Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Impact of Wildlife on the Economic Performance of Dairy Production in Mountain Farming Systems" addresses a highly relevant bioeconomic conflict: the financial friction between wild herbivore population dynamics (Cervus\ elaphus) and fragile mountain dairy operations. The integration of cost calculations, SWOT analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations provides an interesting framework. However, the manuscript suffers from a critical methodological limitation: it relies on a single case study (N=1, Kajžer farm). Extrapolating macro-economic or regional conclusions from a single sample requires a more rigorous acknowledgment of limitations and an explicit econometric or stochastic formalization. 

Major Revisions Required:

1. Methodological Scaling (N=1): Since data is collected exclusively from one farm, the model operates as a deterministic farm-level budget rather than a generalized regional economic model. The authors must adjust the tone throughout the manuscript, acknowledging that this is a pilot case study. To strengthen scientific soundness, the authors should explain how the input data parameters (e.g., land slope 14.4⁰, 800{ m a.s.l.) restrict or enable the model's application to other Alpine/mountain farming structures.

2. Mathematical and Biological Causal Linkage: In Section 2.3 and Figure 4, the authors state that a reduction in roughage availability leads to lower milk yield per animal due to nutritional stress. However, the exact mathematical function connecting forage loss (fresh matter/dry matter intake) to milk synthesis reduction (l/cow}/year) is missing. The authors must explicitly state the nutrition-to-milk conversion rate equation used within the Excel simulation engine to validate Table 2.

3. Monte Carlo Formalization (Equations 2 and 3):

• In Equation 2 (FR_i = SP₀ + SUB - SS₀ ......), there are syntax/formatting errors in the text rendering (Pk KliP m Ml). Please formalize using standard LaTeX notation, ensuring all variables (P_k, KI_i, P_m, MI_i) are perfectly aligned and separated.

• The parameters used for the probability distributions in the Monte Carlo simulation (e.g., standard deviation for milk prices in March 2026, distributions used for deer damage parameters) must be explicitly detailed in a separate table. Currently, Figure 6 (Box-plot) is presented without defining the confidence intervals or the number of iterations performed (e.g., n=10,000).

4. SWOT Analysis and Figure Clarity:

• Table 3 (SWOT) correctly identifies that the model is calibrated to a single farm as a weakness. This critical point must be discussed deeper in the Discussion section.

• Figure 5 ("Graph of Increasing Damage") and Figure 6 must include proper statistical error bars or confidence bands rather than simple linear/polynomial projections.

5. Keywords Optimization: Remove words that already appear in the title (economic, milk production, mountain farming, wildlife). Replace them with high-impact indexing terms such as: Bioeconomics, Stochastic modeling, Cervus elaphus, Grassland degradation, Cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
   
   

   Editorial and Reference Formatting Issues:

   * The reference list contains severe inconsistencies and formatting errors that violate MDPI guidelines. For instance, References 9, 10, and 11 use completely different citation structures compared to References 1–6. The entire section must be standardized.

   * References 28 and 30 are identical (Trdan et al., 2024, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica). This duplication must be removed, and the citations in the text must be corrected accordingly.

   * To improve the scientific soundness of the bioeconomic discussion and the efficiency metrics, the authors are strongly encouraged to contextualize their results using contemporary literature on agricultural frontier models and input-oriented efficiency in dairy production. Specifically, incorporate and discuss:

     - Feeding baseline variations and milk output benchmarking (Blanco–Roa et al., 2025;  https://doi.org/10.21134/rcfvc.v35i1.43349).

   [1] Blanco–Roa NE, Novoa–Novoa HR, Berríos EC, Soto–Gutiérrez OA, Zúniga–González CA, Sáenz–Rojas SJ, Nuñez–Rodriguez J de J. Comparación de la producción de leche con base en la alimentación con Pennisetum sp., Pennisetum purpureum y CIAT 36087. Rev. Cient. FCV-LUZ [Internet]. 25 de enero de 2025 [citado 29 de junio de 2026];35(1):11. Disponible en: https://www.produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/cientifica/article/view/43349

   The authors accurately describe that wildlife limits roughage availability, reducing milk yield per cow. However, the manuscript lacks a rigorous benchmarking framework for dairy production based on specific forage intake regimes. To strengthen this economic evaluation, the authors should contrast their single-farm budget data with recent empirical studies that evaluate dairy output variations under diverse feeding structures, such as those evaluated by Blanco–Roa et al. (2025) [1], establishing a robust baseline for nutritional-to-milk conversion metrics in tropical and vulnerable agroecosystems".

    

   [2] Zuniga-Gonzalez CA, Jaramillo-Villanueva JL and Blanco-Roa NE. Inputs-Oriented VRS DEA in dairy farms [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2025, 12:901 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132421.3)

     - Multi-input technical efficiency via VRS DEA in dairy systems (Zuniga-Gonzalez et al., 2025; https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132421.3).

