Assessment of Profit Efficiency for Spinach Production under Small-Scale Irrigated Agriculture in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of reading the interesting article on the assessment of profit efficiency for spinach production under small-scale irrigated agriculture in the Eastern Cape Province South Africa. The article refers to specific local conditions for the production of spinach, therefore, in the global assessment, there is a lack of much information that seems obvious to those interested at the local level. In the opinion of the reviewer, such elements include, for example, the need to supplement the study with a list of technological data for the production of spinach (the level of fertilization costs, the use of plant protection products, etc.), an indication of the conversion of the local currency into e.g. American dollars in the years of research, etc.

The quality of the preparation of the text of the article in individual parts is varied, especially the introductory part and the literature review (it requires refinement, removal of repetitions 183-190).

 

Detailed comments

Figure 1 is inaccurately and carelessly prepared from the technical point of view.

The study incorrectly cites the results of other authors' research, e.g. "The statistics estimates show that the province's average poverty level is about 212 74.9% [26-27], while the food insecurity at the provincial level is 78% which is 14% above 213 the national average [28]." – it seems to concern the percentage of people at risk of poverty, not the level of poverty, etc.

Units of measure are missing from the tables

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is of current interest and falls in the scope of the journal; however, there are the following minor suggestions authors should address, and then I welcome for publication:

1. The abstract can be further improved by adding the study applications specifically relevant to this work.
2. In the last paragraph of the Introduction, the Objective of this work, please highlight the deficiency or gap in the literature for bringing up this idea.
3. Captions for figures and tables should be checked again.
4. It is important to provide within the revised draft why the present study is more important compared to existing works in this direction?
5. Although the introduction is long, it can be further improved by adding some recent works published in the last 1-2 years published in sustainability.
6. Improve the discussion on results with more logical arguments. Tables 3 and 4 should be discussed in detail.
7. The conclusion is very informative but at the end of the conclusion, kindly state the further openings of the upcoming researchers. The conclusions section should be improved.
8. Check reference style and remove old-fashioned references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very interesting and written in a clear and readable way. The topic is dealt with competently and the different parts are clearly explained. However, I believe that some interventions need to be made in order to improve it both in terms of content and form.

In more general terms, I find a certain discrepancy between what is established in the objectives, which are described in a clear way, and what emerges from the results. I am referring to the fact that in materials and methods you mentionned two provinces and two irrigation systems, perhaps I did not understand well but then in the comments on the results and in the conclusions I never find distinction with respect to these aspects.

Again with reference to the methodological part, descriptive analysis is not a data analysis tool, it is ok if you provide it and the description that you made but the “tool” that you use is the stochastic production frontier so please correct in data analysis. I also suggest to insert some bibliographic references, the methodology both on the sampling and on the part relating to the stochastic production frontiers is clear but a few more references would reinforce what has been said.

In the comments of the tables a confirmation is sought in the literature for each of the results shown, but if everything is already present in the literature, what is the novelty of adding this paper? A more general discussion could be made by highlighting what are the differences, if any, compared to what already exists in the literature.

The comments are very concise and general, it is necessary to expand them and refer to the results obtained, perhaps distinguishing them by province and irrigation method as previously said.

I also have some observations from a formal point of view:

• In general terms a rereading is required because there are several typos, font size, repetitions (for example the part from line 171 to 179 and that from 183 to 191 are the same).
• Some sentences should be rewritten, maybe it's my mistake but if you in line 29-30 write "the farm size increased profit while..." after "while" I expected something that provide a decrease.
• There are acronyms / abbreviations without being issued in full the first time they are used (as SDGs in line 103), please check them.
• If it is possible please improve the quality of Figure 2.
• Line 304 dot after π* is missing.
• In table 1, about marital status, maybe “windowed” if for “widow”, in any case it is not mentionned in the list provided above so it should be added.
• Line 410 there is a repetition and the value 0.339 I think is wrong because in table 2 it is 0.387.
• Comments related to table 2 are always reported per liter but, in the table, the unit of measurement used is also the kilogram.
• Line 505 I suggest to delete "Farm size has" and just write "Exists" or “There is”.
• Line 510 the sentence starting with “Farm experience” should wrap.

I’m sorry if I dwelt a lot and please do not consider my observations as a rejection, I really appreciated the article and I hope my suggestions can help you.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the comments and explanations you have provided. I appreciate very much that you have taken my suggestions into account. I notice that you have not introduced other references in methodological part but the comments you have integrated into the text have greatly improved the quality of the article in my opinion.

There are only small typos that I point out below and for me the article is publishable, thank you very much.

• Pay attention about the sample size: in line 25 you stated that the size is 150 farms but in line 298 and line 615 you wrote that you made 160 interviews.
• Row 396: check the size of the “5” in the formula.
• Please insert in the marital status (line 400-401) even the "Widow" that you corrected in table 1.
• Please insert an empty line after table 1 and table 2 in order to separate the text from the table itself.
• Please check the comment to the tables starting at line 468 because it seems that the comment referring to pesticides and fertilizers is reversed and also regarding the other numbers, sometimes the numbers in the comment do not correspond to those reported in the tables.
• Line 622 Spinach is written with a capital S that is not necessary.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf