Carbon Emission Measurement and Influencing Factors of China’s Beef Cattle Industry from a Whole Industry Chain Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Referee’s Evaluation Report
MANUSCRIPT IDENTIFICATION: Sustainability - 1973210
Carbon emission measurement and influencing factors of Chinas´s beef cattle industry
from whole industry chain perspective
(ORIGINAL ARTICLE)
Comments to Authors/Editor:
The paper of Sun & colleagues aimed to quantify the carbon emission and influencing factors of China´s beef cattle industry. This manuscript falls within the scope of SUSTAINABILITY-MDPI. The manuscript is sufficiently informative for the replication of the study. In general, the organization of the experiment seems to be well designed, yet, the English quality, grammar, and sentence structure is certainly fragile; it must be greatly improved. The abstract was written in a careless fashion; L19 & 21, the authors are talking about significant differences; what p-value level, 0.05 or 0.01??? How this manuscript is able to promote low-carbon emission transformation??? The Abstract section must be re-written. Regarding the Introduction section, every sentence must be supported by the proper citation; correct along with the entire manuscript. Besides to be very extended, the Introduction is very confusing (i.e., L29, non-sense sentence). Also, L34 to 54; are these statements placed in the right section or could be moved to the Discussion section??? The authors must include information regarding the importance of beef production; the world inventory, the Asian inventory, and China´s beef inventory along with productive, economic, and social importance in China. L55 to 68; not a single citation was included; correct accordingly. While the objectives of the study were not clearly stated, I suppose the authors use the information from L69 to 77 as a kind of “objective statements”, no working hypothesis of the study was proposed; this is a must. Please include the contribution of beef cattle production to the national livestock sector; why do the authors use beef production instead of buffaloes, sheep or goats??? Are the authors comfortable with this introduction, with unclear objectives and no working hypothesis??? As mentioned, some information can be moved to the Discussion section. Why the authors use section 2 as “Research Methods and Data Sources”, instead of “Material & Methods”????; please clarify. Subsection 2.1 Scope; why the authors use this word???; the presented information is not the Scope but the methodology used to quantify the response variables. Figure 1 is really helpful; excellent information. In general, the methods used are relevant and in accordance with the general idea of the study. As commented, the English quality must be improved also in this section. The authors included the main components of the quantification method, based on the life cycle approach while defining the main boundaries regarding the three main components of the study, along with the spatial data analyses. Thereafter, the main spatial econometric approach was defined and explained. In the Results and Analysis section, L263, what “residents´ livestock products” means??? A definitive plus of this study is the quite complete approach considering the number of provinces and municipalities involved. Why the authors use the “tons per thousand of yuan” approach instead of the “value of production” generated by the beef cattle industry??? Table 2, although interesting, the actual format for an international readership “says a lot but also nothing”. Form my perspective, it should be better to group the provinces with a well-defined ecotype and try to explain how this ecotype arrangement explain in a more logical and sensible fashion if the ecological footprint is more related to a defined ecotype and beef production system than other, but more importantly, why??? Moreover, the authors use the really interesting and elegant center of gravity standard deviation ellipse approach, defining the main trend between the eastern & southern regions with higher environmental insults regarding those generated by the western & northern regions. L332; your comment is quite interesting but the authors never explain why this trend occurred; this is a must. L340 to 344, the authors mention “differences” among trajectories, but never defined if such differences reached significance (i.e., p<0.01 or p<0.05); is interesting yet, quite confusing. Besides, Table 3 is quite interesting; I suggest to move the Ptoutal (Ptotal????), to the extreme right, that is the last column, and besides the annual growth rate in the last row, should be interesting to add another row indicating how much or how large each component or link added to the Ptotal in percentage, something similar of the idea merged in Figure 4. While a Table give us luxury of an specific quantitative impact, a Figure define for use the luxury of a trend. Why the authors did not use the Principal Component Analyses approach???? The spatial correlation test is quite interesting; the results of this analysis support a “significant spatial aggregation”; since I pre-assumed such possible aggregation or regional – spatial effect, I previously suggest to present information NOT based in provinces but in regions or ecotypes that should be correlated with this spatial aggregation test. In fact, L391-393, the authors mentioned “indicating that the spatial agglomeration of carbon emissions from the beef cattle industry in 31 provinces and cities across the country has become increasingly prominent”; again, it says a lot and also says nothing…!!!, am I clear??, the authors must use a regionalization ecotype-based & production system approach, to better orient the presentation of the Results and Discussion of the main research outcomes. Certainly, in Figure 6, the authors include so many provinces that, again there