Impact Assessment of Seed Village Programme by Using Difference in Difference (DiD) Approach in Telangana, India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Summary: In view of the Seed Village Program (SVP) proposed by the Indian government in 2005, this paper attempts to analyze the impact of the Seed Village Program on rice seed farmers through the method of Difference-in-Difference approach, in order to understand the impact of the program on the profitability of seed farmers. This provides further insight into the program's impact on the profitability of seed farmers. The analysis shows that with the introduction of SVP in India, the profit of farmers who grow seeds has increased. Age, education, seed production area and farming experience have a greater impact on obtaining higher SVP profits.
Comments: I have the following suggestions for the paper, which I hope would be helpful to the author.
1, What is the significance of the extra italic formatting on lines 57, 189 and 233? If it is a subtitle, it could be marked with numbers at the front, such as 2.1 or 2.2.
2, The meaning of the fourth and seventh columns in Table 1 is not very clear, it would be better to add some relevant explanations.
3, Fig. 1 illustrates the implementation process of the Seed Village Program. The size ratio of the Fig. is not in harmony with the size ratio of the text in the picture. It may be better to reduce the Fig. or enlarge the text.
4, Lines 57-120 are actually descriptions of the implementation method of the Seed Village Program, which needs to be considered in the Introduction or in the Methods section.
5, For the DID method introduced in the article, there are two different abbreviations, DID and Did, in lines 159, 161 and 163 respectively. Please determine which abbreviation is correct and unify the whole text.
6, The words in Fig. 2, 3, and 4 are very blurry, it would be better to improve the clarity of the Fig.
7, There is an error in equation 1 between lines 176 and 177, it should be êžµ1, êžµ2 and êžµ3. At the same time, I suggested that the author should add the definitions of êžµ1, êžµ2 and êžµ3 near the equation, otherwise it would be very confusing.
8, Hopefully the author could increase how the profit calculation mentioned in the article. Is it obtained by multiplying the increased price by the sales volume?
9, All tables have large spacing, and this is not necessary. At the same time, the second row in table 7 is completely empty, why not just delete it?
10, The topmost explanation text in Fig. 5 is too far away from the bottom, and the size of the dark blue box does not match the size of the text in it.
11, This paper mainly introduces the final analysis results of the Seed Village Program, but lacks the sources of the analyzed data, such as data statistical methods and research process, which could easily affect the final results. It also lacks the specific process of analyzing the data. How is the mentioned DID method applied, and how is the multiple regression analysis applied, mentioned in line 279? Hope the author could improve these to make the paper better.
Author Response
Reviewer-1
Summary: In view of the Seed Village Program (SVP) proposed by the Indian government in 2005, this paper attempts to analyze the impact of the Seed Village Program on rice seed farmers through the method of Difference-in-Difference approach, in order to understand the impact of the program on the profitability of seed farmers. This provides further insight into the program's impact on the profitability of seed farmers. The analysis shows that with the introduction of SVP in India, the profit of farmers who grow seeds has increased. Age, education, seed production area and farming experience have a greater impact on obtaining higher SVP profits.
Comments: I have the following suggestions for the paper, which I hope would be helpful to the author.
1, What is the significance of the extra italic formatting on lines 57, 189 and 233? If it is a subtitle, it could be marked with numbers at the front, such as 2.1 or 2.2.
2, The meaning of the fourth and seventh columns in Table 1 is not very clear, it would be better to add some relevant explanations.
4th column removed and 7th column changed
3, Fig. 1 illustrates the implementation process of the Seed Village Program. The size ratio of the Fig. is not in harmony with the size ratio of the text in the picture. It may be better to reduce the Fig. or enlarge the text.
Reduced the size of the figure
4, Lines 57-120 are actually descriptions of the implementation method of the Seed Village Program, which needs to be considered in the Introduction or in the Methods section.
5, For the DID method introduced in the article, there are two different abbreviations, DID and Did, in lines 159, 161 and 163 respectively. Please determine which abbreviation is correct and unify the whole text.
DiD
6, The words in Fig. 2, 3, and 4 are very blurry, it would be better to improve the clarity of the Fig.
