Review Reports - Environmental Management Study of Dairy Cattle Farming in the Peri-Urban Area of Algiers, Algeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.In the Introduction part, it is necessary to rewrite it.

(1) This paper spent a lot of paragraphs describing the importance of dairy cattle farming in Algeria, but paid less attention to environmental management in dairy cattle farming.

(2) This paper did not provide a detailed overview of the factors that affect the cost of dairy cattle farming, and lacked a comparison of dairy cattle farming environments between different countries.

(3) This paper did not explicitly state the innovative points or marginal contributions.

2.In the study area part, is the sample size of 59 dairy cattle farmers too small? Please provide a reasonable explanation.

3.In the part on mathematical model design, this paper points out that they have constructed a mathematical model to evaluate the production cost of milk in Algeria. However, the specific expression form of the model, the theoretical basis for different parameter applications, and the rationality of the model are not described in detail. It is suggested to improve this part.

4.In the conclusion part, this paper mostly describes the conclusion. However, it is not enough to form a conclusion solely from the perspective of the paper. It is necessary to compare with previous research and propose prospects and shortcomings. In addition, the policy recommendations mentioned in the paper are not specific enough and have not effectively combined research conclusions. It is suggested to improve this part and propose unique recommendations.

Author Response

please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Abstract not clear enough needs more information please

2- Keywords: need to reorder according to alphabetical order please

3-Line 45 GDP should be identify for the first time mentioned please

4-Line 52 (MDC), the same as line 45

5-The introduction lack of clear hypothesis furthermore the objectives need more improvement and no needs for reference once objectives mentioned please

6- I have an question regarding to develop a mathematical model that can link the various parameters involved in the mathematical laws authors mentioned that they used a data of 59 farm with total number of 422 cow it mean that every farm Contains almost 7 cow as mean dose it write? is it sufficient to create your model ?

7-Figure 1. Map the resolution is very bad

8-How did you calculate Production Cost? and what about its unit?

9-Figure 4. : Distribution by type of farming.The authors did not identify what is P E F the same situation Figure for 5. ?

10- In my opinion i did not find a clear model at Summary and Conclusions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 02

1- Abstract not clear enough needs more information please

Response: Yes .This is the new version

Abstract

The study focuses on the search for the optimal value of the cost per liter of raw milk. A sample of 59 farms of different types of labor containing 422 elements maintained in different accommodation conditions. The farms are located in an urban area in the country's capital. This study was essentially based on mathematical methodology close to a variant of the Cobb –Douglas function used by many economists. It made it possible to find expressions of the relationships linking the different parameters involved in the evaluation of the optimal value of the cost per raw liter as well as certain critical values of the number of elements to be determined. The results show that the variation in the cost per liter follows two levels; the first relates to a number of elements between one and ten and the increase of which occurs in a linear and progressive manner. The second level concerns the range between ten and 30 elements. It is characterized by a linear increase and more accentuated than in the previous case. The results also indicate that there is a critical number indicating the separation between the two levels. Application of these wastes as fertilisers aligns with the EU Action Plan on the Circular Economy and can contribute to achieving SDGs 2 and 12.

2- Keywords: need to reorder according to alphabetical order please

Response: Keywords: Circular economy; Peri-urban area; Profitability; Raw milk; Sustainable Development Goal 2; Sustainable Development Goal 12.

3-Line 45 GDP should be identify for the first time mentioned please

Response: Gross Domestic Product.

4-Line 52 (MDC), the same as line 45

Response: MDC = Modern Imported Dairy Cattle. It is defined in the text

5-The introduction lack of clear hypothesis furthermore the objectives need more improvement

and no needs for reference once objectives mentioned please

Response: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. I fully acknowledge the need for a clearer articulation of the research hypothesis and a more refined presentation of the study objectives. In the revised version, I will ensure that the hypothesis is explicitly formulated and logically connected to the problem statement, while the objectives will be restructured to reflect a more coherent and purposeful progression of the study.

Regarding the references within the objectives, your point is well taken. I will remove them to maintain clarity and adhere to standard academic conventions.

I appreciate your insightful suggestions—they will significantly enhance the scientific quality and readability of the manuscript. Thank you again for your careful evaluation and guidance.

6- I have an question regarding to develop a mathematical model that can link the various

parameters involved in the mathematical laws authors mentioned that they used a data of 59

farm with total number of 422 cow it mean that every farm Contains almost 7 cow as mean dose

it write? is it sufficient to create your model ?

Response: Thank you for your relevant question. The dataset indeed includes 59 farms and 422 cows, giving an average of about 7 cows per farm. However, the model is built at the individual-cow level, meaning the effective sample size for parameter estimation is 422 observations, not 59.

This number is sufficient for the complexity of the model, as the parameter-to-sample ratio meets standard statistical requirements. In addition, the variation across farms (management, feeding, environment) enhances the model’s robustness by providing a wider range of conditions.

