Review Reports - Eco-Efficiency Indicators in Traditional Iberian Pig Farms in the <i>Dehesa</i> Ecosystem: Integrated Economic and Environmental Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a study that aims to integrate economic and environmental dimensions to assess the eco-efficiency of traditional Iberian pig farms in the dehesa ecosystem. The analysis employed a multivariate and Life Cycle approach, which is adequate to cover the gap in the literature. The study identified the eco-efficiency advantages of a production system based on natural feed resources.

Comments regarding general concepts

In general, the methods are generally sound. The idea of integration of LCA with economic indicators is highly relevant, especially in the context of traditional farming systems. The use of multivariate analysis to classify farm types was a good way to represent the two main subsystems in the sample.

Introduction: The authors could provide additional information on the diversity of the Dehesa system, its subsystems and within farms and elaborate on what coexisting systems are defined in the Quality standard. Provide specific examples of the literature that has examined the Dehesa system using isolated measures and univariate methods, this would highlight the research gap with more clarity.

Sampling: The authors do not state how the original sample size (68 farms) was obtained or calculated. Given that this is an important system in the Iberian Peninsula, are these farms a representative sample of the population?

Furthermore, the subsample of 36 farms used for LCA and the exclusion of 32 farms require a more extensive justification or should be eliminated, as the data presented contradicts this (see specific comments).

Clustering: The authors noted that these farms did not differ structurally, but I believe the inclusion of clustering allowed for sufficient differentiation. Indeed, even if half the farms were structurally similar on average, they may contain unique data points that contribute to the diversity of the clusters, so reducing the sample size (and power) wouldn't make sense. This fact seems to be corroborated by the authors, since they were able to obtain two distinct clusters using all 68 farms and obtain significant differences on the indicators.

Results and Discussion: The results are clearly presented in the tables and figures. The discussion is adequate and uses relevant sources. The authors highlight the diversity and heterogeneity of the dehesa system in both the results and discussion; however, the text in the Results doesn't provide additional information that could enrich the article, especially in section 3.1 where the characteristics of the dehesa (obtained via interviews) are presented.

Specific comments

Introduction: In lines 48-50, eliminate “While” to improve readability.

Sequence of the methods: Sections 2.3 and 2.4 read as if the authors first excluded farms for LCA and then performed a typification. This contradicts what is said in Lines 276-277, where the flow is described.The authors should reorganise and rephrase Sections 2.3, and 2.4 to explicitly state the logical flow of the analysis: first clustering (Lines 131-158) and then environmental analysis.

Statistical comparisons: In addition to reorganising the clustering methodology in Section 2.4 (Lines 131-158), I suggest adding a specific section for the comparisons done (Lines 159-163) to find whether AF and MF differ in their technical, economic and environmental/eco-efficiency indicators (data presented in Tables 4 and 5).

Table 1: Could be omitted as it repeats a list that is included in lines 140-144.

Section 3.1: The characterisation of the dehesa system is not detailed. The authors mention multiple livestock species, but they list them until line 252 of the discussion. Lines 175-178 talk about reproductive management and fattening practices, but not in detail. The "high efficiency" and the "sustainable nature" of the system are not quantified or directly linked to the data in Table 2 and are rather conclusive than descriptive, and they also reiterate what was said in section 2.1 without adding new information.
Similarly, the "strong economic performance" and "profitability" are of the system are stated but no economic metrics were presented in Table 2.
In general, the definitive statements in lines 175-182 are out of place and should either be fully supported by data presented in the result tables or moved to the discussion.

Table 2, 3 and 4: Sows per 100 kg of pig live weight should be “n/100 kg LW” for consistency with the text.

Table 3 repeats the data in Table 2 (see Global Mean). Perhaps these two tables could be combined.

Table 4: There are results that show non significant differences between the clusters, for example Piglet output (8.38 v 1.19), Sows per 100kg LW (0.21 v 0.06) or Stocking rate/ha (0.22 v 0.13). This statistical fact is noted but, the values show numerical differences between the clusters and they could be discussed briefly, as they may have practical implications for the farmers.

