Organic Corn Production Practices and Profitability in the Eastern U.S. Corn Belt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main aims of the manuscript are as follows: i) a  description of organic grain farmers’ soil management practices and strategies, ii) a comparison of the use of different practices by farm characteristics, and iii) an assessment of the overall economic performance of organic corn enterprises. They are relevant and interesting.

The authors address the gaps in the knowledge of organic corn production practices used by farmers in the Eastern Corn Belt.

The paper is well written, the text is clear and easy to read.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. They address the main question posed.

 

The manuscript is interesting both in scientific and practical terms. However, it would be good to add more the latest publications to the manuscript (2019-2021) and to delete older ones (> 10 years).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1

Thank you for your feedback please see your feedback and our response below. We have also attached the SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS.

The main aims of the manuscript are as follows: i) a description of organic grain farmers’ soil management practices and strategies, ii) a comparison of the use of different practices by farm characteristics, and iii) an assessment of the overall economic performance of organic corn enterprises. They are relevant and interesting. The authors address the gaps in the knowledge of organic corn production practices used by farmers in the Eastern Corn Belt. The paper is well written, the text is clear and easy to read. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. They address the main question posed. The manuscript is interesting both in scientific and practical terms. However, it would be good to add more the latest publications to the manuscript (2019-2021) and to delete older ones (> 10 years).

• Response: We appreciate the positive feedback. Based on your suggestion, we reviewed our citations and deleted earlier publications that were not essential and/or could be replaced for more recent publications. We also added a significant number of newer publications. Given that there are relatively few publications on some of the topics we are addressing (e.g., organic management practice impacts on agronomic processes and soil health or the role of Amish farmers in organic farming), it was sometimes impossible to find relevant research that was published within this decade.  

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper, in general, is well structured and written. However, several points should be edited before proceeding futher:

1. The title: Should be noted the Eastern Corn Belt is in the US, so “US” should be added in the title
2. The abstract, write full name of the four states IN, MI, OH and PA, not abbreviation.
3. The abstract should be further modified, to add more findings of their research. The present abstract is too simple and does not reflect their findings.
4. Line 30, add…grain growers in the US
5. Line 89, write full name of the four states
6. The statistical analysis should be separated in one single part
7. The Discussion and Conclusions should be divided into 2 single parts.
8. Line 545-555, please either add information or erase.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for your feedback. We have replied to your feedback below. We have also attached the paper SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS with track changes as well.

Reviewer #2

This paper, in general, is well structured and written. However, several points should be edited before proceeding futher:

1. The title: Should be noted the Eastern Corn Belt is in the US, so “US” should be added in the title

• Response: Done

2. The abstract, write full name of the four states IN, MI, OH and PA, not abbreviation.

• Response: Done. We decided that writing out the full name was best elsewhere in the paper as well given that it is an international journal.

3. The abstract should be further modified, to add more findings of their research. The present abstract is too simple and does not reflect their findings.

• Response: We modified the abstract to better reflect the results.

4. Line 30, add…grain growers in the US

• Response: Done

5. Line 89, write full name of the four states

• Response: Done and in other places

6. The statistical analysis should be separated in one single part

• Response: We created a separate section in the methods

7. The Discussion and Conclusions should be divided into 2 single parts.

• Response: We reorganized the discussion and created a conclusion section

8. Line 545-555, please either add information or erase.

• Response: This was a submission error. We fixed it.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors assess the environmental and economic sustainability of organic corn production systems in the Eastern Corn Belt, placing particular emphasis on the range of soil management practices organic farmers in the region really use. The authors compare management practices by farm type and assess their economic performance.

The article is interesting and provides useful insights on on-farm practices of organic corn farming. However, materials and methods could be better described and the presentation of results could be much clearer. The tables need to be improved. Figures are nevertheless informative and clearly presented and the discussion and conclusions are interesting and supported by the results.

In my opinion, some sections need to be explained in a clearer way. In this sense, I would suggest improving readability and structure, especially of sections 2 and 3.

Addressing several issues could significantly improve the paper:

Broad comments:

• The material and methods section could be better organized and structured. It is at times a bit repetitive. I would suggest improving the section´s readability and structure.
• The same applies to the results. These could be better structured and could be presented in a more “engaging” or “compelling” way. I would also suggest improving the section´s readability and structure.

