Broiler Farming in Africa vs. the EU: Divergent Systems, Shared Challenges, and Future Directions—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic in global poultry production, offering a comparative perspective between Africa and the EU. The narrative is generally clear and well-structured, but several methodological inconsistencies, structural issues, redundancies, and formatting problems must be addressed before publication.

The paper is suitable for Animals, but it requires major revision. Please find below the detailed comments.

Major concerns:

1. Mismatch Between Aim and Methods (Lines 56–71) -This is a critical inconsistency.

The methodology states a focus on “enriched housing conditions on meat quality”, whereas the manuscript actually discusses housing systems, welfare, and regulatory frameworks.

2. Lack of Systematic Review Rigor (Lines 56–78)

The literature search lacks: the PRISMA framework, the number of articles retrieved/included, and the screening process. Databases are listed, but the search strings and selection process are vague. I suggest you include search strategy (Boolean terms), number of records (identified, screened, included), and a flow diagram (PRISMA is recommended).

3. Redundant and Repetitive Content (Lines 80–87 vs 254–269). Similar descriptions of housing differences appear in the Results and the Discussion sections.
4. Formatting Errors in Section 3.1 (Lines 117–133)

Section numbering is incorrect: “3.1.2 Free-Range System”, followed by “3.1.2 Indoor intensive housing” (duplicate). Section titles merged incorrectly.

5. Tables Are Incorrect and Unreadable (Lines 231–232). Please check it.

Table 1: duplicated entries, misaligned categories (e.g., “Genetics” under feed), and repeated rows

Table 2: duplicated headers, poor formatting, and unclear structure.

6. Overgeneralization of African Systems (Lines 160–175, 217–230):

Africa is treated as a homogeneous region. Shouldn't you divide in North Africa vs Sub-Saharan Africa?

Regulatory discussions rely heavily on the South African Poultry Association (SAPA), which weakens scientific accuracy. If this is the only source, please identify the lack of sources.

7. Insufficient Critical Analysis

The manuscript is largely descriptive. There is limited discussion on trade-offs, the scalability of EU systems in Africa, and climate change implications. My suggestion is to add a deeper analysis of the feasibility of technology transfer and the economic vs. welfare trade-offs.

Line-by-Line Corrections

Line 20: “common challenge:” -consider rephrasing for conciseness

Line 37: “Housing conditions themselves” -redundant wording

Line 63: “variations thereof”- vague, specify

Line 59-64: Here, you need to give more details on which bases you searched, and which strings were used. Data on subsection 2.3 should be included here.

Line 98: EFSA threshold (11 kg/m²) needs contextual explanation

Line 117: 3.1.2. Free-Range System- is it in the proper place?

Line 133: heading merged with the previous paragraph - 3.1.3. Organic chicken production requirements under EU law.

Line 167–168: clarify statistical significance (add values if possible).

Line 235: citation format “[9,1]”- incorrect order

Lines 294–301: The conclusion is too general; it lacks quantitative insights and actionable recommendations

Please check the references for grey literature and remove duplicates.

Author Response

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic in global poultry production, offering a comparative perspective between Africa and the EU. The narrative is generally clear and well-structured, but several methodological inconsistencies, structural issues, redundancies, and formatting problems must be addressed before publication.

The paper is suitable for Animals, but it requires major revision. Please find below the detailed comments.

AUTHORS: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the comments and suggestions. The detailed reply is presented below. All editing suggestions were directly accepted in the Word file. If any changes were made to the manuscript, they were highlighted in the text, and the LINE numbers with changes are reported below.

 

Major concerns:

1. Mismatch Between Aim and Methods (Lines 56–71) -This is a critical inconsistency.

The methodology states a focus on “enriched housing conditions on meat quality”, whereas the manuscript actually discusses housing systems, welfare, and regulatory frameworks.

AUTHORS: We have corrected the pointed phrase to: The literature review conducted for this research project sought to systematically identify and synthesize relevant studies on housing systems, animal welfare, and regulatory frameworks, with a comparative focus on Africa and Europe.

 

1. Lack of Systematic Review Rigor (Lines 56–78)

The literature search lacks: the PRISMA framework, the number of articles retrieved/included, and the screening process. Databases are listed, but the search strings and selection process are vague. I suggest you include search strategy (Boolean terms), number of records (identified, screened, included), and a flow diagram (PRISMA is recommended).

AUTHORS: Thank you for that comment. We have added a PRISMA framework description (LL74-105) and flow diagram .

 

1. Redundant and Repetitive Content (Lines 80–87 vs 254–269). Similar descriptions of housing differences appear in the Results and the Discussion sections.

AUTHORS: We have removed the sentence in LL254-269 of the Discussion.