Tables 4 and 5: The authors present data in the tables for all 68 farms for both environmental and eco-efficiency indicators. Were the 32 farms excluded only for the global mean of LCA indicators?. It appears there was no exclusion at all.

Line 310–312: The sentence is vague. A more concrete policy recommendation would strengthen the conclusion

Author Response

REVIEWER #1

Comments regarding general concepts

Authors´ Response: We thank the reviewer for the thorough and thoughtful comments and for recognising the validity and relevance of our work. We have carefully considered each point and made clarifications and additions where appropriate. Below, we provide a detailed response to all your comments.

Authors´ Response: We agree that explaining this would add clarity. We have expanded the Introduction to include additional information on dehesa diversity, heterogeneity within farms, and the coexisting production systems defined by the Quality Standard (lines 37-50). We also provide specific examples of studies examining the system using isolated approaches—economic analysis and environmental assessment— while highlighting that comparative studies integrating both dimensions are still scarce (lines 59-65).

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. The 68 farms were selected proportionally to regional montanera production to ensure representativeness (lines 107-109). We have strengthened the justification for the LCA subsample. The LCA subsample of 36 farms was selected based solely on availability of complete environmental inventory data, maintaining geographical representation across study regions (lines 67-169). As detailed in Results (new lines 260-261), the subsample included both farm types identified through multivariate analysis in balanced numbers (AF: n=18; MF: n=18), enabling robust comparison of environmental performance.

Clustering: The authors noted that these farms did not differ structurally, but I believe the inclusion of clustering allowed for sufficient differentiation. Indeed, even if half the farms were structurally similar on average, they may contain unique data points that contribute to the diversity of the clusters, so reducing the sample size (and power) wouldn't make sense. This fact seems to be corroborated by the authors, since they were able to obtain two distinct clusters using all 68 farms and obtain significant differences on the indicators.

Authors´ Response: Thank you very much for this insightful comment. We agree that the original wording could suggest that the farms were structurally homogeneous, which may appear inconsistent with the variability captured in the cluster analysis. Our intention was only to indicate that the 32 farms not included in the LCA did not show systematic differences in their general production system or management orientation, and that their exclusion was solely due to incomplete quantitative data required for the LCA. To avoid any misunderstanding, we have revised the text to clarify that all 68 farms belong to the same traditional Iberian pig–dehesa system, but that they nevertheless display sufficient quantitative variability, particularly in the structural and productive variables used for the multivariate analysis, to justify the use of clustering and to support the identification of two significantly different farm types.

Authors´ Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation and understand the importance of maintaining a clear link between the agroecosystem characteristics throughout the Results. The revised manuscript makes this connection more explicit by integrating bridging phrases across themes in section 3.1. (new lines 191-192 and 203-206).

Specific comments

Introduction: In lines 48-50, eliminate “While” to improve readability.

Authors´ Response: Amended.

Authors´ Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We agree that the sequence of methods sections did not reflect the logical flow of the analysis. We have reorganised sections 2.3 and 2.4 to follow the actual analytical sequence: multivariate analysis and farm typology identification now precedes the life cycle assessment conducted on the identified farm types. We have also added a connecting phrase at the beginning of the reorganised LCA section to explicitly indicate that environmental assessment was performed after farm typification (line 162).

Statistical comparisons: In addition to reorganising the clustering methodology in Section 2.4 (Lines 131-158), I suggest adding a specific section for the comparisons done (Lines 159-163) to find whether AF and MF differ in their technical, economic and environmental/eco-efficiency indicators (data presented in Tables 4 and 5).

Authors´ Response:

We thank the reviewer, we have reorganised the Methods section to improve clarity. Statistical comparisons between clusters are now presented in a dedicated section (2.4. Statistical comparison between clusters, lines 156-161), which explicitly describes the tests used to compare farm types in structural, productive, economic, and environmental/eco-efficiency indicators presented in Tables 4 and 5. The previous sections have been renumbered accordingly: farm typology (2.3), statistical comparison (2.4), and life cycle assessment (2.5, line 162).

Table 1: Could be omitted as it repeats a list that is included in lines 140-144.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. To avoid redundancy, we have removed the variable list from lines 140-144 and now refer directly to Table 1, which provides the complete variable specifications including measurement units and descriptions (line 137).

