Farmers Preferentially Allocate More Land to Cultivation of Conventional White Maize Compared to Weevil-Resistant Biofortified Orange Maize

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

 

Why are farmers not growing more bio fortified orange-colored maize BOM in compared to conventional white maize (CWM) varieties in districts where AFIKEPO Nutrition Program is implemented in Malawi

 

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?

 

Information reported in farmer demographics, land allocation, input costs, pest resistance etc. Attempting explain the various improvements of BOM over CWM, why the BOM a better choice for rural and urban families.  

 

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?  

 

literature reviewed seem adequate.  

 

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? Was the questionnaire included?  

 

Knowing the questions might have helped reviewer and readers understand if more questions or phrasing of questions were needed. Certainly the yield data as bags is unacceptable especially when the questionnaire or some other source indicated that the dry grain yields BOM varieties was inferior to CWM.  

 

5. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. 

 

Conclusion line 260 , "Land allocated to cultivation of BOM is comparatively smaller compared to that allocated to CWM” I agree.

 

But note Line 204 authors  state small farmers unwilling  grow new crops , yet Table 2 suggested more poor farmers with less than 1 acre planted BOM compared to farmers with more acreage who were more likely to plant CWM. Why? This should  addressed.

 

"Farmers are still skeptical to allocate more land to cultivation of BOM..” Yes quite normal but what are you going to about? No acceptable yield data is reported. Bags of dry grain without indication of average weight and moisture content is poor science.

 

It would appear that yield demonstration plots in conjunction with nutrition demonstrations, vitamin A deficiency education would help.   

 

Please also indicate if all main questions posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.  

 

No comment.  

 

6. Are the references appropriate?  

 

Probably  

 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data. 

 

Line 44 define SSA

 

Line 13 define AFIKEPO

 

Line 153 what is the currency used in the price of seed

 

Line 164 storage materials does ‘Ordinary bags ‘ mean propylene bag, define PICS

 

Line 171 does ‘flesh’ mean fresh or whole maize seed? 

 

Line 204 you state small farmers unwilling  grow new crops , yet Table 2 suggested more poor farmers with less than 1 acre planted BOM compared to farmers with more acreage who were more likely to plant CWM. Why?

 

BOM seed is only 6% more expensive, it is more resistant  to seed weevil and people prefer the taste, and it is nutritionally superior.

 

Table 2 suggested more poor farmers with less than 1 acre planted BOM compared to farmers with more acreage who were more likely to plant CWM. Why?

 

Please provide more yield data to compare the productivity of CWM and BOM.

 

Author Response

In this section, the reviewer indicated ‘Can be improved’ on three aspects as indicated above. We have addressed those aspects as indicated in the table below and in the manuscripts

 