 

Specific comments:

• P 2, lines 2-4: Is there an “organically acceptable” alternative to tillage as a way to control weeds which does not worsen soil physical properties? If so, it would be interesting to mention it here.
• P 3, line 6: In my opinion, “rank” is not the appropriate word.
• P 3, line 15: I would suggest specifying in “see Supplemental Materials” what we can see.
• P 4: I would suggest improving subtitle 3.1.
• P 4, line 19: Diversified in what sense? I would suggest explaining this.
• P 4, lines 20-24: Where can we find these data? I cannot see them in Table S2. The text leads to confusion.
• Table 1: When I add up the n´s (233+49+38+465+73), it does not result in 859 (but 858). The reader already knows from the title the table shows the area of organic land operated. I would suggest removing the words “Characteristics” and “Amount of organic cropland operated” from the table and including the (ha) in the title.
• Table 2: “5 years” of the variable “Years of experience farming organically” belongs to two different categories. I would suggest including the “percent of farms” in the title and removing it from the table. I would suggest removing the “Significant chi-squared tests … for that variable” part from the footnote. In my opinion, it should be included in the body of the text, where these tests are explained.
• P 6, lines 9-10: The text states that “Most 226 organic corn was raised for on-farm use”. Why? Is the quality good enough to sell the produce for human consumption? Or can it only be used for the organic feed corn market?
• Section 3: Could a subsection be missing? I mean, shouldn´t the part on tillage be a separate subsection?
• Table 3: I would suggest using the same layout as in Tables 1 and 2. I would also suggest somehow separating the “tillage” and “cultivation” sections and writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table.
• Table 4: I would suggest writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table. The difference between the first part of the table (“most common rotations”) and the second part (“Rotation attributes over previous 3 years”) is not clear. I would suggest explaining this better in the body of the text.
• Table 5: The table is a bit messy and difficult to read. I would suggest improving it and writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table.
• Table 6: I would suggest writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table.
• P 10, line 13: In my opinion, “rank” is not the appropriate word.
• Table 7: I would suggest including the “percent of farms” in the table´s title and removing it from the table. I would also suggest separating somehow the broader cost categories.
• Supplementary material, Table 2: When I add up the n´s (214+137+267+238), it does not result in 859 (but 856).
• Supplementary material, Table 2, footnote: The text states “among farm types using…” when it should be “by state”.
• Supplementary material, lines 34-44: What is this sequential process based on?
• Supplementary material, line 44: Was this farm removed from the analysis?
• Supplementary material, line 56: The sentence “When a price was not given (or when the products were provided by the farm – e.g., manure)” is not clear. I assume the authors mean when just one is reported, the other is derived. I would suggest explaining this more clearly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, We appreciate your detailed feedback. We have included the response to your feedback below. We have also attached the SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS.

 

Reviewer #3

The authors assess the environmental and economic sustainability of organic corn production systems in the Eastern Corn Belt, placing particular emphasis on the range of soil management practices organic farmers in the region really use. The authors compare management practices by farm type and assess their economic performance. The article is interesting and provides useful insights on on-farm practices of organic corn farming.

 

However, materials and methods could be better described and the presentation of results could be much clearer. The tables need to be improved. Figures are nevertheless informative and clearly presented and the discussion and conclusions are interesting and supported by the results. In my opinion, some sections need to be explained in a clearer way. In this sense, I would suggest improving readability and structure, especially of sections 2 and 3.

• Response: We restructured the methods, results, discussion and created a conclusion to improve the readability and structure of the paper. In response to some of the specific comments with regards to the tables, we realize that formatting of the Sustainability journal changed some of our tables. We have included these tables as a separate document to illustrate how they were intended to be formatted. The left column text needs to be left or right justified and some of the tables need to be landscape orientation rather than portrait.

Addressing several issues could significantly improve the paper:

Broad comments:

• The material and methods section could be better organized and structured. It is at times a bit repetitive. I would suggest improving the section´s readability and structure.

Response: We divided the methods into subsections and deleted some sentences to improve the readability and structure.

• The same applies to the results. These could be better structured and could be presented in a more “engaging” or “compelling” way. I would also suggest improving the section´s readability and structure.

Response: We tried to make the results more engaging by creating crisper more succinct topic sentences that more quickly summarized the results.

Specific comments:

• P 2, lines 2-4: Is there an “organically acceptable” alternative to tillage as a way to control weeds which does not worsen soil physical properties? If so, it would be interesting to mention it here.

Response: We added a sentence to explain the challenges of organic alternative reduced tillage systems. We develop this idea in more detail in the discussion section where we note that some research has explored non-tillage practices such as cover cropping, mulching and mechanical methods such as roller crimping, but note that these methods are only used by a minority of organic farmers and more research is needed.

• P 3, line 6: In my opinion, “rank” is not the appropriate word.

Response: We agree that “rank” was not an ideal word choice and changed it to “indicate importance” here and elsewhere in the paper.

• P 3, line 15: I would suggest specifying in “see Supplemental Materials” what we can see.

Response: We added a reference to a new supplemental material (which will include a copy of the full survey instrument) and dropped the mid-paragraph reference to supplemental materials since a description of the information included in these materials is now noted at the beginning and end of the subsection.

• P 4: I would suggest improving subtitle 3.1.

Response: We changed the subtitle to make it more self-explanatory.

• P 4, line 19: Diversified in what sense? I would suggest explaining this.

Response: We added an explanation that diversified means both growing crops and raising livestock.

• P 4, lines 20-24: Where can we find these data? I cannot see them in Table S2. The text leads to confusion.

Response: We apologize – the table in question was inadvertently excluded from the supplemental materials. We have added a new supplemental table and updated the text accordingly.