Section 3.1: The characterisation of the dehesa system is not detailed. The authors mention multiple livestock species, but they list them until line 252 of the discussion. Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We have now specified the livestock species in section 3.1 (line 193) rather than deferring this information to the Discussion. This provides more complete characterisation of the dehesa system in the Results section.

Lines 175-178 talk about reproductive management and fattening practices, but not in detail. The "high efficiency" and the "sustainable nature" of the system are not quantified or directly linked to the data in Table 2 and are rather conclusive than descriptive, and they also reiterate what was said in section 2.1 without adding new information. Similarly, the "strong economic performance" and "profitability" are of the system are stated but no economic metrics were presented in Table 2. In general, the definitive statements in lines 175-182 are out of place and should either be fully supported by data presented in the result tables or moved to the discussion.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised lines 175-182 to remove definitive statements that were not supported by data in Table 2. We have eliminated interpretative language ("high efficiency," "sustainable nature," "strong economic performance," "profitability") and now present only objective descriptive information appropriate for the Results section (lines 200-203).

Table 2, 3 and 4: Sows per 100 kg of pig live weight should be “n/100 kg LW” for consistency with the text.

Authors´ Response: We have revised the unit notation for "Sows per 100 kg of pig live weight" to "n/100 kg LW" in Tables 1 and 4 for consistency with other variables.

Table 3 repeats the data in Table 2 (see Global Mean). Perhaps these two tables could be combined.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We believe the reviewer is referring to Table 4 rather than Table 3 (which presents factor loadings from the multivariate analysis). We have removed the "Global Mean" column from Tables 4 and 5 to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity. Both tables now focus exclusively on the comparison between farm types (MF vs AF).

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that these numerical differences, while not statistically significant, reflect important practical differences in production strategies between farm types. We have added a brief discussion of these variables (piglet output, sows per 100 kg LW, pig stocking rate) in section 4.3 (lines 385-391), explaining how these trends relate to the distinct commercialisation and production strategies of MF and AF farms. We acknowledge that high within-group variability, particularly in MF due to diverse commercialisation strategies, explains the lack of statistical significance despite the practical relevance of these differences for farm management.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for pointing out this error. Table 5 presents LCA data from a subsample of 36 farms (MF: n=18; AF: n=18). We have amended the column headers in Table 5 to reflect the correct sample sizes.

Line 310–312: The sentence is vague. A more concrete policy recommendation would strengthen the conclusion

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have revised the sentence to include a more specific policy recommendation directly linked to our study findings, strengthening the practical relevance of the conclusion (lines 338-342).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting and relevant contribution to the understanding of sustainability in traditional livestock systems. The focus on identifying eco-efficiency indicators that integrate economic and environmental dimensions is particularly valuable, as it provides a potential tool for evaluating and improving traditional pig farming systems in a sustainable way.

Introduction

The section is well structured and provides adequate context for the study. The justification and objective are aligned with the overall purpose of the study.

Materials and Methods

Figure 1. Please include the basic map elements (base map, legend, labels, north arrow, coordinates, scale bar) to provide geographical context for the reader

I recommend including the inputs and outputs, or the LCA inventory of the system to help the reader understand the differences observed among the evaluated indicators. Alternatively, a more detailed characterization of the system could be provided.

Please report the gross margin for the system. It is important to clearly explain how the eco-efficiency indicators were obtained, since this represents the most relevant outcome of your research.

Line 113: How many farms were evaluated with LCA for each typology?

Line 142: Include explanations for all abbreviations the first time they appear in the text.

Line 150: Please explain how the variables were standardized.

Results

I suggest merging this section with the Discussion, as the current version is repetitive. Many esults are presented again in the discussion. If you prefer to keep them separate, I recommend moving Figures 3 and 4 to this section.

Please, revise labels in the caption of Figure 2 (Figure 2a corresponds to F1 and F3, and Figure 2b to F1 and F2)

Discussion

The discussion of results is too general. A more in-depth analysis is needed, contrasting your findings with those of similar studies to strengthen the scientific argument.