Question number requiring addressing the issues raised by reviewer	Reviewer Comments	Authors Response
Question 1	Why are farmers not growing more bio fortified orange-colored maize BOM in compared to conventional white maize (CWM) varieties in districts where AFIKEPO Nutrition Program is implemented in Malawi	Nothing to respond.
Question 2	Information reported in farmer demographics, land allocation, input costs, pest resistance etc. Attempting explain the various improvements of BOM over CWM, why the BOM a better choice for rural and urban families.	Nothing to address
Question 3	Literature reviewed seem adequate.	Nothing to address
Question 4	Knowing the questions might have helped reviewer and readers understand if more questions or phrasing of questions were needed. Certainly the yield data as bags is unacceptable especially when the questionnaire or some other source indicated that the dry grain yields BOM varieties was inferior to CWM.	The yield has been presented as bags with specified weight. 1 bag equal 50kg of maize grains and this has been clarified in the manuscripts
Question 5	Conclusion line 260, "Land allocated to cultivation of BOM is comparatively smaller compared to that allocated to CWM” I agree.   But note Line 204 authors state small farmers unwilling grow new crops, yet Table 2 suggested more poor farmers with less than 1 acre planted BOM compared to farmers with more acreage who were more likely to plant CWM. Why? This should addressed.   "Farmers are still skeptical to allocate more land to cultivation of BOM..” Yes quite normal but what are you going to about? No acceptable yield data is reported. Bags of dry grain without indication of average weight and moisture content is poor science.   It would appear that yield demonstration plots in conjunction with nutrition demonstrations, vitamin A deficiency education would help.      Please also indicate if all main questions posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.     No comment.	This is noted. Let me clarify   It is in Table 1 rather not Table 2, that shows proportions based on land sizes. The percentages displayed are actually showing farmers who grow BOM allocate less than 1 acres to cultivation of BOM and allocate more to CWM. It does not mean that farmers with less than 1 acres are more likely to grow BOM.       The yield has been presented in 50kg bags.         This is noted and will be emphasized in conclusion
Question 6	Are the references appropriate?    Probably	Nothing to address
Question 7	Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data.    Line 44 define SSA   Line 13 define AFIKEPO   Line 153 what is the currency used in the price of seed   Line 164 storage materials does ‘Ordinary bags ‘ mean propylene bag, define PICS   Line 171 does ‘flesh’ mean fresh or whole maize seed?    Line 204 you state small farmers unwilling  grow new crops , yet Table 2 suggested more poor farmers with less than 1 acre planted BOM compared to farmers with more acreage who were more likely to plant CWM. Why?   BOM seed is only 6% more expensive, it is more resistant  to seed weevil and people prefer the taste, and it is nutritionally superior.   Table 2 suggested more poor farmers with less than 1 acre planted BOM compared to farmers with more acreage who were more likely to plant CWM. Why?   Please provide more yield data to compare the productivity of CWM and BOM.	SSA have been define to mean Sub-Saharan Africa     AFIKEPO is the Chichewa word meaning ‘Let them grow’     Currency is Malawi Kwacha (MK) and has been updated in the manuscript.       Yes, ordinary bags are polypropylene. PICS stands for Purdue Improved Crop Storage. These are hermetic bags   Flesh means, harvested before grains dry and are roasted and consumed as snacks.   As stated earlier, the proportions shows that more farmers were allocating less than 1 acre to BOM. They were being careful not to allocate more land in fear that BOM does not perform well. I does not mean those with less land (less than 1 acres) would be more likely to cultivate BOM, no. Yes we did not find any significant difference in prices between seeds       This has been addressed as above         More yield data has been included in the supplementary materials. This include yield for all the 10 districts

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study comparison analyzed the differences between cultivation of conventional white maize and weevil-resistant biofortified orange maize, which is meaningful to better guide the farmers. However, the authors should rewrite the abstract, discussion and conclusion parts with logic and highlight your main meaning of this research. Therefore, I would suggest rejecting the manuscript. In addition, I put forward some suggestions for better modify.

1.     The authors should rewrite the conclusion and abstract parts with your main findings highlighted.

2.     Materials and Methods: Please specify the detailed information about the equipment you have used in your experiment in the standard format. For instance, in Line 83 (latitude and longitude) etc.

3.     Line144: Please double check whether the p<0.000 is correct?

4.     line 192: Since you explained the results of Protein Content of maize grains, please explain the detailed methods of protein content tests in Materials and Methods part?

5.     The author needs a more in-depth and detailed explanation based on their experiment results with logic order. For instance, ordering the logic by the surveys about farmers’ preference, the Resistance of BOM and CWM to Weevil, and Protein Content.

Please redraw the figures and tables on the professional way. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3050087

Title: Farmers preferentially allocate more land to cultivation of conventional white maize compared to weevil-resistant biofortified orange maize

 

 

Reviewer 2

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.
( ) The English is very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.
( ) Extensive editing of English language required.
(x) Moderate editing of English language required.
( ) Minor editing of English language required.
( ) English language fine. No issues detected.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

The reviewer indicated ‘Must be improved’ in all aspects above. These have been addressed as presented in the table below and effected in the manuscript.