Done
7, There is an error in equation 1 between lines 176 and 177, it should be êžµ1, êžµ2 and êžµ3. At the same time, I suggested that the author should add the definitions of êžµ1, êžµ2 and êžµ3 near the equation, otherwise it would be very confusing.
Corrected, they are explained in detail just below table.
8, Hopefully the author could increase how the profit calculation mentioned in the article. Is it obtained by multiplying the increased price by the sales volume?
It is yield multiplied by price minus cost
9, All tables have large spacing, and this is not necessary. At the same time, the second row in table 7 is completely empty, why not just delete it?
Reduced spacing and 2nd row removed in table 7.
10, The topmost explanation text in Fig. 5 is too far away from the bottom, and the size of the dark blue box does not match the size of the text in it.
Done
11, This paper mainly introduces the final analysis results of the Seed Village Program, but lacks the sources of the analyzed data, such as data statistical methods and research process, which could easily affect the final results. It also lacks the specific process of analyzing the data. How is the mentioned DID method applied, and how is the multiple regression analysis applied, mentioned in line 279? Hope the author could improve these to make the paper better.
Mentioned in data and methodology section
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Seed Village Programme (SVP) is an important initiative not only for sustainability but also for food security. For this reason, publishing an article outlining the benefits of its implementation is important. It is a pity that this is a study covering one region and not the whole country. However, this is understandable due to the surface of India.
In the article, it the description of SVP and its importance for the sustainable development of agriculture could be expanded. Such a theoretical basis would increase the general awareness of the importance of the problem.
In this context, it is also important to characterize the economic figures of the programme. This is partly done in Table 1, but there is no relevant data in the article for the farms studied. In particular, it would be advisable to calculate the amount of support per unit area (acre) used. This would allow us to assess what part of the increase in seed farmers' income results from state support and what is a market result.
In addition, an important complement to the international community would be to indicate the evolution of the economic situation of farmers during the period considered. This is not necessary due to the comparative method used, but would be advisable for a broader understanding of the problem. In this context, for example, the size of inflation can be given, purchasing capacity and the income of seed farmers can be compared with other groups of farmers, not only with non-seed farmers. These changes are not necessary, but only have a complementary value.
In the text on page 8, when talking about income (lines 200-211) it is advisable to add that the given figures refer to 1 acre of production.
The test method used is not objectionable. The conclusions made are correct. However, there are inconsistencies between the text and Figure 3. The captions under this chart appear to have been swapped. Verification is necessary.
It is worth emphasizing that seed farmers still have a lower income than non-seed one. This, among others indicates a further need for SVP implementation.
After taking into account the above remarks, the article is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Rveiwer-2
The Seed Village Programme (SVP) is an important initiative not only for sustainability but also for food security. For this reason, publishing an article outlining the benefits of its implementation is important. It is a pity that this is a study covering one region and not the whole country. However, this is understandable due to the surface of India.
In the article, it the description of SVP and its importance for the sustainable development of agriculture could be expanded. Such a theoretical basis would increase the general awareness of the importance of the problem.
In this context, it is also important to characterize the economic figures of the programme. This is partly done in Table 1, but there is no relevant data in the article for the farms studied. In particular, it would be advisable to calculate the amount of support per unit area (acre) used. This would allow us to assess what part of the increase in seed farmers' income results from state support and what is a market result.
Breeder seed is supplied to farmers at 50% subsidized rates, which is not a very significant. But under the scheme awareness and training programmes are conducted to disseminate seed production technology.
In addition, an important complement to the international community would be to indicate the evolution of the economic situation of farmers during the period considered. This is not necessary due to the comparative method used, but would be advisable for a broader understanding of the problem. In this context, for example, the size of inflation can be given, purchasing capacity and the income of seed farmers can be compared with other groups of farmers, not only with non-seed farmers. These changes are not necessary, but only have a complementary value.
Yes, added
In the text on page 8, when talking about income (lines 200-211) it is advisable to add that the given figures refer to 1 acre of production.
Yes, done
The test method used is not objectionable. The conclusions made are correct. However, there are inconsistencies between the text and Figure 3. The captions under this chart appear to have been swapped. Verification is necessary.
Yes, done
It is worth emphasizing that seed farmers still have a lower income than non-seed one. This, among others indicates a further need for SVP implementation.