 

 

1. Formatting Errors in Section 3.1 (Lines 117–133)

Section numbering is incorrect: “3.1.2 Free-Range System”, followed by “3.1.2 Indoor intensive housing” (duplicate). Section titles merged incorrectly.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

1. Tables Are Incorrect and Unreadable (Lines 231–232). Please check it.

Table 1: duplicated entries, misaligned categories (e.g., “Genetics” under feed), and repeated rows

Table 2: duplicated headers, poor formatting, and unclear structure.

AUTHORS: We corrected Table 1 and split Table 2 into 2a and 2b. We believe that the content is now clear.

 

1. Overgeneralization of African Systems (Lines 160–175, 217–230):

Africa is treated as a homogeneous region. Shouldn't you divide in North Africa vs Sub-Saharan Africa?

Regulatory discussions rely heavily on the South African Poultry Association (SAPA), which weakens scientific accuracy. If this is the only source, please identify the lack of sources.

AUTHORS: Unfortunately, we did not find sufficient scientifically sound data sources on poultry production in other regions of Africa.

 

1. Insufficient Critical Analysis

The manuscript is largely descriptive. There is limited discussion on trade-offs, the scalability of EU systems in Africa, and climate change implications. My suggestion is to add a deeper analysis of the feasibility of technology transfer and the economic vs. welfare trade-offs.

AUTHORS: We have added an additional Discussion subsection in LL390-479. We have also added Figures 2-5 to compare the chicken production systems between EU and Africa.

 

Line-by-Line Corrections

Line 20: “common challenge:” -consider rephrasing for conciseness

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

Line 37: “Housing conditions themselves” -redundant wording

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

Line 63: “variations thereof”- vague, specify

AUTHORS: The whole section has been rewritten.

 

Line 59-64: Here, you need to give more details on which bases you searched, and which strings were used. Data on subsection 2.3 should be included here.

AUTHORS: The whole section has been rewritten (LL74-105).

 

Line 98: EFSA threshold (11 kg/m²) needs contextual explanation

AUTHORS: Corrected, now in LL155-159.

 

Line 117: 3.1.2. Free-Range System- is it in the proper place?

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

Line 133: heading merged with the previous paragraph - 3.1.3. Organic chicken production requirements under EU law.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

Line 167–168: clarify statistical significance (add values if possible).

AUTHORS: Added, LL247-251.

 

Line 235: citation format “[9,1]”- incorrect order

AUTHORS: Corrected, L350.

 

Lines 294–301: The conclusion is too general; it lacks quantitative insights and actionable recommendations

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

Please check the references for grey literature and remove duplicates.

AUTHORS: Checked and corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper does a good job of comparing broiler farming in Africa with that of the EU.  Africa has unique circumstances compared to much of the rest of the world that the paper does a good job of explaining.  In addition, the needs are different between Africa and the EU and as result, management practices are different.  I think it would add value to the paper to address the fact that lack of access to Extension services and personnel are a serious disadvantage to much of Africa and that increase to additional Extension services could improve poultry farming, be it intensive or village production, across much of Africa, especially rural Africa that often lacks adequate infrastructure and access to services.

Line 39 - include temperature along with other environmental factors

Line 118 - should 3.1.2 be titled related to free-range or outdoor systems.  It is currently titled identical to 3.1.1.

Line 189 - perhaps include some information here related to the lack of Extension services and Extension officers across much of Africa

Table 1 and 2 - you have a reference in both Tables 1 and 2 (Alabi et al., 2008) that I cannot find in the reference list.  Please verify that it is there or add it to the reference list 

Author Response

This paper does a good job of comparing broiler farming in Africa with that of the EU.  Africa has unique circumstances compared to much of the rest of the world that the paper does a good job of explaining.  In addition, the needs are different between Africa and the EU and as result, management practices are different. 

AUTHORS: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the comments and suggestions. The detailed reply is presented below. All editing suggestions were directly accepted in the Word file. If any changes were made to the manuscript, they were highlighted in the text, and the LINE numbers with changes are reported below.

 

I think it would add value to the paper to address the fact that lack of access to Extension services and personnel are a serious disadvantage to much of Africa and that increase to additional Extension services could improve poultry farming, be it intensive or village production, across much of Africa, especially rural Africa that often lacks adequate infrastructure and access to services.

AUTHORS: Thank you for that comment. We have added additional Discussion parts as suggested: LL367-369 and LL390-479.

 

Line 39 - include temperature along with other environmental factors

AUTHORS: Added

 

Line 118 - should 3.1.2 be titled related to free-range or outdoor systems.  It is currently titled identical to 3.1.1.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

Line 189 - perhaps include some information here related to the lack of Extension services and Extension officers across much of Africa

AUTHORS: Added in LL367-369.

