The Dynamics of Broiler Meat Supply in South Africa and Its Implications for Achieving SDG 2: Zero Hunger

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several sentences that could be improved for clarity. There are grammar and punctuation mistakes, and missing words. Proofreading is needed.

Author Response

kindly receive the attached PDF response to the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study makes a significant contribution to the literature by applying an ARDL econometric model to a national time-series dataset covering a period of over a decade. This methodological framework allows capturing short- and long-run relationships between imports, exports, inflation and chicken meat supply, providing an up-to-date and relevant empirical perspective for public policy formulation. However, the paper needs to be improved as follows:
1. The introduction deals with an issue relevant to the South African context, but its narrative structure is unbalanced, with abrupt shifts between the global context (world hunger, SDG2) and the realities of the local poultry sector. In addition, there is overlap between the justification of the theme and the literature review, which dilutes the conceptual clarity of the section. The exposition also fails to provide a coherent integration of sources, lacking a prioritization between major and secondary empirical contributions. The link between broiler meat and sustainable development policies is only hinted at but not convincingly demonstrated from an economic or institutional perspective. A more stratified treatment of the literature, in relation to the level of analysis (macro - national, meso - sectoral, micro - behavioural) would help to strengthen the scientific underpinning of the research.
2. It would be advisable for the authors to include a separate section dedicated to the literature review, as the work in its current form suffers from the absence of a clear theoretical and empirical foundation. Although some sources are mentioned in the introduction, they are treated fragmentarily, without a systematic analysis of existing research directions and the positioning of the own contribution in relation to them. The lack of a Literature Review section leads to a weakening of the scientific coherence, as the existing citations are not organized thematically or chronologically and do not provide an overview of relevant research on the determinants of poultry meat supply in similar contexts. Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent the ARDL model has been previously applied in such analyses and what methodological limitations or directions for development have been identified by previous research.
3. The presentation of the geographical context is broader than necessary and takes up space at the expense of a rigorous description of the data structure. Although the source of the data is mentioned, details on frequency, possible omissions, methods of interpolation or treatment of missing values, and any transformations applied prior to modelling are missing. The description of the variables is done in an explanatory register but does not differentiate between their role in the model (explanatory variable vs. control). In addition, the issue of possible collinearity between trade variables (imports and exports) is not discussed, and the use of aggregate periods (2010-2013, etc.) in the descriptive table remains methodologically unjustified.
4. The description of the ARDL method is correct, but the almost verbatim borrowing from methodological sources reduces the original value of the section. The rationale for the choice of the model is present, but lacks details on how to select the lags, the choice criteria (AIC, SIC), and the final functional form. The equations are inserted with clumsy notation, which does not clarify the distinction between the short- and long-run terms; also, how the ECM term was constructed is not explained mathematically. It is not mentioned whether prior cointegration tests were performed or whether endogeneity of variables was checked. The EViews tool is shown, but without specifying the settings or limitations imposed on the estimation.
5. The presentation of the CUSUM tests is succinct and valid, but the lack of figures or details of graphical specifications (including scaling) reduces the reader's ability to verify or interpret the conclusions on parameter stability.
6. In the conclusions section, although future directions for research are mentioned, they are not formulated as logical extensions of the weaknesses of the study, but as general suggestions. The impact of limiting the analysis to the national level on the validity for regional or EU policies is not discussed. In addition, the implications for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Poultry Masterplan are not emphasized, although this had been introduced earlier.

Author Response

Kindly find the attached pdf reviewer response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is improved but there are still some issues, see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive language check and copyediting is needed.

Author Response

Attached please find response on reviewers comments 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved. I agree with the publication.

Author Response

Attached are the  comments for the reviewer 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf