Economic and Environmental Assessment Using Emergy of Sheep Production in Brazil
, Rafael Araújo Nacimento 1, Vitória Toffolo Luiz 2, Laya Kannan Silva Alves 1, Biagio Fernando Giannetti 3 and Augusto Hauber Gameiro 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author present an interesting exercise regarding sustainability evaluation of sheep production.
some issues are recommended in the file for consideration.
Main issues to fully assess the contribution of the present are.
.- Supplementary material is referenced in methodology, but not available. Authors must provide such information
.- author provide some alternative scenarios in the conclusion, which were not evaluated. It is strongly recommended modelling some of them in order to be able to provide conclusion based on evidence (at least modelled).
.- Without suggestions/modelled the manuscript value is lower as it seems a confirmation on the low sustainability of sheep farming base on grain inputs
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Firstly, the authors would like to thank you for all your comments and help.
- although it is a well know report the reference must be included
R: The authors would like to thanks the suggestion. It was included the reference “Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”; New York, 1987”
- is there a reference?
R: The authors would like to thanks the suggestion. The sentence was improved, and references were included (Lines 61-69).
- there are no supplementary materials!!!!
R: The authors would like to apologize for the mistake. All Supplementary material will be sent in this review. In addition, the sentence “Supplementary material (A, B, C, or D)” was included in the manuscript.
- In some section of the results, rather than solely presenting the main finding, there are some judging or explanation which seems more appropriate for discussion
Please revise an make sure just to present the main results
R: The authors would like to thanks the suggestion. The sentences with judgments or explanations were added in the Discussion section. In addition, a wide review was performed in order to turn easier comparisons between our results and the scientific literature. For this, the authors included a Ternary Diagram (Giannetti et al. 2007) to an easier understanding of the sustainability among the compared production systems.
- author can not conclude what has not been analyzed
I strongly suggest modelling some of the strategies proposed and present the results in the present paper
By doing so, the value of the manuscript would greatly increase
R: The authors would like to thanks the comment and suggestion. Thus, it was included a simulation modeling in order to test the hypothesis that the sheep production system with no grains in at least lamb feed program could provide a way to more sustainable production. All calculation memory and material used to perform this simulation are available in Supplementary material C and D.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The discussion section can be improved by adding previous studies.
It would be better if the data was obtained from individual businesses.
Author Response
Firstly, the authors would like to thank you for all your comments and help.
- although it is a well know report the reference must be included
R: The authors would like to thanks the suggestion. It was included the reference “Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”; New York, 1987”
- is there a reference?
R: The authors would like to thanks the suggestion. The sentence was improved, and references were included (Lines 61-69).
- there are no supplementary materials!!!!
R: The authors would like to apologize for the mistake. All Supplementary material will be sent in this review. In addition, the sentence “Supplementary material (A, B, C, or D)” was included in the manuscript.
- In some section of the results, rather than solely presenting the main finding, there are some judging or explanation which seems more appropriate for discussion
Please revise an make sure just to present the main results
R: The authors would like to thanks the suggestion. The sentences with judgments or explanations were added in the Discussion section. In addition, a wide review was performed in order to turn easier comparisons between our results and the scientific literature. For this, the authors included a Ternary Diagram (Giannetti et al. 2007) to an easier understanding of the sustainability among the compared production systems.
- author can not conclude what has not been analyzed
I strongly suggest modelling some of the strategies proposed and present the results in the present paper
By doing so, the value of the manuscript would greatly increase
R: The authors would like to thanks the comment and suggestion. Thus, it was included a simulation modeling in order to test the hypothesis that the sheep production system with no grains in at least lamb feed program could provide a way to more sustainable production. All calculation memory and material used to perform this simulation are available in Supplementary material C and D.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have greatly improved the manuscript as compared with the previous version.
My only suggestion left is as follows.
The simulations made should be described in the methodology section and the results should be described in the results section (currently all simulation details and results are presented in the discussion).
other than this change I do not have further comments
