Competitive Analyses of the Pig Industry in Swaziland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Major comments:
First of all my concern is about whether this paper is suitable for the “Sustainability” journal. Performed analysis is weakly referred to the sustainable development paradigm. Actually, one may say that comparative studies, which have been carried out, have nothing to do with the sustainability issues. Hence, It would better fit to some agricultural economics or food industry journal. Although, there are two threads that might potentially matter for the sustainable agriculture, they are neglected by the authors. I think about a use of agro-industrial by-products as an alternative feeds ingredients and also about a problem of food and nutrition security FNS which has been only mentioned at the beginning. It lacks environmental pressure and related social costs of increasing pig production in the SWOT analysis or if it doesn’t matter in authors opinion this point of view should be better advocated.
Another shortcoming of the paper concerns its contribution and novelty. Such SWOT analysis for a pig industry has been carried out thousands times and there is a lot of similar papers in all over the world. So where does stem originality of this paper from ? When it comes to the conclusions of performed SWOT analysis they are very general and predictable. Priority of SWOT factors in Table 2 is the most striking thing in this analysis, however it is not clear how they have been formulated and whether the opinions given by the ‘swine expert’ are not too subjective ?
Minor comments:
Moreover, I appreciate a quantity of the references, but the discussion on state-of-art is quite superficial. I suggest to go more carefully through recent papers published in JCR journals from agricultural economics and food industry. It is not sufficient to mention that a similar studies have been done. The authors ought to comment on particular results obtained in different studies in terms of their own contribution. It implies to reformulate a research objective: “findings from the present study are expected to provide the body of knowledge that could be used to guide and re-direct smallholder farmers for improved production and future market”. In present form it is too general. We don’t know if the analyses aim to make only practical or also theoretical contribution?
To sum up, above-mentioned sustainability issues have to be developed in terms of theoretical background, as well as empirical research. The introductory part should be restructured while raising more precise research questions that focus on FNS and/or sustainable agriculture. A contribution of the paper must be highlighted. SWOT analysis should be supplemented with those sustainability issues concerning environmental and social well-being potentially affected with a pig industry development. Data description, especially swine expert involvement, should be clarified. A discussion of results should be confronted with different studies, and be precise with your conclusions focusing more on national specificities that impact agriculture.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Performed analysis is weakly referred to the sustainable development paradigm. Actually, one may say that comparative studies, which have been carried out, have nothing to do with the sustainability issues. Hence, It would better fit some agricultural economics or food industry journal. It lacks environmental pressure and related social costs of increasing pig production in the SWOT analysis or if it doesn’t matter in authors opinion this point of view should be better advocated. The above-mentioned sustainability issues have to be developed in terms of theoretical background, as well as empirical research.
Response 1: We highly appreciate the concern and suggestion made, sustainability issues have since been addressed in the revised article.
Point 2: Another shortcoming of the paper concerns its contribution and novelty. Such SWOT analysis for a pig industry has been carried out thousands of times and there is a lot of similar papers all over the world. So where does stem originality of this paper from? When it comes to the conclusions of performed SWOT analysis they are very general and predictable. A contribution of the paper must be highlighted.
Response 2: It is true that numerous SWOT studies have been done within the pig industry but most of them if not all have been limited by their subjective nature, merely used for planning purposes. In the present study integration of the AHP makes it more quantitative, thus can best fit in designing adaptive strategies for future challenges. We are, however, grateful to Reviewer 1 for bringing this up, as previously it was not well captured. I am hoping that building from your holistic comments, such it well captured in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Priority of SWOT factors in Table 2 is the most striking thing in this analysis, however, it is not clear how they have been formulated and whether the opinions given by the ‘swine expert’ are not too subjective? Data description, especially swine expert involvement, should be clarified.
Response 3: The output in Table 2, is the AHP output and on how the analysis has been formulated is explained in Data analysis, section 3.2.1 the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). We tried to address some more information to make it more clear. With regard to the involvement of the swine specialist, we have also addressed how we believe he is best suited to make judgements. We do acknowledge that it might be too subjective. However, we would like Reviewer 1 to note that his analysis comes after a survey, thus the element of being subject might be mild. We also believe his profile as briefly included in the revised manuscript outweighs the negatives.