Line 273: This is considered a satisfactory percentage in the context of farm typification studies [47]. The cited reference is a book without typification studies. Please provide references that specifically include typification analyses.

Lines 278-311. These paragraphs describe the three factors; this information belongs in the results section, as it is descriptive.

Line 315: Rather than indicating a linear transition from traditional to modern systems, this typology reflects different strategies of adaptation to market conditions. Please clarify why farm typology could indicate a linear transition from traditional to modern systems.

This section also includes information that should be presented in the Results section, which causes unnecessary repetition.

I recommend structuring the discussion first by typology and then by indicators, so that readers can more clearly identify the differences found.

Conclusions

The conclusions should include specific research findings and key analyses derived from the study. Avoid repeating justifications or text already presented in earlier sections.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2

Authors´ Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and insightful feedback, as well as for acknowledging the validity and relevance of our work. We have carefully addressed each point raised, providing clarifications and additional details where appropriate. Below, we present a detailed response to all comments.

Introduction

The section is well structured and provides adequate context for the study. The justification and objective are aligned with the overall purpose of the study.

Authors´ Response: Thank you.

Materials and Methods

Figure 1. Please include the basic map elements (base map, legend, labels, north arrow, coordinates, scale bar) to provide geographical context for the reader.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We have updated Figure 1 to include the requested map elements to improve geographical clarity and provide better contextual understanding for the reader.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a brief description of the LCA inputs and outputs in the Methods section (lines 172-175). For a comprehensive inventory diagram and detailed input-output flows of the Iberian pig production system, we refer readers to García-Gudiño et al. (2020), which uses the same system boundaries and functional unit.

Please report the gross margin for the system. It is important to clearly explain how the eco-efficiency indicators were obtained, since this represents the most relevant outcome of your research.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have expanded the explanation in the Methods section of how eco-efficiency indicators were calculated and interpreted (lines 182-187), clarifying that they represent the ratio of gross margin to each environmental impact, with higher values indicating greater economic return per unit of environmental impact. The average gross margin value across all farms (2.36 ± 0.08 €/kg LW) is now explicitly reported in the Results section (line 265).

Line 113: How many farms were evaluated with LCA for each typology?

Authors´ Response: Completed (see Table 5).

Line 142: Include explanations for all abbreviations the first time they appear in the text.

Authors´ Response: Amended.

Line 150: Please explain how the variables were standardized.

Authors´ Response: To avoid scale effects among variables, we applied standard z-score transformation, whereby each variable was mean-centered and divided by its standard deviation (lines 144-146). This approach ensures that all variables contribute equally to the multivariate analyses.

Results

I suggest merging this section with the Discussion, as the current version is repetitive. Many results are presented again in the discussion. If you prefer to keep them separate, I recommend moving Figures 3 and 4 to this section.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We prefer to maintain separate Results and Discussion sections to preserve the structure and clarity of the manuscript. However, we have moved Figures 3 and 4 from the Discussion to the Results section as recommended, ensuring that graphical presentations of results are located in the appropriate section.

Please, revise labels in the caption of Figure 2 (Figure 2a corresponds to F1 and F3, and Figure 2b to F1 and F2)

Authors´ Response: Amended.

Discussion

The discussion of results is too general. A more in-depth analysis is needed, contrasting your findings with those of similar studies to strengthen the scientific argument.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this important feedback. We have substantially revised and restructured the Discussion, moving descriptive content to Results and strengthening comparative analysis with previous studies on Mediterranean livestock systems. These revisions provide the more in-depth analysis requested, contextualizing our findings within established knowledge.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We have replaced reference [47] (methodological book) with empirical farm typification studies that report similar proportions of variance explained in livestock systems, providing more appropriate support for this statement.

Lines 278-311. These paragraphs describe the three factors; this information belongs in the results section, as it is descriptive.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We have restructured sections 3.2 (Results) and 4.2 (Discussion) to separate description from interpretation. Descriptive characterization of the three factors is now in Results, while Discussion focuses exclusively on interpretation, implications, and comparisons with previous studies, eliminating redundancy.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We have clarified why the farm typology could be misinterpreted as a linear transition (lines 346-348). We now explicitly state that the two farm types could be viewed as representing a modernization gradient (traditional AF vs. diversified MF), but we emphasize that they actually represent coexisting adaptive strategies rather than successive developmental stages.

