Understanding the Dairy Sector in Slovenia: A Modeling Approach for Policy Evaluation and Decision Support
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe objective of the work is not clear. It is not known whether the aim is to analyze the dairy sector in Slovenia, to verify the benefits of the simulation model used for the study, or both. This ambiguity can be verified:
On line 33: The primary objective of the analysis is to enhance understanding of the dairy sector,…
On line 37: Our goal is to provide an overview of how such an analysis could be conducted using a modeling approach….
In the Conclusions (line 494): It does not present conclusions about the results of the work (the characteristics of the dairy farms), it makes a discussion about the methodology used for its analysis and the possible application of the calculation model for other studies. The work needs reflection and reorganization.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS:
In line 13 (Summary) and line 121 (Materials and methods) it must be indicated that the work is carried out on a total of 6,400 dairy farms in Slovenia.
INTRODUCTION:
Lines 33-34. This paragraph is dedicated to describing the objectives of the work and should not be located at the beginning of the introduction, but at the end, where the objectives are discussed. Lines 111-118. This paragraph should not be part of the introduction, since it is a summary of the work.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Line 121: Where says: “For the purpose of analyzing the dairy sector in Slovenia, …… “ Should say: “For the purpose of analyzing the dairy sector in Slovenia which includes 6400 farms,……”
Line 164: Soo, the key purpose of the SiTFarm is not to optimize…
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
Tables need to review units and explain abbreviations.
I think there is a lack of discussion at work.
A section should be included to talk about the information obtained with the SiTFarm model and discuss its usefulness.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this section, a discussion of the analytical procedure used has been made, but no conclusions are drawn from the results obtained regarding the characteristics of the farms.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for all your comments and the effort you put into reviewing our paper. Your insightful feedback has greatly improved the quality and comprehensibility of our contribution. We sincerely appreciate your time and dedication and hope that the adjustments made meet your expectations.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, the manuscript proposed for publication addresses a particularly important topic, but some restructuring and additions are necessary for publication:
1. Abstract:
The summary is complete, but could benefit from a slight restructuring. Try to present the key findings in a more concise way, connecting them directly to the stated objectives ( 9-29). It would also be useful to specify the novelty elements of the research.
2. Introduction:
- I think you need to state the research questions / hypotheses more clearly ( 32-38).
- Better justification for the chosen modeling perspective is needed (99-110).
- It may also be useful to include some recent references on economic and environmental challenges in the dairy sector ( 39-44).
3. Material and Methods:
- I think it is advisable to detail the calibration and validation process of the SiTFarm method ( 122-166).
- Give more information and justify the selection method in which the typical agricultural households (TAH) were selected to ensure representativeness ( 213-238).
4. Results and Discussions:
- I think it is good to clearly delimit the description of the results from their interpretation ( 415-432).
- Include useful recommendations for policy makers derived from the results ( 525-535).
- Perhaps it would be necessary to reduce the number of tables to increase clarity and avoid repetition. For example, combining similar data can create more effective graphics (443-471).
5. Conclusion:
- You can also discuss potential implications for stakeholders in the researched sector.
- It is important to provide recommendations for action based on the findings ( 494-535).
I commend you for your effort and believe that by addressing these recommendations, the manuscript can become more relevant and informative to readers, improving its chances of publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for all your comments and the effort you put into reviewing our paper. Your insightful feedback has greatly improved the quality and comprehensibility of our contribution. We sincerely appreciate your time and dedication and hope that the adjustments made meet your expectations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for inviting me to review this interesting and enjoyable manuscript. The manuscript provides valuable information about the dairy sector in Slovenia and how this is placed within the context of the EU agricultural industry more widely.
Main comments:
Overall I think this is a well written manuscript; however it is let down by the results and discussion section which requires substantial improvement. Currently, this section presents the results with some limited discussion that does not go very far and is focused on the results themselves, rather than any wider discussion. I feel that the choice to combine the results and the discussion in a single section has not helped as this has resulted in it being quite difficult to get a clear idea of what the results of this study are, whilst also limiting the discussion.
Results: I would suggest the authors consider presenting the results in a dedicated results section to improve clarity for the reader. There are a lot of interesting results here, but they currently get a bit lost.
This section would benefit from some descriptive statistics at the beginning (average herd sizes etc.) to place the results in context and give the reader an idea of how your results look. You could also consider presenting some more results individually (similar to how you have presented expected GM in Figure 2) and in a more industry-relevant manner. For example, you present GHG emissions, but it is really quite difficult for the reader to fully appreciate the significance of these because a) they are listed in a big table where they get a bit lost and b) results are presented by individual holding which limits how meaningful these results are. These data could for example, be presented in a box plot by farm size (this is just an example) so the reader can easily see differences between groups.
