Food Production Security in Times of a Long-Term Energy Shortage Crisis: The Example of Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In an overall perspective, the paper is short and does not address the broad topic it concerns to in the most productive way.
The title could be improved, maybe something as: “Food security of a country relying on fossil energy sources: the example of Poland”;
All authors belong to the same institution, why are there 3 different affiliations? This makes no sense;
Introduction seems rather short, not providing a wide contextualization of the problem or potential approaches to solve it. In fact, this happens because the title “Introduction” is incorrectly used here, once all sections from 1 to 4 seem to fit in an introductory section;
This paper does not show methodological, experimental or discussion sections. However, it does not correspond to a review, it is only descriptive but does not add to the overall panorama on the topic. Maybe section 4 could work better as a discussion section, as the content is deeply worked, actually providing interest to the rest of the paper;
References are sparsely used and with no numerical or logical order;
Table 1 has no units for some parameters, such as wheat yields;
Table 2 is empty;
Track changes are still unaccepted in the references section. This is not the correct format to send the manuscript in.
Author Response
Point 1: In an overall perspective, the paper is short and does not address the broad topic it concerns to in the most productive way.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments on the text. The intention of the authors was to address the issue of food production security in the face of the existing threat of a long-term disruption in energy supplies to the country with high dynamics of economic growth, specific historical characteristics of the production and strong dependence on energy from fossil sources. This way of approaching the subject is unique and absent in the source literature.
The aim of the article was to emphasise the need for finding alternative solutions reducing the vulnerability of agricultural production to threats resulting from long-term energy shortages. Both theoretical studies as well as political and economic discourse fail to propose such solutions. The aim of the study was first of all to outline solutions for countries similar to Poland, and to discuss the presented solutions in the future more fully in the context of a sustainable food system.
Point 2: The title could be improved, maybe something as: “Food security of a country relying on fossil energy sources: the example of Poland”;
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the lack of precision of the title. It has been corrected in the current version.
Point 3: All authors belong to the same institution, why are there 3 different affiliations? This makes no sense;
Response 3: Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the research, a team of specialists from the University of Szczecin in the fields of spatial development, management and history of economy was formed. Despite being employed at the same university, in formal terms we represent different research units which oblige us to indicate separate affiliations.
Point 4: Introduction seems rather short, not providing a wide contextualization of the problem or potential approaches to solve it. In fact, this happens because the title “Introduction” is incorrectly used here, once all sections from 1 to 4 seem to fit in an introductory section;
Response 4: The comment about the introduction being too laconic is valid. This was due to the need to reduce the size of the paper. However, we fully accept the suggestion that this part of the paper should be supplemented and we have already complied with it.
Point 5: This paper does not show methodological, experimental or discussion sections. However, it does not correspond to a review, it is only descriptive but does not add to the overall panorama on the topic. Maybe section 4 could work better as a discussion section, as the content is deeply worked, actually providing interest to the rest of the paper;
Response 5: The defects indicated in this section are due to similar reasons as in section 4. The comment has also been taken into account and the text supplemented.
Point 6: References are sparsely used and with no numerical or logical order;
Response 6: The proposed article contains conclusions from a discussion of the authors representing different academic fields on solutions to secure food production in Poland in times of a long-term, or even permanent, breakdown of the energy system. From the outset, the article was therefore not prepared according to the requirements of a typical research paper. The reviewer's comment made us aware of this inconsistency and we have attempted to modify the layout and nomenclature to meet the indicated requirements.
Point 7 and 8: Table 1 has no units for some parameters, such as wheat yields;
Response 7 and 8: We were embarrassed to find errors in Tables 1 and 2. They occurred as a result of converting the text from different formats. They were corrected.
Point 9: Track changes are still unaccepted in the references section. This is not the correct format to send the manuscript in.
Response 9: The formatting used in the footnotes has been modified to meet the journal's requirements.
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the problems being addressed are potentially of interest to our readership, your manuscript does not meet the required quality standards to be considered for publication.
Author Response
Point 1: Although the problems being addressed are potentially of interest to our readership, your manuscript does not meet the required quality standards to be considered for publication.
Response 1: Thank you for your interest in the issues raised in the article.
The intention of the authors was to address the issue of food production security in the face of the existing threat of a long-term disruption in energy supplies to the country with high dynamics of economic growth, specific historical characteristics of the production and strong dependence on energy from fossil sources. This way of approaching the subject is unique and absent in the source literature.
We agree that the need to keep the article relatively concise has led to some of the sections being overly laconic. Significant additions and revisions have been made which broadens the methodological and substantive scope. We hope the changes reflect the reviewer's intent.
