Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the topic addressed is relevant and of interest to the sustainability of dairy production, the manuscript does not present any significant methodological advances. The study is limited to the application of a dynamic programming model that is already well established in the literature, without offering contributions  that would justify its publication in a high-impact journal. We recommend avoiding regionalism, as the journal prioritizes research with broader, global relevance. If the results cannot be generalized beyond the local context, the manuscript may not meet the publication criteria.The manuscript includes overly descriptive sections, with issues related to textual flow and formatting that hinder readability. The discussion of results is limited, lacking critical analysis and comparisons with similar studies. The figures are not very informative and do not meet the journal’s visual standards. The conclusions are vague and do not properly align with the stated objectives. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Comment 1: Methodological Contribution

Comment:
The manuscript does not present significant methodological advances. The applied dynamic programming model is already well established in the literature.

Response:
This study focuses on applying the dynamic programming (DP) approach applying to a relatively new domain of operational problems in dairy cooperatives, particularly in developing country contexts where such applications remain limited. The contribution of this work is not to propose a breakthrough technique, but to demonstrate its practical adaptability in herd management for smallholder-based dairy cooperatives facing fluctuating demand and resource constraints. We believe this practical perspective adds value to the existing literature.

Comment 2: Comparison with Previous Studies

Comment:
The discussion of results lacks critical analysis and comparison with similar studies.

Response:
Comparison with relevant previous studies has been incorporated within Section 4 (Managerial Advantages and Discussion). In this section, we discussed issues such as herd stability, seasonal calving, lactation curve, and smart farming adoption, while relating these results to existing research. This aims to position the findings of this study within the broader context of dairy supply chain literature.

Comment 3: Figures and Conclusions

Comment:
Figures are not very informative, and conclusions are vague and not properly aligned with the objectives.

Response:
All figures have been revised to improve quality, clarity, and consistency according to the journal’s standards. Additionally, the conclusion section has been rewritten to clearly summarise the key findings, practical implications, model limitations, and future research directions, directly aligned with the study objectives.

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback and thoughtful comments. All suggestions have been carefully considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript to improve its clarity, relevance, and scientific contribution.

P.S. Research title was changed to Enhancing Sustainable Herd Structure Management in Thai Dairy Cooperatives Through Dynamic Programming Optimization to fit the journal theme

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript addresses a relevant production issue concerning the mismatch between raw milk supply and demand by applying dynamic programming to optimise herd structure within a cooperative setting. The study is well-structured, technically sound, and based on a real case of a Thai dairy cooperative, which adds practical relevance and applicability. The use of dynamic programming as a mathematical optimisation tool is modern and potentially effective.

However, as the authors themselves acknowledge, the model does not incorporate several critical economic factors such as costs related to buying and selling animals, veterinary expenses, or milk price fluctuations. This significantly reduces the model’s realism and applicability. It would be advisable to expand the discussion by including at least theoretical considerations of the model’s economic feasibility.

Another important limitation is the absence of validation or field testing of the model under real farm conditions, which raises concerns about its practical robustness. Additionally, while the technical model is solid, it appears that the authors have focused primarily on mathematical optimisation, devoting less attention to the practical depth of implementation or broader aspects of sustainable production, including environmental factors.

Furthermore, the literature review would benefit from including more recent references related to this issue, especially comparative studies featuring verified models. This would strengthen the manuscript’s positioning within the existing body of knowledge.

 

Sincerely,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally written in clear English, although some sentences could benefit from minor editing to improve fluency and clarity. A light language revision by a native speaker or professional editor is recommended.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment 1:

The model does not incorporate several critical economic factors such as costs related to buying and selling animals, veterinary expenses, or milk price fluctuations. This significantly reduces the model’s realism and applicability.

Response: The absence of these economic factors is acknowledged as a limitation of this study. The main objective of this research was to focus on herd structure optimisation under supply-demand uncertainty from a production planning perspective. Nevertheless, Section 4 particularly in 4.4 has been expanded to discuss the significance of incorporating livestock trading costs, veterinary expenses, and milk price fluctuations in future model development to enhance decision-making accuracy.

Comment 2:

The absence of validation or field testing of the model under real farm conditions raises concerns about its practical robustness.

Response: The limitation regarding the absence of real-farm validation has been acknowledged in Section 4. This is primarily due to challenges in obtaining long-term operational data and implementing dynamic programming tools directly with cooperative managers in smallholder settings. Future research directions include conducting pilot tests with actual dairy cooperatives to assess the model’s practical performance and gather operational feedback for further refinement.

Comment 3:

The study focuses primarily on mathematical optimisation with less attention to practical implementation or broader sustainability aspects, including environmental considerations.

Response: Section 4 has been revised to discuss additional aspects of environmental sustainability and practical implementation challenges. Specifically, the discussion now includes the potential impacts of herd adjustments on resource use, feed demand, and greenhouse gas emissions, which are critical considerations for future model development.