Question number requiring addressing the issues raised by reviewer	Reviewer Comments	Authors Response
1	The authors should rewrite the conclusion and abstract parts with your main findings highlighted.	Abstract and conclusion have been edited to highlight main findings
2	Materials and Methods: Please specify the detailed information about the equipment you have used in your experiment in the standard format. For instance, in Line 83 (latitude and longitude) etc.	We did not capture coordinates of districts where the data was collected. Standard methods have been included in the manuscripts especially on protein analysis
3	Line144: Please double check whether the p<0.000 is correct?	This is correct
4	Line 192: Since you explained the results of Protein Content of maize grains, please explain the detailed methods of protein content tests in Materials and Methods part?	This has been included in the manuscripts
5	The author needs a more in-depth and detailed explanation based on their experiment results with logic order. For instance, ordering the logic by the surveys about farmers’ preference, the Resistance of BOM and CWM to Weevil, and Protein Content.	Some details of the results are available in the supplementary materials. Some details have been added to improve logic of methodology and results
6	Please redraw the figures and tables on the professional way.	This is noted and the figures have been modified to improve their appearance.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments were left in the pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3050087

Title: Farmers preferentially allocate more land to cultivation of conventional white maize compared to weevil-resistant biofortified orange maize

Reviewer 3

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.
( ) The English is very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.
( ) Extensive editing of English language required.
( ) Moderate editing of English language required.
( ) Minor editing of English language required.
( ) English language fine. No issues detected.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments were left in the pdf file

The reviewer indicated ‘Can be improved’ on one aspect. Additional details have been added to the manuscript.

Editorial comment have been addressed on the manuscript as highlighted.

AFIKEPO is not an abbreviation. It is Chichewa word meaning ‘let them grow’. The project capitalizes the word.

Sample of questionnaire will be added to supplementary materials

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author did not carefully revise according to the previous suggestions one by one without any explanations. Their attitude towards science lacks rigor and standardization. Therefore, I would suggest rejecting the manuscript. In addition, I put forward some suggestions for better modify.

1.     The authors should rewrite the conclusion and abstract parts with your main findings highlighted.

2.     Materials and Methods: Please specify the detailed information about the equipment you have used in your experiment in the standard format. For instance, in Line 83 (latitude and longitude) etc.

3.     Line166: Number of 50kg Bags Harvested: p<0.000? Please double check these items in your manuscript to make sure they are right.

4.     Please redraw the figures and tables on the professional way. For instance, there were no measurement units or incorrect in figure1-3.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comment 1; The authors should rewrite the conclusion and abstract parts with your main findings highlighted.

Response 1: The main findings of the study are;

1. that farmers allocate more land to cultivation of conventional white maize
2. Cost of seed is the same therefore farmers have other reasons why they prefer CWM to BOM. Identifying other reasons were beyond the scope of this study and therefore another study need to be carried out
3. BOM has high resistance to weevil attack

These main findings are all included in the abstract

The reviewer is right that these were not included in detail in the conclusion, so it has been re-written as highlighted in yellow in the main manuscript.

 

Comment 2: Materials and Methods: Please specify the detailed information about the equipment you have used in your experiment in the standard format. For instance, in Line 83 (latitude and longitude) etc.

Response 2: 

We used a questionnaire to capture survey data and its copy has been included in the supplementary materials. This information has been detailed in the methodology section.  Under this section we included how farmers were identified and the sample size that was mainly based on those that cultivated both BOM and CWM two years preceding the survey.

On protein analysis, we used a standard method for estimating crude protein, using Kjeldahl Method and details are included in the manuscript, with references.

We did not capture exact coordinates of districts or locations where the data was collected therefore latitude and longitude details are not provided in the manuscripts. The data was collected in 10 districts at 20 different locations.

Comment 3: Line166: Number of 50kg Bags Harvested: p<0.000? Please double check these items in your manuscript to make sure they are right.

Response 3: The p<0.000 means the difference was highly significant. It was found to be close to 0.000000001. To remain consistent by presenting the p-values to three decimal places, I maintained first three zeros hence 0.000, so the presentation of p<0.000 is statistically correct and is widely used. 

Comment 4: Please redraw the figures and tables on the professional way. For instance, there were no measurement units or incorrect in figure1-3.

Response 4: For figures 1-2, there are no specific units because these are counts of weevils. This means any number denotes a count of weevil. For example, 100 in the y-axis denote there is 100 weevils. This has been described in the y-axis title. This is the case with x-axis title that denotes storage period (weeks)

For Figure 3, the units are percentage (%) and this has been included in the y-axis title.

The figures have been reworked to improve on clarity of the line graphs. The graphs have also been described. Fonts within the figures have been improved and re-aligned to make it appear more professional as per reviewer’s comments.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please highlight your main meaning of this research with logic.  I would suggest rejecting the manuscript.