

The conclusions must be aligned with the objectives of the study, which, according to you, aim to promote sustainable production based on a community model. Was this objective achieved? This objective should have an associated methodology that indicates how the sustainability of production and the generation of a knowledge-based community were measured. The results must be based on these objectives, and the conclusions should reflect these results. However, the results currently presented are descriptions of productive indicators, which do not clearly indicate whether the production is sustainable. For instance, does a 48% mortality rate suggest sustainability?"

 

Line 42-44: the grammar of that sentence is incorrect. Change it for: "The National Statistical Office of Thailand reported that the poverty line, calculated from the cost of essential food and non-food items needed for survival (42 items), averaged 2,997 baht per person per month for Thailand. Khon Kaen Province reported 2,903 baht per person per month in 2022."

 

Lines 62 – 73: References are missing.

 

Lines 89 – 90. Grammar is incorrect. Here is an improved version: Sustainable farming practices must be integrated to enhance livestock production systems, improve animal-source food for nutrition, implement livestock solutions, and improve farmers' livelihoods, especially for small-scale producers. These practices should be designed to produce long-term results."

 

Lines 96 – 98: I reiterate the fact that the objective of the paper is not clear. Now you mention that the objective is to learn from the experience....Which is the final verb associated with your objective? Learn? Promote? Empower?

 

Line 120: “Project officials will then visit…” Shouldn’t that sentence be in past tense? It already occurred.

 

Line 132: “Additionally, knowledge gained after completing the project on raising Thai native chickens was developed...” I do not understand this phrase. What evidence do you have that the producers actually gained knowledge? For example, by applying a questionnaire before the training and after the training to see if there was knowledge acquisition. I don’t understand when you declare that knowledge was developed.

 

Line 139-141: This information is redundant, you already mentioned it before.

 

Figure 1: What does “creation of knowledge kits” mean? You as researchers creating material to be given to producers?

 

Table 1.  When you mention the expected reproduction output, the expected survival rate says 620 chickens, but the indicator is a percentage. You should indicate the percentage of survival rate expected, rather than the number of chickens, and based on that, indicate if it was good or bad.  You had an average mortality of 48%, is that above or below what was expected? The same applies to the “number of cooperative farmers”, I do not understand the correlation between the “62 farmers” as expected production output and the indicators associated “>25, 20-24 and <20”.

 

Line 200: Something is wrong with the sentence when you talk about safety and security of chicken coops. Are you talking about the bad conditions of chicken coops? You are first talking about the causes of death and then you continue with another idea that should not be in the same sentence.

 

Line 203: Correct the writing.

 

Line 203: You state that the survival rate of 52% is higher than the set indicator. But as I mentioned before, there was not a set indicator, you put as expected output your total 620 chickens. Should we interpret that more than 40% is expected? which is where farmers with good practices are grouped.

 

Line 205: I think a word is missing….”Proved effective ¿results? in supporting farmers’ success?”

 

Figure 3. "It is unclear why you added this figure if the differences between sexes were not analyzed, especially considering females had a higher survival rate even when growth parameters were better for males."

 

Line 239: erase “were”

 

Lines 247-259: This is part of the discussion, not results.

                                               

Lines 266 – 286: These results are highly interesting as they can inform actions to promote bird breeding. However, the term 'cooperating farmers' is not clearly defined. It is unclear if this item should be included in the table of productive indicators, as it does not specify the characteristics required for a farmer to be considered a collaborator. Additionally, in Table 1, what does '>25' mean in the context of being considered good? Does it imply that 25 farmers were deemed good collaborators? It appears that the concepts of productive indicators are being mixed uo¡p with farmer characterization.

 

Line 356: It looks strange that Figure 8 has been left in the discussion. That was a result of an analysis, how the SWOT analysis was carried out should be in the methodology section. And figure 8 should be a result.  The same applies to Figure 9.

 

Conclusions: The conclusions are based on the discussion rather than the main findings associated with each objective. There is a lack of coherence between the study's objectives, results, and conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing of the article must be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my concerns and It is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors

 

The authors elaborated on the manuscript and made the improvements, following our most important comments and suggestions. They have also responded to our comments and suggestions, point by point, as the journal guidelines require.

In my opinion the title does not adequately reflect the content of the manuscript. This is the most important weakness of the manuscript. The best adaptation will be the one connected with the purpose of the article in the lines 96-98.

Author Response

Query 1: The authors elaborated on the manuscript and made the improvements, following our most important comments and suggestions. They have also responded to our comments and suggestions, point by point, as the journal guidelines require.

Response 1:    Thank you for your review and the comments for the author to improve our manuscript.

 

Query 2: In my opinion, the title does not adequately reflect the content of the manuscript. This is the most important weakness of the manuscript. The best adaptation will be the one connected with the purpose of the article in the lines 96-98.

Response 2:    Thanks for your feedback. The title has been changed to “Sustainable Growth Through Thai Native Chicken Farming: Lessons from Rural Communities”.