• Table 1: When I add up the n´s (233+49+38+465+73), it does not result in 859 (but 858). The reader already knows from the title the table shows the area of organic land operated. I would suggest removing the words “Characteristics” and “Amount of organic cropland operated” from the table and including the (ha) in the title.

Response: One farm did not provide sufficient information to classify the operation by most important source of farm income (the categories used in the columns for Table 1). This farm is included in the total #s (since they reported the other relevant information), but does not show up in the farm enterprise type columns. We have added a note to Table 1 explaining this.

Separately, we have edited the text in the table and table title as suggested by the reviewer.

• Table 2: “5 years” of the variable “Years of experience farming organically” belongs to two different categories. I would suggest including the “percent of farms” in the title and removing it from the table. I would suggest removing the “Significant chi-squared tests … for that variable” part from the footnote. In my opinion, it should be included in the body of the text, where these tests are explained.

Response: Good catch. We inadvertently included ‘5’ in the third category for years of experience (it should read 6 to 9) and edited to fix this error. We have edited the title and table text as suggested. 

• P 6, lines 9-10: The text states that “Most 226 organic corn was raised for on-farm use”. Why? Is the quality good enough to sell the produce for human consumption? Or can it only be used for the organic feed corn market?

Response: Thanks for your question. We added some additional background on corn in the U.S. in the introduction to help clarify for an international journal. The vast majority of corn grown in this county is feed grade and therefore cannot be directly consumed but rather is used for livestock feed or for processed foods. Nearly all of the organic corn grown in this region is consumed by livestock (either used on-farm or sold to other farmers).

• Section 3: Could a subsection be missing? I mean, shouldn´t the part on tillage be a separate subsection?

Response: Thanks for your question. We added a separate section in the revised text that calls out discussion of tillage.

• Table 3: I would suggest using the same layout as in Tables 1 and 2. I would also suggest somehow separating the “tillage” and “cultivation” sections and writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table.

Response: We wanted to introduce a new distinction in Table 3 (reporting differences not only by dominant farm enterprise type, but also by whether or not they used horses or tractors for fieldwork operations).  This led to the need to have a wider table layout. Separately, we are not sure how to better distinguish the two sections (tillage practices and cultivation practices), but removed the underlines to make formatting consistent with the previous tables. We are open to adding a column header for each of the significance test columns, but felt that it would clutter the table too much (and that the meaning of the symbols reported in each column are captured in the table footnote). We are open to reformatting if the reviewer and editor think this is still required.

• Table 4: I would suggest writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table. The difference between the first part of the table (“most common rotations”) and the second part (“Rotation attributes over previous 3 years”) is not clear. I would suggest explaining this better in the body of the text.

Response: See note on Table 3 above related to labeling columns for test results. We realize that the different format / approach in the top and bottom half of the table could cause some confusion, but have edited the text to make the distinction more clear. Hopefully this addresses the reviewer concern.

• Table 5: The table is a bit messy and difficult to read. I would suggest improving it and writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table.

Response: We have done some reformatting in the table to improve readability and consistency with the other tables. See responses to suggestion to label significance tests in response to Table 3 comment above.

• Table 6: I would suggest writing a column name for each of the tests results which are shown in the table.

Response: see response on Table 3 above .

• P 10, line 13: In my opinion, “rank” is not the appropriate word.

Response: See earlier response to “rank” comment

• Table 7: I would suggest including the “percent of farms” in the table´s title and removing it from the table. I would also suggest separating somehow the broader cost categories.

Response: We appreciate the suggestions and have edited the table accordingly. Some of the original formatting was lost when uploading to journal website; hopefully revised version retains those qualities.

• Supplementary material, Table 2: When I add up the n´s (214+137+267+238), it does not result in 859 (but 856).

Response: See earlier response (this is due to missing data on a few items)

• Supplementary material, Table 2, footnote: The text states “among farm types using…” when it should be “by state”.

Response: We fixed this.

• Supplementary material, lines 34-44: What is this sequential process based on?

Response: We dropped the words “sequential process” since it seemed unnecessary; the rest of the paragraph outlines the sequential process that we used to assign farm enterprise type codes to cases where they did not self-report this. The process was based on our analysis of patterns for cases where full information was reported, and based on our understanding of the typical farm types found in our region.

• Supplementary material, line 44: Was this farm removed from the analysis?

Response: This farmer didn’t answer enough questions around what products they grew that it was impossible to determine what farm type they were. However, they are included in other tables where they provided complete information.

• Supplementary material, line 56: The sentence “When a price was not given (or when the products were provided by the farm – e.g., manure)” is not clear. I assume the authors mean when just one is reported, the other is derived. I would suggest explaining this more clearly.

Response: We made it clear that that the question was not answered on the survey and sometimes farmers do not purchase soil amendments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is much better now. They responded all my queries, thank you for your hard work.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has improved and, in my opinion, the comments have been properly addressed. I have no more comments.