The discussion of the eco-effiiency indicators should be more thorough, as it represents the main contribution of the article. The current version is mainly descriptive. A deeper analysis would help readers better understand how the different farm types behave. This section also includes information that should be presented in the Results section, which causes unnecessary repetition. I recommend structuring the discussion first by typology and then by indicators, so that readers can more clearly identify the differences found.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have substantially revised section 4.4 to provide a more thorough and analytical discussion of eco-efficiency indicators. The revised version: (1) separates descriptive content (moved to Results) from interpretation; (2) deepens the analysis of how economic and environmental performance interact in each farm type, including quantitative mechanisms; (3) adds quantitative comparisons with previous LCA studies, positioning our values within the literature range (2.94-4.55 kg CO₂ eq/kg LW); and (4) strengthens sustainability implications. These improvements clarify the behavioural and structural factors driving eco-efficiency differences between farm types.

Conclusions

The conclusions should include specific research findings and key analyses derived from the study. Avoid repeating justifications or text already presented in earlier sections.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised the Conclusions section to focus more explicitly on the key research findings and main analyses derived from the study. Redundant text and justifications previously presented in earlier sections have been removed to ensure a concise and results-oriented conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a solid and timely contribution addressing the integration of environmental and economic performance assessment in traditional livestock systems. The methodology is coherent and scientifically sound, and the topic aligns well with the journal’s focus on sustainability and agricultural system analysis. However, certain aspects — notably sampling justification, LCA transparency, and expansion of discussion — should be strengthened.

Major Comments
1. Only 36 farms were included in the LCA; please clarify the exclusion criteria and verify that structural differences between included/excluded farms are statistically insignificant.
2. Specify if eco-efficiency was normalized (€/kg LW per impact unit) across impact categories and if sensitivity to impact weighting was assessed.
3. The introduction mentions “social aspects,” but they are absent in the results. Either remove from objectives or integrate into the eco-efficiency framework.
4. Since acorn production fluctuates annually, discuss whether AF’s superiority remains in poor acorn years.
5. Strengthen Section 4.5 by explicitly connecting eco-efficiency results to CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) or eco-scheme design.
6.LCA input parameters and cost structures should be summarized in an appendix or data supplement for replicability.

Minor Comments
1. Edit for conciseness and avoid repetition (e.g., dehesa ecosystem definitions repeated in Introduction and Discussion).
2.Ensure all abbreviations are defined on first mention (e.g., MF, AF, AWU).
3. Improve caption clarity for Figures 2–4 (axes labels, color legends).
4. Language polishing: minor grammatical and stylistic improvements needed.

Author Response

REVIEWER #3

Authors´ Response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the positive and encouraging assessment of our work, and for recognizing its relevance, methodological soundness, and alignment with the journal’s focus on sustainability and agricultural systems. We appreciate the constructive suggestions regarding sampling justification, LCA transparency, and the expansion of the discussion. We have carefully addressed each of these points and made the corresponding revisions and clarifications throughout the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to all comments.

Major Comments
1. Only 36 farms were included in the LCA; please clarify the exclusion criteria and verify that structural differences between included/excluded farms are statistically insignificant.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We have strengthened the justification for the LCA subsample. The LCA subsample of 36 farms was selected based solely on availability of complete environmental inventory data, maintaining geographical representation across study regions (lines 167-169).

Specify if eco-efficiency was normalized (€/kg LW per impact unit) across impact categories and if sensitivity to impact weighting was assessed.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this comment. Eco-efficiency indicators were calculated as the ratio between gross margin and the corresponding environmental impact (lines 266-267). Each indicator is expressed in units appropriate to its impact category (CC: €/kg CO₂ eq; AC: €/molc H⁺ eq; EU: €/kg PO₄³⁻ eq; CED: €/MJ; LO: €/m²·year), allowing direct comparison of economic performance relative to environmental burdens.

The introduction mentions “social aspects,” but they are absent in the results. Either remove from objectives or integrate into the eco-efficiency framework.