    

   In section 2.3. Simulation Model (Para corregir el sesgo de modelación y aportar robustez de frontera/eficiencia):“The developed simulation model computes deterministic unit costs ($UC = TC/Y$) but fails to incorporate parameters of environmental inefficiency or multi-input technical behaviors within the livestock bioeconomy. Since mountain farming systems operate under high uncertainty and external pressures (such as wildlife damage), the methodological framework would benefit significantly from integrating frontier models that isolate environmental inefficiency effects on livestock economics, following the bioeconomic approach formalized by Zuniga-Gonzalez and Jaramillo-Villanueva (2024) [2]. Furthermore, to validate the efficiency coefficients calculated in Table 2, the authors should discuss their results in light of input-oriented Variable Returns to Scale Data Envelopment Analysis (VRS DEA) applied to dairy farms.

    

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The lack of lines makes the communication between the reviewers and the authors difficult.

It is missing a connection between the first and second paragraph in the introduction. The subjects are not connecting.

I think the introduction needs to be restructured a bit better. The information stated is good, but abetter structure is needed here:

-Importance of mountain dairy farms to European agriculture, characteristics (including Slovenian milk production facts), dependence of permanent grasslands (including ecosystem services as you mentioned).

-Wildlife and their impact on grasslands

-How the wildlife affects dairy systems

-Limitations of the subject (which is what you are going to cover here)

Methodology

 if the study is a modelling exercise, then there was no study conducted in any farm, but the Kajžer farm was used as a case estudy.

Further processing?

Do you have a reference for the increase in the deer population?

There is not enough information on the data collection. How were the animals observed? What was the logic? How many people observing and where they were located? For how many days?

Describe Livestock units?

Rewrite section 2.3

So, yield – total milk in kg? Per year? Or what?

How did you measure the damage caused by the animals? And lost of roughage?

So the model is an excel simulation? A mathematical model?

Figure 3 do not make much sense to me..I think it needs an explanation

Financial analysis section does not explain how the damage was estimated and its impact in the finance.

Figure 4 title is incomplete, and figure should come after mentioning it.

All the assumptions for the model that are described in the results sections should be explained in the methodology section. The methodology section is incomplete and vague. The whole paper needs to be better structured.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English is good, but there is a lack of detail in the methodology, and the introduction needs to be rewritten to improve its structure. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reading the article, I consider the topic to be interesting and valuable. The paper has several strengths, including a highly relevant research problem and an interesting attempt to link production economics with wildlife management. However, in its current form, the manuscript requires substantial methodological revisions before it can be considered for publication.

1. The Introduction should explicitly highlight the scientific novelty of the study by clearly explaining what new knowledge or original contribution this work adds to the existing literature.
2. The authors repeatedly use terms such as simulation model, economic model, Monte Carlo model, and dynamic population framework. In fact, what is presented is a deterministic spreadsheet based on relatively simple accounting relationships. The manuscript lacks a formal economic model, a production function, a cost function, an optimization model, an econometric model, or a parameter sensitivity analysis. In its current form, it would be more appropriate to refer to the approach as a “simulation-based cost assessment framework” rather than an “economic simulation model.” The framework correctly represents causal relationships and clearly illustrates the economic mechanism. However, it is neither a forecasting model nor an econometric model.
3. The hypothesis refers to statistical significance, but the method applied does not allow this to be demonstrated. The paper does not include statistical tests, regression analysis, p-values, or similar statistical evidence. Therefore, the authors should not claim statistical significance. This is particularly problematic where they state that “…damage increases in a statistically significant manner.”
4. The analysis is based on a single-farm case study and a deterministic model extended with Monte Carlo simulation. Consequently, the results cannot be generalized, and broad conclusions for mountain farms as a whole should not be formulated. The manuscript should clearly state that this is a “single case study.” Some conclusions go beyond what the model can support. Although the authors later acknowledge the limitation of relying on one farm, the conclusions remain too far-reaching in this respect.
5. The authors state that Monte Carlo simulation was used to assess uncertainty. However, they do not specify which distributions were assumed, what standard deviations were used, how many iterations were performed, or other key simulation parameters. Without this information, the Monte Carlo analysis is not reproducible. This is currently the most serious methodological weakness of the paper.
6. The SWOT analysis does not provide new scientific knowledge and is not the core research method of the study. I suggest removing it or moving it to the supplementary materials.
7. The discussion is too descriptive. It should explain why the results differ from, or are similar to, those of previous studies, and should provide a more analytical interpretation of the findings.

In summary, the article presents an interesting and valuable idea, but the methodology needs to be refined, especially with regard to the description and justification of the Monte Carlo model, and the conclusions should be formulated more cautiously.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is clear and understandable; however, it reads as though it has been translated too literally. Before publication in Agriculture, I strongly recommend professional language editing by a native English speaker or a scientific editor with expertise in English-language publications in the field of agricultural economics.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and can confirm that the authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions satisfactorily. The quality of the manuscript has improved, and I have no further comments.

Best regards,

Carlos