 

Table 1 and 2 - you have a reference in both Tables 1 and 2 (Alabi et al., 2008) that I cannot find in the reference list.  Please verify that it is there or add it to the reference list 

AUTHORS: The reference was missing. In the end, we have changed both tables.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief Summary

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic. According to the general objective stated in the Introduction, it aims to compare broiler housing systems, regulatory frameworks, and market drivers across Africa and the European Union, highlighting how regional conditions shape production strategies and identifying opportunities for cross-regional learning. The authors attempt to achieve this objective through a literature review. However, the overall scientific quality of the manuscript is insufficient, and therefore I recommend rejection in its current form.

General Comments

The length of the manuscript (excluding references) does not reach 30,000 characters. The number of cited sources is 28, which may be acceptable as a basic reference set; however, for a review article, this is clearly insufficient and does not ensure comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature.

The formulation of the manuscript’s objective lacks coherence. While the Abstract and Introduction suggest a comparative review of broiler production systems in Africa and the EU, the Methods section states that the aim is to “comprehensively gather relevant studies on the impact of enriched housing conditions on the meat quality of broiler chickens.” This represents a clear mismatch between the stated objectives and the methodological approach. In addition, the research objective is overly general, and the manuscript fails to clearly define the underlying scientific problem, identify a research gap, or formulate specific research questions based on this gap.

The methodological framework of the review is poorly developed. Essential elements are missing, including clearly defined search strings, the number of retrieved records, a transparent screening process, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, duplicate handling, and any form of quality assessment (e.g., risk of bias). In the absence of these components, the review is not reproducible, which is a fundamental requirement even for narrative reviews. Consequently, the manuscript reads more like a simple literature summary (or a weak narrative essay) rather than a scientifically rigorous review article.

The Results section is largely descriptive and lacks meaningful synthesis of the reviewed literature. A structured and analytical comparison of broiler production systems in the EU and Africa is missing. Furthermore, the comparison of housing systems, regulatory frameworks, and market drivers is not conducted along consistent dimensions. Section 3.1 primarily summarizes the regulatory framework of EU broiler production across different housing systems. In contrast, Section 3.2, while nominally parallel in scope, introduces additional thematic elements (e.g., climate control and environmental management, and socio-economic drivers), and partially shifts toward a comparative perspective. As a result, the overall structure of the Results section is inconsistent and lacks logical coherence. There are also inaccuracies in the section headings (e.g., duplication and inconsistency between Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2), which further weaken the presentation.

The Discussion section is also underdeveloped. It largely reiterates the findings presented in the Results section and provides only limited added value. A deeper interpretation of the findings, a clearer articulation of the manuscript’s scientific contribution, and more substantive policy-relevant insights are lacking. The Conclusions, in their current form, do not meet the expectations of a scientific publication.

In summary, I recommend rejection of the manuscript based on the following major issues:

• Fundamental mismatch between the stated objectives and the applied methodology, which undermines the overall coherence of the study.
• Lack of a clearly defined research gap and absence of specific research questions, resulting in an overly general and unfocused manuscript.
• Inadequate and non-reproducible review methodology, with missing key elements such as search strategy, screening process, and quality assessment.
• Insufficient literature coverage, with only 28 references, which is not adequate for a review on this topic.
• Lack of synthesis and analytical depth, with the Results section remaining largely descriptive rather than comparative and integrative.
• Inconsistent and illogical structure, particularly in the Results section, where the comparison between regions is not conducted along consistent dimensions.
• Weak Discussion section, which largely reiterates previous findings without providing deeper interpretation or meaningful scientific contribution.
• Overly general and insufficiently supported Conclusions.

Author Response

Brief Summary

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic. According to the general objective stated in the Introduction, it aims to compare broiler housing systems, regulatory frameworks, and market drivers across Africa and the European Union, highlighting how regional conditions shape production strategies and identifying opportunities for cross-regional learning. The authors attempt to achieve this objective through a literature review. However, the overall scientific quality of the manuscript is insufficient, and therefore I recommend rejection in its current form.

AUTHORS: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the comments and suggestions. The detailed reply is presented below. All editing suggestions were directly accepted in the Word file. If any changes were made to the manuscript, they were highlighted in the text, and the LINE numbers with changes are reported below.

 

General Comments

The length of the manuscript (excluding references) does not reach 30,000 characters. The number of cited sources is 28, which may be acceptable as a basic reference set; however, for a review article, this is clearly insufficient and does not ensure comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature.

AUTHORS: We have added references (from 29 to 45) to the reference list. In general, the literature on chicken production in Africa is limited. All newly added literature and its implementation in the body of the article are marked in yellow.