Point 4: I appreciate a quantity of the references, but the discussion on state-of-art is quite superficial. I suggest going more carefully through recent papers published in JCR journals from agricultural economics and food industry. It is not sufficient to mention that a similar study has been done. The authors ought to comment on particular results obtained in different studies in terms of their own contribution. It implies to reformulate a research objective: “findings from the present study are expected to provide the body of knowledge that could be used to guide and re-direct smallholder farmers for improved production and future market”. In present form, it is too general. We don’t know if the analyses aim to make only practical or also theoretical contribution? A discussion of results should be confronted with different studies, and be precise with your conclusions focusing more on national specificities that impact agriculture.
Response 4: Thanks for the suggested further reading, we have since improved the discussions.
Point 5: The introductory part should be restructured while raising more precise research questions that focus on FNS and/or sustainable agriculture.
Response 5: In the revised manuscript, the introduction has been restructuring and we addressed the areas of concern.
Point 6: SWOT analysis should be supplemented with those sustainability issues concerning environmental and social well-being potentially affected with a pig industry development.
Response: Just more like the above comment, the SWOT analysis was supplemented with sustainability issues as well.
To sum up, we extend our sincere gratitude for your unfazed comments. More importantly, your suggestions were very helpful in addressing the concerns. We have no doubt that the comments changed the whole complexion paper for all the good reasons.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper provides an analysis of the pig industry in Swaziland, with a focus on market participation of smallholder farmers. Although the analysis carried out by the authors is quite interesting, in this form the paper has several limitations, related to the paper contents, methods and structure.
Regarding the contents:
- Despite the title, the article does not use a value-chain approach, but it focuses more on the production side, especially on farmers ‘perspective. This is fine, but it should be better clarified by the authors. Due to the nature of the analysis, the Porter’s model does not seem so relevant, since it is not well integrated with the paper approach and results.
- In the introductory section the specific objectives of the paper should be better explained.
- A more exhaustive explanation of the “Pig Industry Enhancement Project” seems also necessary, in order to better understand how this project settled a new policy and market scenario for small holders farmers.
Methods:
- From a methodological point of view the use of AHP is the most innovative part of the paper, but the authors should include additional information on this method in order to better justify: (i) the choice of the specialist (consultant) selected for this analysis (reason, profile, key features etc.) (ii) the role of this analysis in the context of the paper (what specific objectives AHP addresses, since it is not very clear, e.g. is the role of climate change an output of the analysis or is it part of the research question?) and (iii) a more exhaustive and detailed explanations of the results of AHP in section 3.3, in order to better explain the added value of this analysis.
- Content analysis has been included as method but in my view the analysis proposed is a simple literature review (there are not specific methods/techniques used to analyse the contents of documents). In my view this section cannot included as paper results but it could be used as literature review.
Finally, some suggestions related to the paper structure:
- Several sections are divided in too many sub-paragraphs. I refer in particular to sections 2 and 3. This fragmented structure makes the reading quite difficult and the overall result is that the paper looks more like a technical report rather than a scientific article. I suggest to simplify the structure of the paper by diminishing the number of sub-sections: the authors should try to better integrate and connect the different concepts without making a long list of issues in each section.
- I suggest to add a section describing the dynamics of the pig industry in Swaziland just after the introduction and before the methods. The most relevant information are already included in section 3.2, which cannot considered as part of the results (see comment above).
- Table 1 (and the related description) could be included in the methodological section.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Despite the title, the article does not use a value-chain approach, but it focuses more on the production side, especially on farmers ‘perspective. This is fine, but it should be better clarified by the authors. Due to the nature of the analysis, Porter’s model does not seem so relevant, since it is not well integrated with the paper approach and results.
Response 1: in response to that concern we took the reviewers suggestion and remove that part in the revised manuscript
Point 2: In the introductory section the specific objectives of the paper should be better explained.
Response 1: The introduction has since been improved, thanks for the concern and suggestion as this went a long way in changing and improving the other parts of the manuscript.
Point 3: A more exhaustive explanation of the “Pig Industry Enhancement Project” seems also necessary, in order to better understand how this project settled a new policy and market scenario for smallholder farmers.
Response 1: in response to this concern we added more information section 2: Background information on pig production in Swaziland
Point 4: From a methodological point of view the use of AHP is the most innovative part of the paper, but the authors should include additional information on this method in order to better justify: (i) the choice of the specialist (consultant) selected for this analysis (reason, profile, key features etc.) (ii) the role of this analysis in the context of the paper (what specific objectives AHP addresses, since it is not very clear, e.g. is the role of climate change an output of the analysis or is it part of the research question?) and (iii) a more exhaustive and detailed explanations of the results of AHP in section 3.3, in order to better explain the added value of this analysis.