We appreciate all constructive comments from you. These valuable suggestions have greatly improved the clarity, completeness, and potential future direction of our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: 3556946

Title: Optimizing Herd Structure Management in Thai Dairy Cooperative Using Dynamic Programming

Article Type: Research article

 

General Comments on MDPI Questions that Reviewers must answer:

• Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner? 

This manuscript is written somewhat clearly, is relatively well-structured, and is potentially relevant to the field since it uses dynamic programming to model dairy cooperatives in Thailand. Given the potential contribution of this research, this manuscript has potential but requires more improvement to warrant publication in MDPI Sustainability. Please make the following FIFTEEN general improvements/clarifications:

1) It is not clear why this manuscript is being submitted to MDPI Sustainability rather than MDPI Animals. There are no environmental nor community aspects of the manuscript but rather only that which is economic in nature (e.g., marketing of an agricultural commodity).

2) Please merge the first two sections into one Introduction section.

3) Please explain why the dairy cooperatives in Thailand have similar assumed milk cow useful lifespans as the USA. Is there just as much intensification and industrialization?

4) Add a new Figure 1 showing Thailand milk cows in this cooperative so the reader can gauge the level of intensification in the industry.

5) In the last paragraph of this newly merged Introduction section, please clearly state the goal(s) and then the objective(s) of the research.

6) L290-384 need to be written in paragraph format.

7) There are too many equations presented in the Materials and Methods section. Please identify those that are absolutely critical. Put the rest into Appendix A.

8) There needs to be a Results section with appropriate writing and results put in this section.

9) All graphs for figures need to be improved in terms of quality and formatting and not look like things were just copy and pasted out of Excel.

10) Reduce the number of figures presented in the main body of writing. Put all else in the Appendix B.

11) Please take what is currently in the Appendix and put that into a separate Supplementary Materials Word file. The template for this is on the MDPI Sustainability

12) Please add two subsection 1. Contrasts to Prior Research and 4.2. Research Implications to the 4. Discussion section. What is currently written are just the implications. Please compare your research results to similar analyses in the literature.

13) Please discuss in the Discussion section what would happen to your results if milk cow lifespan was longer and/or the level of intensification was lower.

14) Please discuss how the current dynamic programming model can be customized to be more user friendly so that it can be more widely adopted and why this is important.

15) Please double the number of citations.

 

Please also make the following FIVE minor edits and clarifications:

1) On L23-24, the keywords need to be in alphabetical order and not capitalized unless the word is naturally capitalized.

2) Author contributions on L789-791 need to use author initials and not fully written names. Please refer back to the Word template for this.

3) Volume(issue) for citations and NOT Volume (Issue).

4) Please add DOI links for all citations at the end.

5) This should NOT be in bold anywhere in the manuscript: Nakhon Pathom Dairy Cooperative

 

• Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?

Only 9 of the 33 cited references have been published within the last 5 years since 2019. The citations appear relevant to the research topic. There are no excessive self-citations. Please increase both the number of citations as well as citing journal articles that are more recent.

• Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?

The manuscript is scientifically acceptable and the analyses are appropriate.

• Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?

The manuscript’s results can be reproducible after reading the 2. Materials and Methods section.

• Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.

There are not tables and it is not clear why not. Quality of figures needs improvement as already discussed.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The 5. Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Do not put Future Work in the title.

• Please evaluate the data availability statements to ensure it is adequate.

The Back Matter sections between the Conclusions and the References require minor edits as already discussed.

Author Response

Comment 1: Suitability for MDPI Sustainability

Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that this study addresses sustainability from an operational perspective in dairy cooperatives. The research considers challenges of supply-demand imbalance, herd stability, and strategic management in smallholder-based cooperatives, which align with the sustainability scope in terms of economic and community resilience in developing countries.

Comment 2: Merge the first two sections into one Introduction section

We have revised the manuscript accordingly. The Background and Problem Statement sections have been merged into a single Introduction section to improve clarity and flow.

Comment 3: Explanation of Similar Milk Cow Lifespans

We have added clarification in the Introduction to explain that the assumed productive lifespan is based on intensive farming practices within cooperative systems in Thailand, which show similar management approaches to those in the USA, including controlled feeding, culling, and reproductive management. I refer to Line 300 and in the discussion section.

Comment 4: Add New Figure  Showing Thailand Milk Cows

We have added a new Figure 5 showing milk cows from a typical dairy cooperative in Thailand to help readers visualize the production environment and level of intensification.

Comment 5: Clear Statement of Goals and Objectives

We have added clear statements of the research goal and objectives at the end of the newly merged Introduction section.

Comment 6: Paragraph Format for L290-384

We believe this part should remain in the current structured format because it presents the mathematical programming model, which is conventionally presented in a stepwise formulation rather than a narrative paragraph. Other sections are written in paragraph format as appropriate.

Comment 7: Reduce Number of Equations in Methods

We have revised the Methods section to retain only the most critical equations in the main body. The remaining equations have been moved to Appendix A.

Comment 8: Results Section

We have added a complete Results section that presents key findings with proper writing and explanations of the results.