 

The formulation of the manuscript’s objective lacks coherence. While the Abstract and Introduction suggest a comparative review of broiler production systems in Africa and the EU, the Methods section states that the aim is to “comprehensively gather relevant studies on the impact of enriched housing conditions on the meat quality of broiler chickens.” This represents a clear mismatch between the stated objectives and the methodological approach. In addition, the research objective is overly general, and the manuscript fails to clearly define the underlying scientific problem, identify a research gap, or formulate specific research questions based on this gap.

AUTHORS: Thank you for that comment. We have pointed out the research gap and added the research questions in LL55-71.

 

The methodological framework of the review is poorly developed. Essential elements are missing, including clearly defined search strings, the number of retrieved records, a transparent screening process, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, duplicate handling, and any form of quality assessment (e.g., risk of bias). In the absence of these components, the review is not reproducible, which is a fundamental requirement even for narrative reviews. Consequently, the manuscript reads more like a simple literature summary (or a weak narrative essay) rather than a scientifically rigorous review article.

AUTHORS: We have rewritten M&M sections – LL74-108, and added a PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1).

 

The Results section is largely descriptive and lacks meaningful synthesis of the reviewed literature. A structured and analytical comparison of broiler production systems in the EU and Africa is missing. Furthermore, the comparison of housing systems, regulatory frameworks, and market drivers is not conducted along consistent dimensions. Section 3.1 primarily summarizes the regulatory framework of EU broiler production across different housing systems. In contrast, Section 3.2, while nominally parallel in scope, introduces additional thematic elements (e.g., climate control and environmental management, and socio-economic drivers), and partially shifts toward a comparative perspective. As a result, the overall structure of the Results section is inconsistent and lacks logical coherence. There are also inaccuracies in the section headings (e.g., duplication and inconsistency between Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2), which further weaken the presentation.

AUTHORS: We have corrected the subsection headings. We did not change the shape of the Results section because the aim was to present the characteristics here and leave the comparisons to the Discussion section.

 

The Discussion section is also underdeveloped. It largely reiterates the findings presented in the Results section and provides only limited added value. A deeper interpretation of the findings, a clearer articulation of the manuscript’s scientific contribution, and more substantive policy-relevant insights are lacking. The Conclusions, in their current form, do not meet the expectations of a scientific publication.

AUTHORS: We had rewritten/ added parts of the Discussion section and rewritten the Conclusions. We have added Figures (2-5) to illustrate the housing systems' characteristics and comparisons between the EU and Africa.

 

In summary, I recommend rejection of the manuscript based on the following major issues:

• Fundamental mismatch between the stated objectives and the applied methodology, which undermines the overall coherence of the study.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

• Lack of a clearly defined research gap and absence of specific research questions, resulting in an overly general and unfocused manuscript.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

• Inadequate and non-reproducible review methodology, with missing key elements such as search strategy, screening process, and quality assessment.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

• Insufficient literature coverage, with only 28 references, which is not adequate for a review on this topic.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

• Lack of synthesis and analytical depth, with the Results section remaining largely descriptive rather than comparative and integrative.

AUTHORS: As mentioned before, the Results were created to present the findings, while the discussion and conclusions were made to make comparisons.

 

• Inconsistent and illogical structure, particularly in the Results section, where the comparison between regions is not conducted along consistent dimensions.

AUTHORS: Partially corrected.

 

• Weak Discussion section, which largely reiterates previous findings without providing deeper interpretation or meaningful scientific contribution.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

• Overly general and insufficiently supported Conclusions.

AUTHORS: Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

animals-4245669-peer-review-v1

 

The manuscript addresses the comparison of broiler welfare legislation and technological characteristics of broiler housing systems in the EU and Africa.

However, the main purpose of this non-conventional review is not clearly stated. Please define at the end of the Introduction, the scientific merit of this study and its contribution to animal science knowledge and justify its relevance!

Regarding article selection, I strongly recommend creating a flow chart on article selection illustrating inclusion and exclusion criteria, platforms, and the number of excluded and included articles. Merely listing databases and briefly mentioning criteria is insufficient. Additionally, the overall structure of the manuscript should be reconsidered and expanded to provide a more comprehensive and complex overview of the topic.

Section 3.1.2 contains a mistyped paragraph title. Furthermore, it is unnecessary to refer to the title of the subsequent paragraph at the end of previous sections. These should be removed.

Line 176 – adjustable curtains in the EU’s intensive broiler farms are also present as a part of PLF technology.

Table 2. There is no title for this table.

I also suggest including illustrative figures comparing EU and African broiler production systems, highlighting key technological differences. Since it is a review, many more references and illustrations are expected, as well as a chapter discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems. Furthermore, a paragraph highlighting the strengths (fulfilment of research gaps) and limitations of the study would be welcome. Considering the shortcomings of the work, substantial revision, deeper analysis, and additional content are required. Without these improvements, the manuscript may not meet the standards of a highly reputable journal such as Animals. The final decision is left to the Editor.