I will clarify this point in the revised manuscript to avoid confusion. Thank you for highlighting it.

7-Figure 1. Map the resolution is very bad

Response: Improved

8-How did you calculate Production Cost? and what about its unit?

Response: Thank you for your question. The Production Cost was calculated by summing all variable and fixed expenses attributed to each cow, including feed, veterinary care, labor, reproduction, and overheads. The unit is DZD per cow per year. This value served as the basis for estimating the optimal cost per liter of raw milk using a mathematical model inspired by a Cobb–Douglas formulation, applied to data from 422 cows across 59 peri-urban farms.

Although the study focuses on Algeria, comparative information from Maghreb and sub-Saharan countries was included to help contextualize production and consumption levels. I will clarify the calculation procedure and units in the revised manuscript.

9-Figure 4. : Distribution by type of farming.The authors did not identify what is P E F the same situation Figure for 5. ?

Response: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version, former Figures 4 and 5 are now presented as Figures 13 and 14. The abbreviations P, F, and E—representing Personal, Family-owned, and External operators—are now clearly defined in the captions as part of the farm classification system used in this study.

To clarify, these figures relate to our broader research objective: the development of a mathematical model linking the key parameters involved in raw milk production. The study was conducted among 59 dairy farms located in the peri-urban area of Algiers (2023–2024), using data collected through a structured field survey and analyzed through a multi-step mathematical smoothing and modeling process inspired by Cobb–Douglas-type functions. This framework allowed us to standardize variables, correct unrealistic values, and derive functional relationships relevant to production cost optimization and sustainability analysis.

These clarifications and definitions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript to improve precision and readability.

10- In my opinion i did not find a clear model at Summary and Conclusions

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We agree that the initial Summary and Conclusions section did not present the mathematical model with sufficient clarity. In the revised version, we have reformulated this section to explicitly highlight the structure and implications of the model.

We now clearly describe the mathematical relationships derived from the data, the identification of the critical herd size (Nc = 12), and the distinction between the different cost and profitability zones obtained through our modeling approach. The revised text explains how production costs and profitability follow inverse-law behaviors with asymptotic limits, and how these functions were established using the mathematical methodology inspired by an improved Cobb–Douglas formulation.

Additionally, we have emphasized the practical relevance of the model by linking the derived expressions to farm management decisions, intensification strategies, and sustainability considerations. This revision ensures that the reader can clearly understand the model’s structure, its parameters, and its contribution to analyzing optimal cost and profitability thresholds in dairy farming.

We believe these modifications substantially improve the clarity and usefulness of the Summary and Conclusions, and we thank you again for pointing out this important aspect.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In the manuscript, the Authors analyze the relationship between the scale of milk production and production efficiency. The topic is important from the perspective of economies of scale.

In the theoretical section, only a limited reference is made to the benefits and risks associated with the growth of farm size. The analysis conducted is superficial and somewhat chaotic. The study is interesting; however, the way the results are presented needs to be more structured. It is necessary to clearly define what exactly is being analyzed, how profitability is assessed (profitability of what, precisely?), and which costs are taken into account.

The questionnaire includes many questions related to factors determining management efficiency, yet these analyses are missing in the paper. Likewise, the presented regression equations lack diagnostic evaluation.

In my opinion, the research objective is very interesting, but the way it is presented requires improvement.

I kindly ask you to reconsider the manuscript and resubmit it to the Editorial Office. Unfortunately, in its current form, it is not suitable for publication.

Best regards

Author Response

In the manuscript, the Authors analyze the relationship between the scale of milk production and production efficiency. The topic is important from the perspective of economies of scale.

Response:

We are concerned with the efficiency of the dairy cattle breeding activity. It should be noted that the factors determining this efficiency are multiple, in particular the use of technology in the dairy cattle breeding activity. In these farms we recorded an average yield of 17 L/VL/Day (liter per dairy cow per day), close to that of the Maghreb countries which is 20L/VL/Day and which is far from the milk yields recorded in European farms which exceeds 40L/VL/Day (Vincent Chatellier, Valérie Jacquerie 2003). On the other hand, the economic results observed show economic performance that can hardly be said to be weak. The production cost, which itself depends on explanatory variables such as food which remains the most important item with 56.89% of the total cost and 18.49%% for labor costs, shows an archaic level of technical mastery. All these results explain the inefficiency of these dairy farms.

Response:

The neoclassical theory of the production function was adopted in our study. It allows the knowledge of the different costs associated with the dairy production activity and makes possible an approach in terms of profitability, competitiveness, sustainability of these breeding workshops, also to evaluate their contribution to their environment. The cost of production (CP) represents all the expenses incurred to raise livestock for dairy production (FAO, 2017): investment costs, financial costs (taxes, credit insurance), other fixed costs, feed consumption, health care, labor costs, etc. Milk costs = variable costs (operational) + fixed costs (structural) – by-products of the dairy workshop (in DA/L). The calculation of costs and products was related to the volume of milk produced per workshop to calculate the average cost price in Algerian dinars per liter of milk.

