Small-Scale Farming: A Review of Challenges and Potential Opportunities Offered by Technological Advancements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the final part of the Introduction, the authors formulated the aim of the article in three points. The three individual goals were presented in a clear and understandable way. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it would be worth supplementing this part with additional information, which of the given goals are scientific (cognitive) and which are utilitarian (useful) goals. In other words, which of the set goals of the study develop cognitive (scientific) knowledge and which develop utilitarian (practical) knowledge. Regardless of the stated goals, it would be worth considering formulating a research problem resulting from the conducted review of the state of knowledge and identifying a gap in the current state of knowledge. These parts of the study would constitute an excellent summary of the Introduction and, at the same time, a bridge to further substantive considerations within the study.

In the Introduction, the authors use the term "small family farms", "small farms" and other expressions using "small", e.g. small holder ... I think that in this part of the article it would be good to at least briefly interpret / mention what "small" means in American agriculture. What is the production potential for “small…”? I think that "small" in the case of agriculture in other countries is a completely different "small", on a different scale. Therefore, at the very beginning of the study, it would be worth providing more information on the limits / scope to consider "small".

Why do subsections 2.1 and 2.2 (lines 75 and 99, respectively) have the same name, i.e. Economic challenges? It would be worth correcting this inaccuracy.

Since the article has been submitted to the Sustainability journal, it might be worthwhile in the article to present the links of the developed topic of the article with sustainability in more detail. In this way, submitting the article to the journal Sustainability would be more justified.

I was wondering about the common ground (the main motive) of the substantive considerations conducted by the authors on small-scale agricultural production. Each of the factors (economics, market, climate change, etc.) contributes to the discussion on small farms. But what is the overarching goal of these considerations? Is it the sense of existence of small farms, or maybe the happiness and well-being of the owners of these farms, or some other overarching goals? I think it is worth developing this thread in the article, especially if it is a review article.

I think that quoting "Mpandeli et al 2014" (line:153) is not needed here. It is enough to specify [10] in the same line (153).

If the article deals with the topic of technology in connection with small farms, it would be worth writing how the authors define the concept of technology. In practice, in the literature on the subject, one can encounter different approaches to understanding and interpreting the word "technology". Therefore, it is worth developing this topic in the article and possibly citing relevant articles. For example, line 177 uses the phrase "mobile phone technology". However, in the title of the article, the authors included the term "... agricultural technologies". I thought that, as it is in the title of the article, the reviewed material will develop the issues of agricultural technologies, i.e. a series of operations carried out in the right order that lead to the final result, i.e. crop yield (if we are talking about crop production). Meanwhile, the article talks about the aforementioned technologies related to the use of mobile phones. And this is where the confusion arises, because I don't actually know what technologies are considered in the article. Agricultural technology and the technology of using mobile phones are two completely separate issues, which is why the article requires ordering or adjusting the appropriate vocabulary in this respect. In line 178, the term "information technology" is used, which does not seem to be related to "... agricultural technologies", which is in the title of the article, so to avoid confusion, I reaffirm the need to organize the approach to the word "technology".

In my opinion, the title of section 3.1 is unacceptable. The title of a subchapter cannot be an acronym for a concept, especially since it is not known what the UAVs acronym means. I looked through the entire article and nowhere did I find the full name derived from the UAVs acronym; I did not find the full name of the UAVs acronym even in the Abstract, where the acronym was used for the first time (line: 18). Of course, it can be assumed that every reader knows what the UAVs acronym is about. In my opinion, however, this assumption may turn out to be wrong.

Similar doubts arise when the Authors use the AI acronym. I looked through the entire article and nowhere did I find the full name derived from the AI acronym. Of course, I'm guessing it's about Artificial Intelligence. A dairy farmer, on the other hand, would understand the AI acronym as Artificial Insemination. Therefore, the lack of the full name of the acronym/acronyms in the article leads to huge confusion.

In References, only two articles have a doi number. It would be useful to provide doi numbers for the rest of the articles in this list. 

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. responses to your comments are attached here.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments: This manuscript describes the current problems of smallholder farmers as well as their proposed solutions.

The work done in this manuscript is important for researchers and will have positive effect on the knowledge of the persons involved in doing such research i.e impact of usage of various technologies on small-scale farming. This topic is significant, and the information collected is well-structured. However, a couple of points could be useful to improve the manuscript. 

Suggestions: 

1.     There are technical terms, "Agricultural technology", in the manuscript that might not be familiar to all readers. To ensure clarity, include brief definitions or explanations/describe its area 

2.     The terms "right price" and "right time," which are used in line number 100 of manuscript needs to be describe more like are their aim to suggest the best time or good price during which it is most profitable to sell or trade commodities, so overall it may require more clarification. 

3.     As mentioned in line [125] of your manuscript, there is important to explain why farmers have limited access to climate information and who is responsible for communicating the information to them. I would suggest citing recent studies (i.e., Muema et al. 2018). Could the lack of relevant environmental studies be responsible for the scarcity of climate information in the area?

4.     Authors needs to provide some review on the factors contributing to the insufficient understanding of food safety among small-scale producers.

5.     A clear definition of agricultural knowledge is needed as described in your manuscript line [171]. Also, give details on the specific challenges related to the level of agricultural knowledge.

6.     The authors are encouraged to provide a tabular literature review of potential agricultural technology (Ag-tech) prospects that enhance readability. I recommend citing recent research (i.e., Ghobadpour et al. 2022¹).

7.     Is it possible to offer a university-level course on agricultural technologies that could be enabled students to get knowledge of the ground-breaking techniques which can be change the traditional farming practises? in your manuscript needs to be recommended 

8.     References and sources are not sufficient for such review paper. Need to increase.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be revised throughly for improving grammer of the sentences and English language. 

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. responses to your comments are attached here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the changes and additions suggested in the review, as well as for your responses to detailed comments in the review. 

Author Response

No comments added by this reviewer. Thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have responded well to he comments highlighted for improvement in the draft. But overall language needs to be reconsider again. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is good but author needs to be rechecked it for linguistic improvement. 

Author Response

The manuscript has been modified for English-related improvements.