Author Response

The manuscript compares broiler welfare legislation and the technological characteristics of broiler housing systems in the EU and Africa. However, the main purpose of this non-conventional review is not clearly stated. Please define at the end of the Introduction, the scientific merit of this study and its contribution to animal science knowledge and justify its relevance!

AUTHORS: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the comments and suggestions. The detailed reply is presented below. All editing suggestions were directly accepted in the Word file. If any changes were made to the manuscript, they were highlighted in the text, and the LINE numbers with changes are reported below.

We have added a detailed explanation of why the topic was selected and research questions in LL55-71.

 

Regarding article selection, I strongly recommend creating a flow chart on article selection illustrating inclusion and exclusion criteria, platforms, and the number of excluded and included articles. Merely listing databases and briefly mentioning criteria is insufficient. Additionally, the overall structure of the manuscript should be reconsidered and expanded to provide a more comprehensive and complex overview of the topic.

AUTHORS: We have added a detailed description of the literature search (LL74-108) and a PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1).

 

Section 3.1.2 contains a mistyped paragraph title. Furthermore, it is unnecessary to refer to the title of the subsequent paragraph at the end of previous sections. These should be removed.

AUTHORS: Corrected

 

Line 176 – adjustable curtains in the EU’s intensive broiler farms are also present as a part of PLF technology.

AUTHORS: Added (L260)

 

Table 2. There is no title for this table.

AUTHORS: Added

 

I also suggest including illustrative figures comparing EU and African broiler production systems, highlighting key technological differences. Since it is a review, many more references and illustrations are expected, as well as a chapter discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems. Furthermore, a paragraph highlighting the strengths (fulfilment of research gaps) and limitations of the study would be welcome. Considering the shortcomings of the work, substantial revision, deeper analysis, and additional content are required. Without these improvements, the manuscript may not meet the standards of a highly reputable journal such as Animals. The final decision is left to the Editor.

 

AUTHORS: We have added Figures 2-5 to illustrate the housing systems characteristics and to compare the chicken production between EU and Africa.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows clear improvement and addresses several of the major concerns raised in the previous round. In particular, the study rationale is now clearer, the comparative framework has been strengthened through explicit research questions, and the manuscript benefits from additional tables and figures and expanded discussion sections. The inclusion of a strengths-and-limitations section is also appreciated.

However, some important issues remain unresolved. The review methodology still lacks sufficient detail for full reproducibility, several arguments continue to overgeneralize the African context, and the synthesis is not yet consistently organized around the stated research questions. Overall, the revision is improved, but additional revisions are still required.

1. Major methodological weakness: the review is still not reproducible. Lines 73–86 state that the review was conducted systematically and in accordance with PRISMA, but the search strategy remains overly generic to be replicated. The databases are listed, yet the exact search strings, search dates, Boolean combinations, filters, language restrictions, and screening procedures are not reported in sufficient detail. The current wording suggests a systematic review, but the method is still closer to a structured narrative review. This remains a major flaw because the methodological claims exceed the actual detail provided.

At lines 90–105, the authors provide screening counts and broad inclusion criteria, but they still do not explain how studies were extracted, coded, compared, or synthesized across the two regions. There is no explanation of whether a data extraction form was used, how evidence quality was judged, or how conflicting findings were handled. Without this, the comparative conclusions are not methodologically transparent enough.

At this stage, the authors should either provide a fully reproducible review method or soften their methodological claim. If they keep the PRISMA framing, they should report the full search syntax for each database, the exact dates of the search, language and document-type restrictions, the screening workflow, and a clear explanation of how the final 45 studies were analyzed comparatively.

2. Major analytical weakness: the manuscript states five research questions, but the synthesis does not systematically answer them. Lines 64–70 introduce five research questions, which is a clear improvement. However, the Results and Discussion are not consistently structured around those questions. The manuscript moves descriptively across housing systems, regulations, and socioeconomic issues, but it rarely signals which results answer which research question. This creates a mismatch between the stated analytical framework and the actual presentation of findings.

For example, lines 136–144 introduce the comparative results in broad terms, but the subsequent sections mostly remain descriptive rather than explicitly analytical. Likewise, lines 370–395 present a comparison and discussion of transferability, but they do not explicitly synthesize the findings with RQ1–RQ5.

The authors should explicitly reorganize the end of the Results and Discussion sections so that each research question is directly addressed. Even a short synthesis paragraph under each RQ would make the manuscript much stronger.

3. Major conceptual weakness: the African context is still treated too broadly. The manuscript does acknowledge heterogeneity in Africa, which is helpful. However, several passages still generalize excessively across the continent. For instance, lines 240–266 and 267–283 present Africa-wide housing and management characteristics, but the evidence cited appears to come from selected countries and is then extended to the whole region. This is a significant conceptual weakness because production systems, infrastructure, climate, policy enforcement, and market structures vary greatly across African countries.