Discussion: The discussion in this manuscript does not contain a single citation and fails to discuss important areas including (but not limited to) limitations of the study, how the results compare to existing studies, and whether the original objectives were achieved. I suggest that a separate ‘discussion’ section is included in this manuscript and further attention is paid to discussing the results of this study with reference to existing literature and the wider implications of your results (this is alluded to in the abstract but not addressed in the main body of text). For example, there is place here for a wider discussion of environmental impact of different farm types/sizes and this has been quite well studied elsewhere so there are a lot of existing data available to enable your study to be placed into the wider European (or global) context. Study limitations also warrant discussion.
Minor comments:
Title: The title would represent the study more accurately if it were rephrased to read: ‘Understanding of the Dairy Sector in Slovenia: A Modelling Approach for Policy Evaluation and Decision Support’.
Abstract: I would consider writing out LFA in full in the abstract as not all readers will be familiar with this abbreviation.
Lines 33-44: It is more conventional to state your objectives at the end of the introduction, rather than the beginning. Consider moving the section covered in Lines 33-44 to Line 111 (to precede the section that starts ‘Further we briefly…’.
Lines 51-52: It is not clear what you mean in this sentence – consider rephrasing for improved clarity.
Line 58: I think there might be a typographical error here – should this be ‘personnel’ rather than ‘personal’?
Line 164: There is a typographical error here – replace ‘Soo’ with ‘So’
Lines 180-183: Please also include the meaning of ‘a’ and ‘c’ in the footnote so that it is clear to the reader without them needing to read further into the manuscript
Lines 184-185: There is a paragraph space missing between the footnote and the start of the subsequent paragraph
Lines 211: 2020-2022 is a two year period, not a three year period. This is also repeated in Lines 341-342. If you mean the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 this needs to be clarified for the reader (for example something along the lines of ‘the period 2020-2022 inclusive’)
Line 257: L for litres (after 6489) should be capitalised. This is also the case in Line 299 (after 4000). I suggest the authors go back through this manuscript and check that SI units are correctly presented throughout.
Line 254: It would be beneficial for a brief description of how ‘poor’, ‘semi’ and ‘modern/powerful’ have been defined by the researchers.
Line 296: Rephrase ‘good equipped’ as ‘well equipped’ for grammatical correctness.
Line 356: It is generally considered unnecessary to explain to the reader what will be discussed in a results section – it is assumed the reader knows this.
Lines 357-365: This paragraph reads as study objectives, which do not have place in the results section. Consider moving this section to the end of the introduction where study objectives are introduced.
Line 344: Replace the comma in 8,2Ha with a full stop (8.2Ha)
Line 434: It would be good for the abbreviations in the Figure title to be written out in full
Figure 1: ‘Aggregate’ is incorrectly spelled in this figure
Figure 2: Please define what the whiskers represent in your box and whisker plots (min/max? interquartile range? A different type of range?)
References: Ten references is quite a small bibliography for a study such as this. There are many related references that would add to this work and I would recommend using the literature more and including a wider reference list, in particular in the discussion as already highlighted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language in this manuscript is very good with only the occasional minor grammatical error.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for all your comments and the effort you put into reviewing our paper. Your insightful feedback has greatly improved the quality and comprehensibility of our contribution. We sincerely appreciate your time and dedication and hope that the adjustments made meet your expectations.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study investigates the dairy sector in Slovenia, with important results on farm heterogeneity, efficiency in resource utilization and policy implications. The manuscript is within the aim of the journals and will be accepted after some minor revisions.
1. Please define the abbreviations LFA, GM and CAP in the Abstract. Throughout the manuscript, please define all abbreviations at the first usage.
2. The objectives and hypothesis of your experiment are not clear in the Introduction chapter.
3. The statistical analysis is not clear. How did you obtain the data in Figure 2?
4. The conclusion needs to be summarized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is interesting and well referenced, but the structure is not correct.
The introduction, objectives and methodology are well presented.
The most important observation is that the CONCLUSIONS section is actually a discussion of the results, which is fine, but it should not be located in the conclusions.
I think it would be better to change the structure of the work, separating on the one hand RESULTS obtained (without discussion) and on the other DISCUSSION (with its references). Finally, the CONCLUSIONS need to convey only the final message of the work for the two stated objectives.
Author Response
The work is interesting and well referenced, but the structure is not correct.
The introduction, objectives and methodology are well presented.
The most important observation is that the CONCLUSIONS section is actually a discussion of the results, which is fine, but it should not be located in the conclusions.
I think it would be better to change the structure of the work, separating on the one hand RESULTS obtained (without discussion) and on the other DISCUSSION (with its references). Finally, the CONCLUSIONS need to convey only the final message of the work for the two stated objectives.