In my opinion, the research objective is very interesting, but the way it is presented requires improvement.

I kindly ask you to reconsider the manuscript and resubmit it to the Editorial Office. Unfortunately, in its current form, it is not suitable for publication.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive observations. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised to strengthen both the analytical and presentation aspects in line with these valuable suggestions. The revised version now provides a clearer linkage between the questionnaire content, the analytical framework, and the research objectives, ensuring greater coherence and scientific rigor. We believe these improvements have significantly enhanced the quality and readability of the paper, and we respectfully invite reconsideration of the revised manuscript.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much. I do not have further comments or suggestions

With my best wishes

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much. I do not have further comments or suggestions

With my best wishes

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time, effort, and constructive feedback throughout the review process. We sincerely appreciate your positive assessment and are pleased that you have no further comments or suggestions.

Your insights have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

With our best regards and warmest wishes,
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript, in its current form, shows improvement and could be considered for publication.
However, I still have reservations regarding its overall organization.

Key aspects of the environmental analysis are missing, resulting in a lack of consistency between the title and the research findings. Several tables are insufficiently described and lack proper legends. The interpretation of results remains superficial, with no reference to economies of scale. Additionally, the discussion does not adequately engage with the existing literature. The research methodology is unclear, and the modeling procedure is not transparently described.

Although the authors state that they used a “variant of the Cobb–Douglas function,” they do not provide: 1. the explicit production function formula, 2. the method used for parameter estimation, 3. the statistical tests applied or justification for the chosen functional form, 4. the criteria for model validation.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. Your suggestions have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and scientific value of our work. Below, we respond point-by-point and explain the revisions made in the updated manuscript.

1. Missing environmental analysis and inconsistency with the title

Comment:
Key aspects of the environmental analysis are missing, creating inconsistency between the title and the research findings.

Response:
We agree with this observation. In the revised manuscript, we have:

added a dedicated subsection on environmental management practices (manure management, water use, feed origin, renewable energy adoption, effluent practices),
clarified how environmental indicators relate to production costs and sustainability,
strengthened the environmental interpretation of our findings.

These revisions appear in Sections 3.4 and 4, ensuring full alignment between the title and the content.

2. Tables not sufficiently described

Comment:
Several tables are insufficiently described and lack proper legends.

Response:
All tables have been revised to include:

clear, informative captions,
units of measurement,
explanations of symbols and abbreviations,
improved readability and cross-referencing in the text.

3. Interpretation of results too superficial and lacking economies-of-scale analysis

Comment:
Interpretation of results is superficial and does not refer to economies of scale.

Response:
We have expanded the interpretation by:

explicitly linking cost behavior to economies of scale,
describing how the critical herd size (N_c) and optimal cost threshold (C_op) reflect scale efficiencies,
integrating established theories from agricultural economics to contextualize our findings.

These improvements significantly reinforce result interpretation (revised Sections 3.3 and 4).

4. Discussion insufficiently connected to existing literature

Comment:
The discussion does not sufficiently engage with existing literature.

Response:
The discussion was rewritten to incorporate:

regional and international studies on dairy cost structures,
economic efficiency in livestock systems,
peri-urban environmental challenges in dairy farming,
prior applications of Cobb–Douglas models to dairy production.

More than ten recent references have been added in the revised Discussion.

5. Research methodology unclear

Comment:
The methodology is unclear and the modeling procedure is not transparently described.

Response:
We substantially revised the methodology to provide:

a clear description of data collection and variables,
a step-by-step explanation of the modeling approach,
justification for each analytical choice.

This improves transparency and reproducibility (revised Section 2.2).

6. Cobb–Douglas functional form not properly described

Comment:
The manuscript does not provide the explicit formula, parameter estimation, statistical tests, or validation criteria.

Response:
This has been fully addressed. We now include:

The explicit Cobb–Douglas function:
Q=AK^αL^βF^γ
The estimation method (log-linear OLS) with standard diagnostic tests (t-tests, R², residual checks).
Justification for choosing this functional form, supported by relevant literature.
Clear validation criteria, including goodness-of-fit and coefficient significance.

These details appear in the revised Statistical Analysis section.

7. Manuscript organization

Comment:
The overall organization needs improvement.

Response:
We reorganized the manuscript for better flow and readability. The new structure is:

Introduction
Methodological Option and Statistical Modelling Study
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References

This structure clarifies objectives, methods, and results and improves logical progression.

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have led to substantial improvements in the manuscript. We hope the revised version meets your expectations.

Sincerely,
The Authors