A similar problem appears at lines 317–334, where the discussion of African poultry sectors is framed in generalized continental terms despite major intra-regional variation. The authors should qualify these claims much more carefully. They should distinguish between North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, and low-income rural village systems where appropriate, rather than writing as if a single African production model exists.

4. Major structural weakness: the manuscript remains more descriptive than critically comparative. The new sections on trade-offs, feasibility, and system transfer are useful additions. However, even in these stronger parts, the text often remains discursive rather than analytical. Lines 390–397 introduce an important issue, namely the feasibility of transferring EU-style systems to Africa, but the discussion would be stronger if it identified specific conditions under which transfer is feasible, infeasible, or only partially adaptable. Likewise, the manuscript repeatedly states that “context-specific systems” are needed, including in the abstract and conclusion, but it does not go far enough in defining what those systems would entail in practice.

The discussion should move beyond general statements and present clearer, decision-oriented implications. For example, which elements of EU systems are realistically transferable to African smallholder settings, which are not, and which intermediate designs are most promising?

Author Response

The revised manuscript shows clear improvement and addresses several of the major concerns raised in the previous round. In particular, the study rationale is now clearer, the comparative framework has been strengthened through explicit research questions, and the manuscript benefits from additional tables and figures and expanded discussion sections. The inclusion of a strengths-and-limitations section is also appreciated.

However, some important issues remain unresolved. The review methodology still lacks sufficient detail for full reproducibility, several arguments continue to overgeneralize the African context, and the synthesis is not yet consistently organized around the stated research questions. Overall, the revision is improved, but additional revisions are still required.

AUTHORS: Thank you for all the valuable comments. We have revised the text in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions; all changes are marked in red.

1. Major methodological weakness: the review is still not reproducible. Lines 73–86 state that the review was conducted systematically and in accordance with PRISMA, but the search strategy remains overly generic to be replicated. The databases are listed, yet the exact search strings, search dates, Boolean combinations, filters, language restrictions, and screening procedures are not reported in sufficient detail. The current wording suggests a systematic review, but the method is still closer to a structured narrative review. This remains a major flaw because the methodological claims exceed the actual detail provided.

At lines 90–105, the authors provide screening counts and broad inclusion criteria, but they still do not explain how studies were extracted, coded, compared, or synthesized across the two regions. There is no explanation of whether a data extraction form was used, how evidence quality was judged, or how conflicting findings were handled. Without this, the comparative conclusions are not methodologically transparent enough.

At this stage, the authors should either provide a fully reproducible review method or soften their methodological claim. If they keep the PRISMA framing, they should report the full search syntax for each database, the exact dates of the search, language and document-type restrictions, the screening workflow, and a clear explanation of how the final 45 studies were analyzed comparatively.

AUTHORS: Thank you for that valuable comment. We have provided a detailed description of the selection criteria, used databases, search strategy, and the selection process in LL102-162.

 

2. Major analytical weakness: the manuscript states five research questions, but the synthesis does not systematically answer them. Lines 64–70 introduce five research questions, which is a clear improvement. However, the Results and Discussion are not consistently structured around those questions. The manuscript moves descriptively across housing systems, regulations, and socioeconomic issues, but it rarely signals which results answer which research question. This creates a mismatch between the stated analytical framework and the actual presentation of findings.

For example, lines 136–144 introduce the comparative results in broad terms, but the subsequent sections mostly remain descriptive rather than explicitly analytical. Likewise, lines 370–395 present a comparison and discussion of transferability, but they do not explicitly synthesize the findings with RQ1–RQ5.

The authors should explicitly reorganize the end of the Results and Discussion sections so that each research question is directly addressed. Even a short synthesis paragraph under each RQ would make the manuscript much stronger.

AUTHORS: We have slightly rephrased the research questions and divided the Results and Discussion into subsections that match the RQs

3. Major conceptual weakness: the African context is still treated too broadly. The manuscript does acknowledge heterogeneity in Africa, which is helpful. However, several 2 passages still generalize excessively across the continent. For instance, lines 240–266 and 267–283 present Africa-wide housing and management characteristics, but the evidence cited appears to come from selected countries and is then extended to the whole region. This is a significant conceptual weakness because production systems, infrastructure, climate, policy enforcement, and market structures vary greatly across African countries.

A similar problem appears at lines 317–334, where the discussion of African poultry sectors is framed in generalized continental terms despite major intra-regional variation. The authors should qualify these claims much more carefully. They should distinguish between North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, and low-income rural village systems where appropriate, rather than writing as if a single African production model exists.