Authors´ Response: Amended

Since acorn production fluctuates annually, discuss whether AF’s superiority remains in poor acorn years.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this comment. As noted in Section 4.6 (Limitations), AF’s performance I s sensitive to interannual variability in acorn production, which may reduce their economic advantages in poor acorn years. Evaluating their resilience under such conditions is an important topic for future research.

Strengthen Section 4.5 by explicitly connecting eco-efficiency results to CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) or eco-scheme design.

Authors´ Response: Amended in the manuscript.

6.LCA input parameters and cost structures should be summarized in an appendix or data supplement for replicability.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have included a brief description of the LCA input parameters and outputs in the Methods section (lines 172–175). For a comprehensive inventory and detailed input–output flows, we refer readers to García-Gudiño et al. (2020), which follows the same system boundaries and functional unit.

Minor Comments
1. Edit for conciseness and avoid repetition (e.g., dehesa ecosystem definitions repeated in Introduction and Discussion).

Authors´ Response: Amended.

2.Ensure all abbreviations are defined on first mention (e.g., MF, AF, AWU).

Authors´ Response: Amended.

Improve caption clarity for Figures 2–4 (axes labels, color legends).

Authors´ Response: Amended.

Language polishing: minor grammatical and stylistic improvements needed.

Authors´ Response: We have last read the manuscript and suggested small changes on this matter.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised manuscript represents a commendable improvement over the previous version. The authors have been thorough and diligent in addressing the points raised in my comments. This version makes a valuable contribution to the literature by providing an improvement over traditional LCA.

Author Response

Authors´ Response: Thank you very much for your positive assessment and for recognizing the improvements made to the manuscript. We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback, which has significantly strengthened the quality of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, you have made significant improvements by addressing all previous concerns in detail. I just have a minor suggestion to improve Figure 1. I recommend including labels in order to provide geographical context for the reader, you could add regions or localities names.

Author Response

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have improved Figure 1 by adding an inset map showing the study area location within the Iberian Peninsula, including reference cities (Lisbon, Madrid, and Seville) to provide better geographical context for readers (line 122). The main map clearly shows the distribution of surveyed farms within the study area.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. LCA subsample justification:
Author already state that the 32 excluded farms “did not exhibit substantial structural or productive differences” from the 36 included. I would add a short clarification of how this was checked (e.g., “no significant differences were detected in key structural and productive variables using t-tests / descriptive comparison”), or at least refer to a table or supplementary material if available.

2. Timing of data collection
Author mention “two consecutive production cycles,” which is fine, but:
Consider adding the specific years (e.g., “2019–2021”) so the temporal context is clear.

3. Gross margin by farm type (Section 3.4 / Table 5)
In the text author says gross margin is 15% higher in AF than MF, but only the overall mean is given.
Cab be added the gross margin for MF and AF separately into Table 5 (or a sentence with both means in the text) to make this result more transparent.

Author Response

LCA subsample justification:
Author already state that the 32 excluded farms “did not exhibit substantial structural or productive differences” from the 36 included. I would add a short clarification of how this was checked (e.g., “no significant differences were detected in key structural and productive variables using t-tests / descriptive comparison”), or at least refer to a table or supplementary material if available.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have clarified in the Methods section that the 32 excluded farms showed no significant differences from the LCA subsample in key structural variables based on t-test comparisons (p > 0.05) (lines 166-168).

Timing of data collection
Author mention “two consecutive production cycles,” which is fine, but:
Consider adding the specific years (e.g., “201–2021”) so the temporal context is clear.

Authors´ Response: Amended. We have added the specific years of data collection in the Methods section (line 106).

Gross margin by farm type (Section 3.4 / Table 5)
In the text author says gross margin is 15% higher in AF than MF, but only the overall mean is given.
Cab be added the gross margin for MF and AF separately into Table 5 (or a sentence with both means in the text) to make this result more transparent.

Authors´ Response: Thank you for this observation. We have added the gross margin values for each farm type in the Results section. AF farms showed a gross margin of 2.58 ± 0.11 €/kg LW compared to 2.23 ± 0.10 €/kg LW for MF farms (lines 265-267).