Sustainable Agriculture and Self-Sufficiency in Sweden—Calculation of Climate Impact and Acreage Need Based on Ecological Recycling Agriculture Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Sustainable Agriculture and Self-Sufficiency in Sweden – Calculation of Climate Impact and Acreage Need based on 22 Swedish Farms Practicing Ecological Recycling Agriculture” will be interesting for Sustainability readers, after revision.

Two scenarios concerning sustainable agriculture and self-sufficiency in Sweden were shown.

In the reviewer's opinion, the title: Sustainable Agriculture and Self-Sufficiency in Sweden – Calculation of Climate Impact and Acreage Need based on (…) Ecological Recycling Agriculture,

grab attention, but is too long, the number of researched farms was on the text few times, and “Sustainable Agriculture and Self-Sufficiency in Sweden – Calculation of Climate Impact and Acreage Need” – is just enough.

The methods were shown step by step, what does “manual mathematical optimization“ (l. 315) mean?

The discussion of the literature (website sources in Swedish) was very interesting, but it was carried out only for the Swedish conditions, perhaps it would be possible to present the results of other researchers on these problems. The scientific problem is valuable, and with these assumptions, the universality of the application of this method can be obtained, not only relate the results to Swedish agriculture.

Whether it would be possible to present the results obtained in chosen financial indices?

 

 

Some specific comments:

l. 48: …, fertilisers, chemicals and fuels used in the food system;

L 231: AU – it shout be more inform – 500 kg or other au?;

l. 224: cases, 2020. See Table 1. - cases, 2020 (see Table 1) – will be more specific;

l. 300-301, and so on: spaces between lines.

 

Author Response

Thank you for good comments. We agree about the title and have shortened it but still want to emphasise ERA

The method is now better described, and hopefully understandable

We have tried to include some more international studies but we have not found studies with a similar broad systematic scope.

Financial indices have not been able to include so far, but will hopefully be addressed in coming research. Which is commented on in the discussion.

The specific comments are good and changes have been done. However, the last one about spaces between lines we don't fully understand, the text is formatted as the y should be, but we have added an extra empty row before the first heading in order to separate it from the table.

Reviewer 2 Report

It would be useful for the authors to include in the conclusions the opinions on the results of the scenarios that show that reducing the impact on the climate by at least 90% is possoble at the simulated time margin.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the comment about 90% reduction within the time span. We have developed the text a bit. If there are some more questions or points in the file peer-review-18781782.v1.pdf , they are not visible to us or maybe we have not understood how it works.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, you started a good job; however I have some recommendations for its improvement:

rows:

47-48: The new paragraph starts in the middle of the sentence

74 – 85: Please cited more relevant literature that confirm the statement introduced there

97 – 98: .... but that we need to decrease our meat consumption to the level of Swedish consumption seen in the 1960s.... Is it a real objective? Is it possible to receive it? How to persuade the consumers? And if it is not possible what is the relevance of your study?

9-107: The aim of the paper should be reformulated to be more clear and should be consistent with the previous sentence.

114-128 more suitable for the chapter data and methods

130 Ecological Recycling Agriculture:  Information about ERA should be introduced in the literature background. There should be more relevant literature sources about ERA.

160: Carbon sequestration in soil..... Information should be introduced in the literature background.

214: A map with all 22 farms would be appreciated by the readers.

315: please describe more detail „manual mathematical optimisation“

318: „mil-lion“  - write togehter

339- 343 – the sentences are redundant

Figure 9 is misleading too much information in one figure.

Figure 10 is misleading – too much information in one figure

489: Discussion needs to be supported by more references with similar or different ideas.

608-612 –should be deleted.

Please add to your conclusions answers to these questions:

• Why is this study unique?
• What are the shortcomings and uncertainties of this study? (mentioned in conclusions not in discussion)
• What did we scientific/research community learn out of it?
• Benefits for policymakers?
• Benefits for stakeholders?
• Future work?

Author Response

Please find the answer in attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After revision, the manuscript is much more precise and will be interesting to Sustainability readers in its present form.