AUTHORS: Thank you for that comment. We have added more specific comments on the broiler production systems to underline their heterogeneity: LL321-330; LL352-360; LL431-438.

4. Major structural weakness: the manuscript remains more descriptive than critically comparative. The new sections on trade-offs, feasibility, and system transfer are useful additions. However, even in these stronger parts, the text often remains discursive rather than analytical. Lines 390–397 introduce an important issue, namely the feasibility of transferring EU-style systems to Africa, but the discussion would be stronger if it identified specific conditions under which transfer is feasible, infeasible, or only partially adaptable. Likewise, the manuscript repeatedly states that “context-specific systems” are needed, including in the abstract and conclusion, but it does not go far enough in defining what those systems would entail in practice.

AUTHORS: We have added comparative sections to each section (LL93-97, 524-533, 563-567, 579-583, 596-598617-619, 631-634, 657-661, 671-675) and an additional subsection, 4.2.5. on the feasibility of transferring the EU-style systems to Africa. We also rewrote the whole conclusions section.

The discussion should move beyond general statements and present clearer, decision-oriented implications. For example, which elements of EU systems are realistically transferable to African smallholder settings, which are not, and which intermediate designs are most promising?

AUTHORS: As mentioned above, we have added the implications in lines: 524-533, 563-567, 579-583, 596-598617-619, 631-634, 657-661, 671-675, and an additional subsection, 4.2.5. on the feasibility of transferring the EU-style systems to Africa.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised and extended in response to the reviewer comments from the previous round. The number of references has been increased from 28 to 45, which quantitatively improves the overall standard of the manuscript. I recommend ensuring that citations in the text and the reference list follow a consistent numerical order, and that the references are renumbered and reorganized accordingly where necessary.

The authors have now articulated a research gap and formulated research questions, which represents a clear improvement compared to the previous version. However, in my view, the identified research gap remains too general, and the research questions are overly broad, essentially covering the entire topic rather than focusing on a clearly delimited scientific problem.

At the beginning of the Methods section, the authors restate the aim of the study. I recommend presenting the objective once, in a single clearly defined location. The methodological section has improved substantially: the PRISMA framework is now introduced, a search strategy is outlined, inclusion criteria are specified, and the screening process is described. These additions enhance the transparency of the manuscript. Nevertheless, several important methodological details are still missing. The exact formulation of the search queries is not provided, particularly regarding which database fields were used (e.g., TITLE-ABS-KEY). Furthermore, the search strings do not adequately account for synonyms (e.g., “chicken”, “broiler”, “poultry”). When reporting search strategies, it is not sufficient to provide examples using phrases such as “such as”; all applied search strings should be explicitly listed. Although the authors indicate the time period of the search (2023–2025), they do not specify whether any temporal restrictions were applied to the literature itself (i.e., the time horizon covered by the included studies). Overall, the presented PRISMA approach appears more formal than indicative of a genuinely systematic review. It is also noted that the authors define the study as a narrative review in Section 5.

In the Results section, the authors have added several new figures, which may help illustrate the content. However, explicit numerical references to these figures are often missing in the text. It is also important to provide proper source attribution below the figures, as they appear to be AI-generated. In addition, Tables 1, 2a, and 2b are first referred to on page 4, while the tables themselves only appear at the end of the Results section (pages 9–10). This reduces transparency and disrupts the logical flow of the manuscript.

In the Results section, some of the major conceptual and structural issues remain insufficiently resolved. In their response, the authors state that “We did not change the shape of the Results section,” arguing that the Results should be descriptive, while comparisons belong to the Discussion. In my opinion, this distinction is not appropriate for a review article. A high-quality review is expected to synthesize the literature already in the Results section, rather than merely describe it. This remains a key structural weakness of the manuscript that has not been adequately addressed.

The Discussion section has clearly improved with the additions. It now reflects more analytical thinking (e.g., trade-offs, scalability), includes elements of policy relevance, and is more structured. However, a persistent weakness is that many statements remain general, self-evident, and somewhat textbook-like, rather than being grounded in specific studies (e.g., “EU systems are capital-intensive”, “Africa faces constraints”). Moreover, in some of the newly added subsections (e.g., Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.4), there is a lack of supporting references, which weakens the scientific credibility of the arguments.

Finally, Section 4.4 does not fit well within the logical structure of the Discussion. In its current form, it would be more appropriate as part of the Conclusions, following further refinement.

In light of the above, I recommend a further round of major revision, as several key conceptual and methodological issues remain insufficiently resolved despite the improvements made in the revised version.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised and extended in response to the reviewer comments from the previous round. The number of references has been increased from 28 to 45, which quantitatively improves the overall standard of the manuscript. I recommend ensuring that citations in the text and the reference list follow a consistent numerical order, and that the references are renumbered and reorganized accordingly where necessary.