Seed farmers have higher income then non-seed farmers
After taking into account the above remarks, the article is suitable for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for this interesting papar, which documents the experiences of SVP in Telangana State, which is known for its record in seed production. Some comments below. They may look significant but I would like to stimulate you to work them into the paper, so that it becomes a really important paper for international readership.
Line 43:
- you say a seed replacement rate of 30% is desirable. Desirable by whom? What is the basis for this figure? Is this because this is needed to have sufficient opportunities for farmers to access new varieties (are clearly better varieties released every three years?), or is it because of genetic degeneration of farm-saved seed or accumulation of seed transmitted diseases?
Line 67
- success is not uniform; targets are not achieved; the study focuses on Talengana where the programme works well. So is the paper about analysing the success of the SVP in Telangana or is it an impact of the SVP in general, as the title suggests??
Line 87
- Why (!!) is SVP considered a better option? (or: what are the limitations of the Gov’t seed production programme???, which requires the alternative (=SVP) necessary? Is it costs of centralized seed government production combined with the wish to keep seed prices low??
Table 1
- About RS 100 million was invested on approx. 32,000 ha (=Rs 35,000 per ha = Rs 14,000 per acre). The income advantage of the seed producing farmer was about RS 13,000 per season. Am I correct that the Government investment is about the same as the benefits for the seed farmers? Could you comment to that somewhere in the paper???
Line 202
- What is the selling price for seed compared to grain ?? Who determines that price, or is it open-market value? Do seed producing farmers have any problem selling their rice as seed, or do they sometimes have to ‘ downgrade’ part of their seed to food grain?? In line 296 you indicate that the Government may step in to buy the produced seed, indicating that the demand side of the system is a bit weak. Could you indicate how sustainable this would be??
Line 289
- Before SVP farmers were used to sell their produce as grain. Is that always true??? In several countries, farmers in a community are known to produce a grood crop from which neighbors and others obtain material to be used as seed, sometimes at slightly higher price. Are you sure this was not the case in the study area?
Line 309
- Such tax benefits – are the also applied to commercial seed producers? If not, pls indicate how you look at this in terms of sustainability f the system.
Finally, the success of the initiative could also particularly be measured in terms of yield/income enhancement of the food producing farmers. I suppose this would warrant the substantial investment in money and manpower by the government. So: is is true that the varietal replacement indeed gives better yields in farmers’ fields in Telangana; or that certified seed qualities do the same??
Secondly, it would be interesting to learn from the failures of SVP initiatives in other states/ other districts in order – next to the successes described – to inform initiatives in other reagions/countries and other crops. I would appreciate a bit of this in the discussion. Similarly, a bit of literature review of SVP initiatives in other countries would be useful as an introcuction to the Inian example.
Author Response
Reviewer-3
Dear Authors,
Thank you for this interesting papar, which documents the experiences of SVP in Telangana State, which is known for its record in seed production. Some comments below. They may look significant but I would like to stimulate you to work them into the paper, so that it becomes a really important paper for international readership.
Line 43:
- you say a seed replacement rate of 30% is desirable. Desirable by whom? What is the basis for this figure? Is this because this is needed to have sufficient opportunities for farmers to access new varieties (are clearly better varieties released every three years?), or is it because of genetic degeneration of farm-saved seed or accumulation of seed transmitted diseases?
Cited reference and it is due to genetic degeneration of seeds.
Line 67
- success is not uniform; targets are not achieved; the study focuses on Talengana where the programme works well. So is the paper about analysing the success of the SVP in Telangana or is it an impact of the SVP in general, as the title suggests??
The paper is about the impact of SVP. There are many success stories among different states, Telangana taken as an example.
Line 87
- Why (!!) is SVP considered a better option? (or: what are the limitations of the Gov’t seed production programme???, which requires the alternative (=SVP) necessary? Is it costs of centralized seed government production combined with the wish to keep seed prices low??
Explained with proper citation
Table 1
- About RS 100 million was invested on approx. 32,000 ha (=Rs 35,000 per ha = Rs 14,000 per acre). The income advantage of the seed producing farmer was about RS 13,000 per season. Am I correct that the Government investment is about the same as the benefits for the seed farmers? Could you comment to that somewhere in the paper???