Reviewer 3 Report
Table 1, third line: text is repeated
Table 2 is missing the data.
Tables 1 and 2 are not cited in the text.
The topic is great, even necessary. The references, nonetheless, are insufficient. They are mostly for data. The paper should be placed in the line of previous research. The references should be cited in order. The introduction has only one citation, which is clearly unacceptable. A proper literature review is called for.
Author Response
Point 1, 2 and 3: Table 1, third line: text is repeated.
Response 1, 2 and 3: We were embarrassed to find errors in Tables 1 and 2. They occurred as a result of converting the text from different formats. They were corrected.
Point 4: Table 1, third line: text is repeated.
Response 4: Thank you for your comments on the text and for recognising the importance of the issues addressed in it.
The intention of the authors was to address the issue of food production security in the face of the existing threat of a long-term disruption in energy supplies to the country with high dynamics of economic growth, specific historical characteristics of the production and strong dependence on energy from fossil sources. This way of approaching the subject is unique and absent in the source literature. Therefore, limited coverage refers to previous studies. However, where possible, suggested additions have been made in this respect.
The formatting used in the footnotes has been modified to meet the journal's requirements.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made progresses in complementing the manuscript and replying to some of the suggested issues, as well as rewriting the conclusions section to make it more significant. Nevertheless, there are some points which are still poorly revised, for instance:
- the authors claim that they supplemented the text in section 4, which is not the case. The text is still exactly the same, except for the citation of some new references along the paragraphs;
- Table 1 is still lacking units for the parameter “wheat yield”, despite the authors claim that this has been corrected;
- Table 2 is still lacking units for the production data (are these in tons, kilograms, %...?) as well as for the agricultural area (are these in acres, ha, km2, m2…?). The readers can only guess!
Author Response
Point 1: the authors claim that they supplemented the text in section 4, which is not the case. The text is still exactly the same, except for the citation of some new references along the paragraphs.
Response 1: Once again, thank you very much for the first and present comments on the text. We are glad that the newer version of the article deserved more recognition. We have used both the previous and the present comments to give the article a more mature form.
In the first review, we considered the most important guidelines to be the need to create a broader context for deliberations, to make the theses more explicit and to emphasize the conclusions. For this reason, we have given the article a slightly different structure. We read just such suggestions from the first review. However, our reception did not include any recommendations to rewrite section 4. In the new version, after expanding the introduction, summarizing and supplementing the research review, this section has a slightly different function. For this reason, in our opinion, the text gained in value, despite maintaining the previous arrangements. We apologize for the misleading statement that the text was supplemented in section 4, in a situation where the signalled change concerned only the introduction of one literature reference.
Point 2 and 3: Table 1 is still lacking units for the parameter “wheat yield”, despite the authors claim that this has been corrected; Table 2 is still lacking units for the production data (are these in tons, kilograms, %...?) as well as for the agricultural area (are these in acres, ha, km2, m2…?). The readers can only guess!
Response 2 and 3: In this case, we are especially grateful for paying attention to the shortcomings. The recommendations were obvious and we cannot rationally explain why the prepared adjustments were not included in the revised text. We assume that they resulted from technical reasons, but certainly not because of ignoring comments. We have now made sure that the situation does not repeat itself.
Table 1. Comparison of main technical indicators of Polish agriculture in 1950 and 2019.
|
Details |
1950 |
2019 |
|
wheat yields q/ha |
12.3 |
43.9 |
|
number of horses per 100 ha |
12.2 |
0.13 |
|
number of tractors per 100 ha |
0.14 |
10.3 |
|
nitrogen fertiliser consumption kg/ha |
6.2 |
67.7 |
Table 2. Comparison of main production indicators of Polish agriculture in 1950 and 2019.
|
Details |
1950 |
2019 |
|
population earning their living off agriculture (in percents) |
47.1 |
14.8 |
|
agricultural crop production cereals (in thousands of tons) |
11.3 |
29 |
|
agricultural crop production potatoes (in thousands of tons) |
36.5 |
6.5 |
|
agricultural production animals (in millions of tons in post-slaughter warm weight) |
1.63 |
5.48 |
|
agricultural area (in millions of ha) |
20.4 |
14.69 |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
all corrections you did
Author Response
Point 1: all corrections you did.
Response 1: Thank you for your opinion. We hope that the text will fulfil the expected role, usefully supplementing the considerations in this area.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Lines 533-440 have data analysis that does not belong to the conclusion. They should be part of the analysis.
Author Response
Point 1: Lines 533-440 have data analysis that does not belong to the conclusion. They should be part of the analysis.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your attention. We have made adjustments as indicated.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