Response 1: Thanks to reviewer 2 for noting that, we have since added more information has been added on the manuscript to address this concern.
Point 5: Content analysis has been included as a method but in my view, the analysis proposed is a simple literature review (there are not specific methods/techniques used to analyse the contents of documents). In my view, this section cannot be included as paper results but it could be used as a literature review.
Response 5: We also appreciate that reviewer 2 went on to suggest how best we could deal with this concern on the content analysis. We have since crafted it in literature and development of the survey instrument in the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Several sections are divided into too many sub-paragraphs. I refer in particular to sections 2 and 3. This fragmented structure makes the reading quite difficult and the overall result is that the paper looks more like a technical report rather than a scientific article. I suggest to simplify the structure of the paper by diminishing the number of sub-sections: the authors should try to better integrate and connect the different concepts without making a long list of issues in each section.
Response 6: The concern has been addressed in the revised manuscript
Point7: I suggest to add a section describing the dynamics of the pig industry in Swaziland just after the introduction and before the methods. The most relevant information is already included in section 3.2, which cannot be considered as part of the results (see comment above). And Table 1 (and the related description) could be included in the methodological section
Response 7: Thanks for the suggestion, and it has been incorporated in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
It's an interesting manuscript. As the authors note they use content analysis, survey and SWOT analysis to assess the current state of the pig industry and further describe market participation by smallholder farmers in Swaziland.
I suggest authors to make some improvements. The comments are next presented.
The authors should:
Make better apparent the sustainability/environmental issues in the main body and abstract.
Eliminate elements in the text that nothing add to the manuscript or put them in appendix site
Give more details in 2.1. Data collection and 2.2. Content analysis
Improve some expressions they use and correct some mistakes in the text…
Check the references in reference site as well as the citations in the text, taking into consideration the journal -author- guidelines.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Make better apparent the sustainability/environmental issues in the main body and abstract.
Response 1: Thanks to reviewer 3, the concerns have been addressed in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Eliminate elements in the text that nothing adds to the manuscript or put them in appendix site
Response 2: Thanks, we have since addressed the concern.
Point 3: Give more details in 2.1. Data collection and 2.2. Content analysis
Response 3: With regard to data collection, may please reviewer 2 note that it proceeds to section 3.1.1. and the first for lines serve as an introductory statement. With regard to the concern on content analysis, in considering other reviewers comments we have since decided to fuse it within literature and instrument development.
Point 4: Improve some expressions they use and correct some mistakes in the text…
Response 4: Thanks, the concern has been addressed.
Point 5: Check the references in the reference site as well as the citations in the text, taking into consideration the journal -author- guidelines.
Response 5: Thanks, the concern has been addressed
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I see all my suggestions were taken into account and the authors have succefully exposed a value added of their study. I don't have more reservations about the paper except "conclusions" which is still too general and lacks an attempt to make a contribution to the economic theory.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments- Round 2
Point 1: I see all my suggestions were taken into account and the authors have successfully exposed a value added of their study. I don't have more reservations about the paper except "conclusions" which is still too general and lacks an attempt to make a contribution to the economic theory.
Response 1: We highly appreciate the call of putting more effort to further improve the quality of the manuscript. We have since tried to address the concern in the revised article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made significant changes/integrations to the paper. Compared to previous version, the article has improved in terms of quality, robustness and clarity.
I have particularly appreciated the efforts that the authors made in addressing all my previous comments, especially regarding:
- A better development of research questions in the introduction
- The inclusion of a dedicated section describing the dynamics of the pig industry in Swaziland
- A more exhaustive and detailed explanations of the AHP (both method and results)
The section 4.3 (Future Outlook) adds interesting insights and new perspectives on paper results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments- Round 2
Point 1: The authors made significant changes/integrations to the paper. Compared to the previous version, the article has improved in terms of quality, robustness and clarity.
I have particularly appreciated the efforts that the authors made in addressing all my previous comments, especially regarding:
- A better development of research questions in the introduction
- The inclusion of a dedicated section describing the dynamics of the pig industry in Swaziland
- More exhaustive and detailed explanations of the AHP (both method and results)
Section 4.3 (Future Outlook) adds interesting insights and new perspectives on paper results.
Response 1: We are pleased to learn that we managed to address all the concerns raised by reviewer 2. May we also take this opportunity mention that we do recognize the effort invested by the reviewing team in improving the quality of this manuscript and we highly appreciate.