AUT: Thank you very much for the clear instructions. We have taken your comment into account and rearranged the manuscript. We added a discussion section and modified the results and conclusions sections accordingly. In the discussion chapter, we included two subsections: one related to the results of the sector and TAH, and another on SiTFarm and modeling. We hope that these changes meet your expectations and believe that the article is now even clearer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I commend you for your dedicated efforts in enhancing the manuscript. I believe that it has now acquired added value. I am in favor of its publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for all your help and suggestions in improving our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for revising this manuscript as you have done, it is my opinion that reviewer feedback has been taken on board and the manuscript has benefitted from this. I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript and only have a few very minor comments about this version for consideration.
Lines 402-403: I don't think the introductory line that starts 'for easier understanding...' is really necessary here - descriptive results can be presented in their own right without explanation.
Line 493: Replace 'average' with 'mean' for improved accuracy of description.
Line 628: In this context I think you only need to state that SiTFarm has limitations, 'shortcomings and limitations' is not really necessary and comes across a bit negative (i.e. remove the term 'shortcomings')
Figure 3: Please could you include in the footnote a definition of what the whiskers in your boxplots indicate, as well as the other features of the boxplots (as you have done in Figure 2)
Author Response
Rew3.1: Thank you to the authors for revising this manuscript as you have done, it is my opinion that reviewer feedback has been taken on board and the manuscript has benefitted from this. I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript and only have a few very minor comments about this version for consideration.
AUT: Thank you very much for your comment and your help in improving our manuscript.
Rew3.2: Lines 402-403: I don't think the introductory line that starts 'for easier understanding...' is really necessary here - descriptive results can be presented in their own right without explanation.
AUT: Thank you very much for your comment. We agree and have omitted the sentence, "For easier understanding, here are some descriptive statistics of TAHs."
Rew3.3: Line 493: Replace 'average' with 'mean' for improved accuracy of description.
AUT: Thank you very much for your comment. We have considered your feedback and made the suggested replacement.
Rew 3.4: Line 628: In this context I think you only need to state that SiTFarm has limitations, 'shortcomings and limitations' is not really necessary and comes across a bit negative (i.e. remove the term 'shortcomings')
AUT: Thank you very much for your comment. We have considered your feedback
Rew 3.5: Figure 3: Please could you include in the footnote a definition of what the whiskers in your boxplots indicate, as well as the other features of the boxplots (as you have done in Figure 2)
AUT: Thank you very much for your comment. We have considered your suggestion and added »The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values of the dataset, encompassing the lower quartile (Q1) and the upper quartile (Q3), with the interquartile range representing 50% of the scores between the 25th and 75th percentiles. Both the median and the mean (X) are also presented.«
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe structure of the work has improved significantly by separating the results from the discussion.
However, the conclusions remain another part of the discussion.
In the conclusions section, a series of key aspects appear, which are obtained from the results of the work and which are really the conclusions provided by the authors. These conclusions are:
• Lines 707-710.
• Lines 722-725.
• Lines 726-728.
• Lines 733-741
• Lines 742-744
• Lines 744-746
• Lines 748-750
• Lines 746-748.
However, after concluding those paragraphs, he starts a discussion again on several occasions, even providing bibliographical references to his discussion. Those comments are fine, but they should be in the DISCUSSION section, not in the conclusions.
Exposed in this way, the conclusions appear very expanded and that makes one dizzy. The conclusions must be more direct, that is why I consider that they must be rewritten again.
Furthermore, no conclusions appear from section 5.2 Modeling apprach and SiTFarm tool, which is one of the objectives of the work.
Author Response
Comments:
The structure of the work has improved significantly by separating the results from the discussion.
However, the conclusions remain another part of the discussion.
In the conclusions section, a series of key aspects appear, which are obtained from the results of the work and which are really the conclusions provided by the authors. These conclusions are:
- Lines 707-710.
- Lines 722-725.
- Lines 726-728.
- Lines 733-741
- Lines 742-744
- Lines 744-746
- Lines 748-750
- Lines 746-748.
However, after concluding those paragraphs, he starts a discussion again on several occasions, even providing bibliographical references to his discussion. Those comments are fine, but they should be in the DISCUSSION section, not in the conclusions.
Exposed in this way, the conclusions appear very expanded and that makes one dizzy. The conclusions must be more direct, that is why I consider that they must be rewritten again.
Furthermore, no conclusions appear from section 5.2 Modeling apprach and SiTFarm tool, which is one of the objectives of the work.
Response:
Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your specific instructions and comments. We have taken all your comments into account and rearranged the conclusions, adding a section related to modelling approach and SiTFarm tool used (Lines 739-757). The discussion portion from the conclusions has been slightly reformulated and incorporated into the discussion where relevant (Lines 606-607, 612-614, 617-619, 622-624, 630-632, 657-659). Once again, thank you very much for your efforts and comments, which have greatly helped improve our contribution.
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, you have carried out ambitious and laborious work of great practical application in the dairy sector of your country. I congratulate you for the restructuring work you have done in the discussion and conclusions sections.