is too much visual information; please remember, most of the times, less is more!!!!! Please consider the regionalization as an interesting and possibly better option to present your results. When using the province-municipality approach, you are analyzing a “political territory arrangement”; yet, with the regionalization ecotype-biotype framework, it makes a more academic and scientific sustainable approach. The same is true for Table 5; too many provinces, most of the time, less is more. L466, in the 323-subtitle, do not use abbreviations, please use the whole words in the subtitle, even if was already defined. Table 7 & 8; titles must be rewritten; titles must stand by themselves any Table or Figure. In general, the methods used are relevant and in accordance with the general idea of the study. The authors included the main statistical models used along with the analyses. In the Results section, in general, the authors never used any p-value in the text, although it was certainly included in some Tables. The novelty value of the results is reasonable. I really missed a Principal Component Analysis approach; it seems to be a statistical strategy easier to understand this kind of studies. In both, Figures and Tables, the titles must be rewritten; remember that any Figure and Table must stand by itself. Regarding the connection between the Results and the Discussion of theses results with similar studies in the scientific global literature, the authors must homogenate the presentation of the Results aligned with one none-existing, non-formal, Discussion section. It seems to me that “the formal Discussion” starts at line 454. The manuscript must be rearranged in an orthodox format; with such quantity of variables, methodologies and approaches, a heterodox approach complicates even more the better understanding of the research outcomes. The authors must link, in a logical fashion, their main findings along with, right now an inexistent Discussion section; the authors need to compare & discuss and, thereafter, be able to propose the main explanations for such specific outcomes, considering previous similar studies from the scientific literature. The authors confronted, in a limited fashion, their main research outcomes with other studies from the global scientific literature; please solve this limited approach. In general, the authors made an accurate interpretation of the main findings. I really suggest to the authors initiating the Discussion of their main research outcomes including the working hypothesis of the study. Authors must define if, with the obtained results, such a hypothesis is rejected or non-rejected. For this reason, the authors must include the working hypothesis prior to the objectives in the Introduction section.
Again, it is fundamental to include a citation or reference in any statement written in the manuscript; this is a central issue than needs to be solved along with the whole manuscript. For instance, between lines 479 to 507, the authors only included ONE citation; are the authors comfortable with this approach? Can this “writing style” be considered as a scientific style?? Besides, most Tables and Figures are really non-friendly from a visual stand point. Moreover, most “variable names” are not defined neither in the title nor in a footnote; this is non acceptable. Please correct along with all the Tables this unfortunate situation. The writing format in several lines along with the manuscript is very fragile; L522-523: “Beef import dependence was not significant in terms of direct effects, but was significant at the 5% significance level for indirect effects, indicating a high spillover effect which will promote the carbon emissions of the beef cattle industry in neighboring provinces”. Are the authors comfortable with the very poor & questionable scientific writing, if any??? With respect to the Conclusion section, the authors must highlight the main findings of the study and the possible use of the study outcomes upon beef cattle production in the different regions of China. Please remember that Conclusions are not a Mini-Abstract. From my point of view, Conclusion MUST be shortened in a significant way; this section is extremely long. Moreover, the “Recommendation Section” must be eliminated; the presented ideas must be involved in the non-existing Discussion section. Besides, conclusions must be aligned with the non-existing working hypothesis; therefore, the working hypothesis MUST be included in the Introduction section. The list of references cited in the manuscript (25) is proper, while actualized. This is an interesting study, with a large set of response variables. Yet, on one side the authors must improve both the English language quality as well as the clarity and logical arrangement of the whole manuscript; the authors must use an orthodox format to present the manuscript. It is central to ensure that the paper is readable; the authors must increase the readability and the scientific writing and merit of the manuscript, using a “normal and common” manuscript format in a conventional format. All the commented issues and requests must be clearly addressed by the authors; at this point, and based on the above comments, my pronouncement is that this manuscript cannot be accepted in its actual format. It requires extensive editions and corrections.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions for my article, and I have responded to your questions in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper doesn’t look ready for publishing for low writing quality. Some sentences are too long to understand. Some sentences are repeating the same thing. It needs intensive language editing by a native English language speaker.
[1] Which part of this paper shows the perspective of a whole industry chain? If none, “from a Whole Industry Chain Perspective” can’t be included in the title.