Comment 9: Improve Quality of Figures

All figures have been redesigned and reformatted to meet the journal’s visual standards. The graphical quality has been improved.

Comment 10: Reduce Figures in Main Body

We have reduced the number of figures in the main manuscript. Additional figures have been moved to Appendix A.

Comment 11: Supplementary Materials File

We have prepared all supporting materials in a separate Supplementary Materials Word file following the MDPI Sustainability template.

Comment 12: Add Subsections in Discussion

We have revised the Discussion section by adding 4 new subsection to provide a comparative discussion and broader implications according to your valuable comment.

Comment 13: Discuss Impact of Longer Cow Lifespan and Lower Intensification

We have expanded the Discussion section to analyze the potential effects of longer productive cow lifespan and lower farming intensification on the model’s results and management implications.

Comment 14: Discuss Model Customization

We have added a discussion on the importance of customization of the model and potential development of decision-support tools to facilitate broader adoption by dairy cooperatives.

Comment 15: Increase Citations

We have increased the total number of citations in the revised manuscript to align with the journal’s requirements from 33 to 50.

We would like to sincerely thanks for the valuable comments and constructive suggestions. All comments have significantly helped to improve the clarity, completeness, and overall quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Besides, other minor things are primarily fixed  based on your comments

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone significant improvements compared to the previous version. The topic is current, relevant, and clearly aligned with the journal’s scope. The structure of the text is well organized, with clear and objective language. The methodology has been improved, and the results are well discussed. Therefore, I consider the article suitable for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation and kind comments. We are pleased that the improvements in the manuscript, particularly in terms of structure, clarity, methodology, and discussion, have been well received. We have made every effort to ensure the manuscript meets the journal’s standards and aligns with its scope. Thank you for recommending the manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: 3556946

Title: Optimizing Herd Structure Management in Thai Dairy Cooperative Using Dynamic Programming

Article Type: Research article

 

Please make the following TWENTY-FIVE final edits:

1) Delete (DP) on L14

2) Change on L19 to “…the proposed dynamic programming model can…”

3) Keywords are still not in alphabetical order

4) Everywhere in the manuscript such as on L33, change [2] [3] to [2,3] as indicated in the Word template. You will make the same type of edits on L55, L65, L70, L81, L89, L92, L95, L97 (change to [5,7,8,12]), L154, L169, L171

5) On 118, change to “…raw milk. Past research [21] has noted…”

6) On L142, delete blank space after comma so change to [22,23]

7) Change on L161 to “An older study [29] found that…”

8) Change on L179 to [36-39] and please use the longer endash symbol and not the shorter hyphen

9) Change the last paragraph of the Introduction to:

The goal of this study was to determine practical solutions for dairy co-operatives in order to improve the balance between supply and demand as well as the sustainability of their operations.  Therefore the objectives of our research were to 1) design a dynamic programming method for herd structure management in dairy cooperatives and 2) to compare subsequent performance indicators with traditional approaches to herd management assuming the same level of technical skills among workers. By using a dynamic programming approach, herd structure management can be improved considerably for improved productivity and sustainability of the dairy industry. The results of our work not only contribute to academic theories on model development of dairy herds but they also provide advice for practical actions in dairy cooperatives in Thailand as well other countries that are facing similar supply and demand problems for dairy products.

10) On L473, please change to: Results

11) Make L530-545 into one paragraph

12) For journal articles cited in References, the volume and issue number needs to follow the following format for example on L849 (and all other citations applicable): change 57, (2), to 57(2),

13) For sub-sub-headers like on L546, only the first word is capitalized so for example, change to 3.2.1. High demand scenario and on L570, change to 3.2.2. Low demand scenario, etc.

14) MDPI journals are not published in the United Kingdom so please change for example, “litres” to “liters” and “optimise” to “optimize”

15) On L658, please change to: Discussion

16) Add a period on L659 so change to 4.1. and make similar edits on L681 and L694

17) Delete extra space on L681

18) Do not indent L659, L681, and 694

19) Change L694 to 3. Opportunities and Challenges of Enabling Smart Farming Integration

20) Make similar edits on L703

21) Merge L715-726 into one paragraph

22) On L731, change to “…a dynamic programming-based model for…”

23) On L759, change to “…dynamic programming approach. However,”

24) On L761-762, change to “…and sustainability dimensions. These are all essential for…”

25) For all journal articles cited, please use the ISO4 abbreviation so for example on L841 this should be Livestock Sci.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for providing this detailed list of final edits and for their continued support throughout the review process. All 25 points have been carefully addressed throughout the manuscript. These include structural adjustments, citation formatting, consistent use of ISO4 journal abbreviations, American English spelling, revised subheadings, and refined paragraph organization. Additionally, the revised Introduction paragraph, keywords order, and section headers have all been updated to comply with the journal’s formatting and language standards. We have verified each change to ensure accuracy and consistency across the manuscript. The revised version reflects all suggested edits accordingly. We truly appreciate your constructive feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and quality of our work.