AUTHORS: We have checked the citation list, and both the list and in-text citations look correct.

The authors have now articulated a research gap and formulated research questions, which represents a clear improvement compared to the previous version. However, in my view, the identified research gap remains too general, and the research questions are overly broad, essentially covering the entire topic rather than focusing on a clearly delimited scientific problem.

AUTHORS: We have narrowed the research questions: ‘RQ1. How do environmental control strategies differ between broiler housing systems in Africa and the EU? RQ2. How do these environmental control strategies influence key welfare and production outcomes under temperate versus tropical climatic conditions?’

At the beginning of the Methods section, the authors restate the aim of the study. I recommend presenting the objective once, in a single clearly defined location.

AUTHORS: The research goal was removed from the M&M section.

The methodological section has improved substantially: the PRISMA framework is now introduced, a search strategy is outlined, inclusion criteria are specified, and the screening process is described. These additions enhance the transparency of the manuscript. Nevertheless, several important methodological details are still missing. The exact formulation of the search queries is not provided, particularly regarding which database fields were used (e.g., TITLE-ABS-KEY). Furthermore, the search strings do not adequately account for synonyms (e.g., “chicken”, “broiler”, “poultry”). When reporting search strategies, it is not sufficient to provide examples using phrases such as “such as”; all applied search strings should be explicitly listed. Although the authors indicate the time period of the search (2023–2025), they do not specify whether any temporal restrictions were applied to the literature itself (i.e., the time horizon covered by the included studies). Overall, the presented PRISMA approach appears more formal than indicative of a genuinely systematic review. It is also noted that the authors define the study as a narrative review in Section 5.

AUTHORS: We have added the details in LL141-162.

In the Results section, the authors have added several new figures, which may help illustrate the content. However, explicit numerical references to these figures are often missing in the text. It is also important to provide proper source attribution below the figures, as they appear to be AI-generated. In addition, Tables 1, 2a, and 2b are first referred to on page 4, while the tables themselves only appear at the end of the Results section (pages 9–10). This reduces transparency and disrupts the manuscript's logical flow.

AUTHORS: We have added the numerical references for the figures in the text. We have added the source under each of the AI-generated figures. We have moved the tables to the place where they first appeared in the text.

In the Results section, some of the major conceptual and structural issues remain insufficiently resolved. In their response, the authors state that “We did not change the shape of the Results section,” arguing that the Results should be descriptive, while comparisons belong to the Discussion. In my opinion, this distinction is not appropriate for a review article. A high-quality review is expected to synthesize the literature already in the Results section, rather than merely describe it. This remains a key structural weakness of the manuscript that has not been adequately addressed.

AUTHORS: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully agree that a review article must provide synthesis rather than description in the Results section. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially restructured the Results. Specifically, we have added new synthesis paragraphs at the end of each Results subsection: LL393-406, 423-428, 452-458.

The Discussion section has clearly improved with the additions. It now reflects more analytical thinking (e.g., trade-offs, scalability), includes elements of policy relevance, and is more structured. However, a persistent weakness is that many statements remain general, self-evident, and somewhat textbook-like, rather than being grounded in specific studies (e.g., “EU systems are capital-intensive”, “Africa faces constraints”). Moreover, in some of the newly added subsections (e.g., Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.4), there is a lack of supporting references, which weakens the scientific credibility of the arguments.

AUTHORS: We have revised the Discussion to ensure that all analytical statements are explicitly grounded in the reviewed literature. General statements replaced, e.g., “EU systems are capital‑intensive”, to EU systems are typically capital-intensive, reflecting high fixed investments in climate-controlled housing and automation. Life-cycle and economic analyses indicate substantially higher capital and energy inputs per unit of output compared to less-controlled systems, although these are partially offset by improved feed conversion and lower mortality rates [33,43,44] (LL538-542) We have changed “Africa faces constraints” to African systems operate under significant financial and structural constraints, including high feed costs and limited access to credit, which have been identified as primary bottlenecks to productivity in multiple value-chain analyses [39,40] (LL544-547)

We have added references where they were lacking, though the Discussion changed. We have added subsections 4.1.2 and 4.2.4. that synthesizes the gathered knowledge on the differences between EU and Africa. We have also added 4.2.5. Subsection on the feasibility of EU systems transfer to African conditions.

 Finally, Section 4.4 does not fit well within the Discussion's logical structure. In its current form, it would be more appropriate to place it in the Conclusions section, following further refinement.

AUTHORS: We have removed this section.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been substantially improved and the authors have provided sufficient response in both quantity and quality to each raised issue.

Author Response

 The manuscript has been substantially improved and the authors have provided sufficient response in both quantity and quality to each raised issue.

AUTHORS: Thank you