[2] In line 11-14 “This study uses provincial panel data and the life cycle method to measure the carbon emissions … and studies the main influencing factors from the perspectives of economy, technology, and environment using a spatial econometric model.”, this sentence is too long and looks weird with “This study uses … and studies…”. I think it could be like “This study measured the carbon emissions …with provincial data and the life cycle method and investigated its influencing factors with a spatial econometric model.”
[3] In line 18, what is the economic development of breeders?
[4] In line 21 “This study has practical significance to understanding… and promoting…”, I suggest “This study helps to understand carbon emissions of … and to promote its ….”
[5] I suggest “Carbon emission measurement; influencing factors; beef cattle industry; China” as Keywords.
[6] In line 27-28, I think “threatens human survival” and “serious challenges for human beings” are the same thing.
[7] In line 29 “emission reductions, Emission especially industrial carbon emission reduction”, it is hard to understand.
[8] In line 30-32 “Animal husbandry has ...due to …carbon emissions…Beef cattle, as a typical ruminant animal, are the main source of carbon emission in animal husbandry.”, these two sentences have the same point too.
[9] In Introduction, it is not good to list literatures like “Becona [2] and Rotz [3] calculated …” “Pelletier [4] found…”. Summarize them by methodology or result. And I don’t think there are enough literatures have been reviewed in this paper. The literature review needs improvements.
[10] The structure of this paper should be shown in the last paragraph of Introduction.
[11] In line 79 “2 Research Methods and Data Sources”, I suggest “2 Data and method” for section title.
[12] In line 80 “2.1 Scope”, what is “Scope”? I think the “Scope” here refers to method and it could be combined with section 2.2. I suggest “Carbon emission calculation of beef cattle industry” for the title of section 2.2. Delete “Construction of” in the tile of section 2.3.2. I think section 2 could be like below,
2.1 Data
2.2 Carbon emission calculation of beef cattle industry
2.2.1 Front-end planting link
2.2.2 Mid-end breeding link
2.2.3 Back-end processing link
2.3 Influencing factors analysis of carbon emission in beef cattle industry
2.3.1 Exploratory spatial data analysis
2.3.2 Spatial Durbin Model
[13] In line 225, I suggest “Carbon emission calculation in beef cattle industry” for the section tile and delete “.”.
[14] In line 249 and 252, “China statistical yearbook” appears twice in this sentence.
[15] In line 256, to keep the same format in section titles, I suggest “Time characteristics” for the title of section 3.1.1.
[16] In line 295, delete “Analysis” in the section title.
[17] In line 349, delete “Analysis” in the section title.
[18] Center all figures, all tables and their titles.
[19] In line 547-550 “The total carbon emissions of the beef cattle industry were ranked in descending order of beef cattle gastrointestinal fermentation > excrement management system > beef cattle feed grain planting > beef cattle feeding energy consumption > beef cattle feed grain transportation and processing > beef product processing.”, it doesn’t look good like this.
[20] In Recommendation, each title should keep the same format, either a sentence or a phrase. The whole section needs improvement.
[21] In line 576-577, “Increased” or “Increase”?
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions for my article, and I have responded to your questions in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting manuscript dealing with carbon emission measurement and influencing factors of China's beef cattle industry from a whole industry chain perspective. This manuscript can be published after some modifications.
-Please don’t use words which are present in title as keywords.
- The English of manuscript needs to be rechecked and improved.
-The discussion of manuscript should be improved.
- The abstract and conclusion parts are very similar and should be restructured.
L637: Correct the journal title.