Yes, mentioned it is Rs.1288/acre expenditure by govt.
Line 202
- What is the selling price for seed compared to grain ?? Who determines that price, or is it open-market value? Do seed producing farmers have any problem selling their rice as seed, or do they sometimes have to ‘ downgrade’ part of their seed to food grain?? In line 296 you indicate that the Government may step in to buy the produced seed, indicating that the demand side of the system is a bit weak. Could you indicate how sustainable this would be??
Yes, prices details are added
Line 289
- Before SVP farmers were used to sell their produce as grain. Is that always true??? In several countries, farmers in a community are known to produce a grood crop from which neighbors and others obtain material to be used as seed, sometimes at slightly higher price. Are you sure this was not the case in the study area?
Yes, given explanation about seed market in India
Line 309
- Such tax benefits – are the also applied to commercial seed producers? If not, pls indicate how you look at this in terms of sustainability f the system.
Finally, the success of the initiative could also particularly be measured in terms of yield/income enhancement of the food producing farmers. I suppose this would warrant the substantial investment in money and manpower by the government. So: is is true that the varietal replacement indeed gives better yields in farmers’ fields in Telangana; or that certified seed qualities do the same??
Secondly, it would be interesting to learn from the failures of SVP initiatives in other states/ other districts in order – next to the successes described – to inform initiatives in other reagions/countries and other crops. I would appreciate a bit of this in the discussion. Similarly, a bit of literature review of SVP initiatives in other countries would be useful as an introcuction to the Inian example.
Some more literature added
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
(1) Please improve the language styles in the paper. For example, if you are saying “Seeds are the foundation of agriculture (first sentence in section 1)”, does it mean for agriculture production growth or productivity or for overall agricultural development? It should be clear in many sentences. Similarly, the sentence (line 125-127), “Hence the study specifically chosen paddy seed farmers for studying the impact of SVP on their profitability in production of seed under SVP”, may be corrected as ““Hence the study specifically has chosen paddy seed……………….”. Please check for other sentences also.
(2) The title of the paper refers to “….in India”. But the sample data set is collected only from 3 districts of Telangana. So, the title of the paper may be modified to include Telangana such as “………..approach in Telangana, India”.
(3) Related to above point, how findings from the study of Telangana data will be useful and applicable to other states of India? This should be clear.
(4) Please try to make texts in Figures and texts in paragraphs of similar font as far as possible. Some fonts in Figures are bigger than those in paragraphs.
(5) Data analysis is interesting. But please improve the quality of overall analysis and explanation of results/discussions in section 3 by giving emphasis on “why it happens” rather than “as it is” or “what happens”.
(6) Every study suffers from some limitations, like data problem, model estimation/specification problem etc. But authors have not mentioned such limitations at the concluding section.
---x---
Author Response
Reviewer-4
- Please improve the language styles in the paper. For example, if you are saying “Seeds are the foundation of agriculture (first sentence in section 1)”, does it mean for agriculture production growth or productivity or for overall agricultural development? It should be clear in many sentences. Similarly, the sentence (line 125-127), “Hence the study specifically chosen paddy seed farmers for studying the impact of SVP on their profitability in production of seed under SVP”, may be corrected as ““Hence the study specifically has chosen paddy seed……………….”. Please check for other sentences also.
Language is improved
- The title of the paper refers to “….in India”. But the sample data set is collected only from 3 districts of Telangana. So, the title of the paper may be modified to include Telangana such as “………..approach in Telangana, India”.
Telangana added in the title
(3) Related to above point, how findings from the study of Telangana data will be useful and applicable to other states of India? This should be clear.
Added separate section on lessons for learning from the SVP
(4) Please try to make texts in Figures and texts in paragraphs of similar font as far as possible. Some fonts in Figures are bigger than those in paragraphs.
Yes done
(5) Data analysis is interesting. But please improve the quality of overall analysis and explanation of results/discussions in section 3 by giving emphasis on “why it happens” rather than “as it is” or “what happens”.
Why it happened included
(6) Every study suffers from some limitations, like data problem, model estimation/specification problem etc. But authors have not mentioned such limitations at the concluding section.
Limitation of the study included
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
thank you for this paper; it is a relevant contribution to the literature on seed systems
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