L641: Correct the journal title.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions for my article, and I have responded to your questions in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewer recommends that the following changes be included in the article:
(1) rewrite the abstract indicating the main purpose, the methods used, the key findings and the contribution to theory and or practice;
(2) the introduction should list the research gaps identified and the research questions the authors want answered;
(3) in the introduction, the structure of the article should be presented in the last paragraph (this will make it easier for readers to understand the logic of the authors' argument);
(4) after the introduction, the authors should conduct a literature review of the issue addressed (what were the previous research results, what research methods and tools were used in this area);
(5) in the literature review, the authors should refer to other articles that have appeared in "Sustainability" and that have referred to the research conducted by the authors;
(6) in the research methods section, the authors should first present the research hypotheses derived from the research questions and then the methods used to verify them;
(7) the authors should modify the conclusion section. Firstly, they should indicate whether the main aim was achieved. Secondly, what are the answers to the research questions posed. Thirdly, how they verified the research hypotheses. Fourthly, what are the main limitations of the research conducted. Finally, what are the future research directions.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions for my article, and I have responded to your questions in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
MANUSCRIPT IDENTIFICATION: Sustainability – 1973210 – R1
Carbon emission measurement and influencing factors of Chinas´s beef cattle industry from whole industry chain perspective
(ORIGINAL ARTICLE – REVISED VERSION 1 – R1)
Comments to Authors/Editor:
The paper of Sun & colleagues aimed to quantify the carbon emission and influencing factors of China´s beef cattle industry. This manuscript is the Revised version (R1) of a previous manuscript; it falls within the scope of SUSTAINABILITY-MDPI. The manuscript is sufficiently informative for the replication of the study. In general, the manuscript has certainly improved both English Grammar and Scientific Merit. Again, even in this R1 version, the Introduction is very extended; the authors must shorten this section. Although the authors presented a kind of “objective statement”, again, no working hypothesis of the study was proposed; this is a must. Are the authors comfortable with this introduction, with unclear objectives and no working hypothesis??? In this R1 version, some information can be moved to the Discussion section; this section MUST be shortened. Why do the authors use section 2 as “Data and Methods”, instead of “Material & Methods”????; at the end, Data are not other things but Materials; please clarify. The methods used are relevant and in accordance with the general idea of the study. As mentioned, the authors must link, in a logical fashion, their main findings along with, right now an inexistent Discussion section. Again, I really suggest to the authors initiate the Discussion of their main research outcomes including the working hypothesis of the study. Authors must define if, with the obtained results, such a hypothesis is rejected or non-rejected. For this reason, the authors must include the working hypothesis prior to the objectives in the Introduction section. The Conclusion section was certainly improved, yet, it is still very, very, very long; it must be shortened in a significant way. The Conclusion section must be aligned with the non-existing working hypothesis; therefore, the working hypothesis MUST be included in the Introduction section. The list of references cited in the manuscript is proper. All the commented issues and requests must be clearly addressed by the authors; at this point, and based on the above comments, my pronouncement is that this manuscript cannot be accepted in its present format; it requires minor corrections prior to final acceptance.
Author Response
Thank you for taking your valuable time to read my article and for making so many valuable suggestions on my article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made efforts to improve the quality of this paper. The second version looks better than the first one. But I think some more improvements are needed before publication. Specific comments are as below.
[1] In line 17-26 “Generally, the carbon emissions of China’s beef cattle industry experienced three stages from 2008-2020…were responsible for 69% and 18% of the total industry carbon emissions, respectively. Furthermore, improving the level of …the beef cattle industry.”, I don’t think these sentences are needed in Abstract. They could be included in Introduction. And the Abstract needs further improvement.
[2] In line 37 “…18% of total global …” and “…Seventy-five percent of CO2 emissions…”, I suggest “75%” instead of “Seventy-five percent”.
[3] In line 46 “…6-7 million tons for many years…”, where does this number come from? A reference for this number is needed here.
[4] In line 50 “ carbon peaking…”, it looks like there is an extra space before “carbon”.
[5] In line 53 “The established literature is rich in studies on carbon emission…”, it is hard to understand. I suggest “There are lots of studies about carbon emission…”.
[6] In line 54 “Mogensen et al. estimated…”, I suggest adding publishing year after authors’ names for all references in literature review.
[7] In line 97-108, I don’t think this paragraph shows the structure of this paper clearly. It can be like “This paper studies …or this paper tries to… (solve …XXX…problem) with …(method and data). Section 1 is the Introduction, discussing….. and reviewing…. Section 2 includes the data and methods…Section 3 shows the results and discussions. And the last section is the conclusion.”
[8] In line 605-611 “Currently, …Secondly,…”, I don’t think this part is in a good order. I suggest showing all results and recommendations more clearly with “Firstly,…Secondly, Thirdly,…”, etc. The conclusion needs further improvements to show the importance, results and recommendations of this paper better.
[9] In line 618 “[30、31]”, it could be [30, 31].
[10] Further language editing is needed to improve the writing quality of this paper, especially in Abstract, Introduction, Results & Discussions and Conclusion. Delete unnecessary texts, use simple language, keep the same format, and make this paper easily understood.
Author Response
Thank you for taking your valuable time to read my article and for making so many valuable suggestions on my article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors addressed most of the comments made by the reviewer. It is still recommended to include sources under the tables and figures. I wish the authors further success in their ongoing research.
Author Response
Thank you for taking your valuable time to read my article and for making so many valuable suggestions on my article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
